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

[Zoloft]

Well, there are a handful of people still mumbling for Herostratus's bit to be yanked.

When I wake up on Saturday, I am going to flip a coin (an old silver dollar).

If Liberty shows when I remove my hand, I will start the recall process myself.

If not, I will probably just spend the morning cooking up a pot of marinara sauce and making some pasta for later.

[One]

If the user had made pro-pedophilia comments on WP and a "joke" about being arrested and court ordered to stay off the internet, then I doubt anyone would care if the blocking admin was JzG, Viridae, or Brad Pitt for that matter.

Contrary to EricBarbour's claims, he's not a pedophilia POV-pusher. Years ago he stated that they are "very welcome" to edit, but it appears his own editing was not that of an advocate; he seems to have focused his own editing on removing subtle pedophile POV. This was not a well-researched block. Shot from the hip, no attempt to aim was made until it was challenged.

And either way, Viridae did leave an explanation and the block was reversed immediately, so no harm done and much ado about nothing.

You mean, he left an explaination on ANI 3 hours later, after the subject inadvisedly used self-help to reverse the block.

But like I said, there's a capricious quality to such sanctions. Durova was admonished for blocking User:!!, which she reversed herself in less than half the time it took for Viridae's block to become undone ("no harm was done," as she could tell you). On the other hand, many others are not sanctioned for bad blocks.

This post has been edited by One: Sat 6th March 2010, 5:29am

[NotARepublican55]

You mean, he left an explaination on ANI 3 hours later, after the subject inadvisedly used self-help to reverse the block.

He left a block summary saying that the account appeared to be compromised (ignoring the pedophilia allegations, the userpage did state that the account was being shared, joke or no). He might have jumped the gun, but I don't think there was anything bad faith about it.

But like I said, there's a capricious quality to such sanctions. Durova was admonished for blocking User:!!, which she reversed herself in less than half the time it took for Viridae's block to become undone ("no harm was done," as she could tell you). On the other hand, many others are not sanctioned for bad blocks.

Durova blocked the user as a sockpuppet but admitted afterwards in private that she had no evidence of it, she "just knew" it was a sock because it was editing "too well for a new user". I don't see much similarity between the incidents. Viridae was going by what the account itself posted on its userpage.

[CharlotteWebb]

He left a block summary saying that the account appeared to be compromised (ignoring the pedophilia allegations, the userpage did state that the account was being shared, joke or no). He might have jumped the gun, but I don't think there was anything bad faith about it.

I endorse this summary, and hope doing so does not make me a republican.

[Somey]

Contrary to EricBarbour's claims, he's not a pedophilia POV-pusher. Years ago he stated that they are "very welcome" to edit, but it appears his own editing was not that of an advocate; he seems to have focused his own editing on removing subtle pedophile POV. This was not a well-researched block. Shot from the hip, no attempt to aim was made until it was challenged.

I've looked over his contribs a bit more thoroughly, and I guess I'm forced to agree with you. I still don't think he should have admin rights, but of course I'm going to say that about most WP admins... Nevertheless, if Viridae erred at all in this case, it was on the side of caution, and he shouldn't be blamed for that.

I sometimes find myself morbidly fascinated by the mentality and motivations of people like Mr. Herostratus - what drives a person to deliberately insert himself into an issue like pedophilia, on a website like Wikipedia, for the purpose of (ostensibly) playing peacemaker and compromiser between pedophiles - a thoroughly disreputable bunch if there ever was one - and (potentially) the rest of the world? Is it just "someone has to do it, so it might as well be me"? Does he gets some sort of supreme self-satisfaction (hey, alliteration!) from it, i.e., "I'm probably the only one capable of dealing with this, and I want everyone to know that and be impressed," even if he never actually identifies himself?

I'd also agree that we tend to assume, perhaps wrongly, that someone who deals almost exclusively (OK, about 80 percent) with one topic area must, almost by necessity, have some sort of underlying advocacy agenda. I'd also hasten to point out that this isn't because we're bad people who constantly jump to conclusions; it's because in large numbers of cases (perhaps even the vast majority), this ends up being exactly what's going on.

One interesting incident that I found with Herostratus involved this unsuccessful AfD on something called the René Guyon Society (T-H-L-K-D) - supposedly a pro-pedo organization, but actually a hoax perpetrated by one person. He begins by stating: "As near as I can determine, the René Guyon Society is an urban legend that never actually existed." He's challenged on this point by anti-humanity zealot JoshuaZ (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who essentially says that if Herostratus (or whoever) can't come up with a "reliable source" to prove that the organization didn't exist, it must therefore be worthy of inclusion. At the time (Feb. 19, 2008), of course, JoshuaZ had lost his own admin rights just two weeks earlier due to his use of multiple accounts to influence deletion discussions, and this was just five days after evidence of this appeared here on WR. But as a result of his intervention, the article was kept, and still exists to this day.

Meanwhile, Herostratus voted to delete the Adult-child sex article, and while he was "on the fence" WRT the (successful) deletion of the Boychat article (he actually voted "Hmmmmm"), he did make some valid points in favor of deleting it. The actual WP pedophiles were quite adamant about keeping both of those, apparently.

Anyway, it's an interesting problem, distasteful though it all may be. The main point is that it wouldn't take an anti-WP fire-breather like Mr. Barbour or even myself to mistake Herostratus for a "notorious Pedophilia editor" - most people would have done that, and it takes a fair amount of reading through some extremely unpleasant content to finally conclude that he actually believed Wikipedia could, and should, try to be "neutral" on the subject without actually advancing the pro-pedophile agenda. That's not something that most sane people would really want to bother doing, even if they're WP admins like Mr. Viridae.

[EricBarbour]

I sometimes find myself morbidly fascinated by the mentality and motivations of people like Mr. Herostratus - what drives a person to deliberately insert himself into an issue like pedophilia, on a website like Wikipedia, for the purpose of (ostensibly) playing peacemaker and compromiser between pedophiles - a thoroughly disreputable bunch if there ever was one - and (potentially) the rest of the world? Is it just "someone has to do it, so it might as well be me"? Does he gets some sort of supreme self-satisfaction (hey, alliteration!) from it, i.e., "I'm probably the only one capable of dealing with this, and I want everyone to know that and be impressed," even if he never actually identifies himself?

Whether Hero is a genuine pedophile or not, you have to admit, his editing patterns and smarmy userpage don't exactly make for happy reading, much less "encyclopedia material". And it really gets me that he refuses to explain why he does these things--most WP editors of his obsession level are usually crystal-clear in terms of their motivations. This guy, on the other hand, is one of the most obscure and obtuse admins I've ever seen. Even Irishguy (T-C-L-K-R-D) wasn't that bad.

I'm really damned sorry that you WP lovers don't want to accept this, but I do not think an "encyclopedia" of any value will result from the current obscure-obtuse World Of Warcraft management style. Just to say "sure, pedophiles are acceptable as editors" leaves the door open for POV-pushing--something that WP has repeatedly shown itself to have great difficulty controlling. There aren't enough volunteers who have transparent, honest motives to clean up after the POV pushers, of whatever type. And there never will be, with raving freaks like SV, Will Beback, Elonka, Chillum, Hu12, Raul, Hersfold, Tiptoety, Nawlinwiki, and several more, allowed to have admin powers and to run it their way.

I would fire everybody. ALL of them. And put in new management, who would then install flagged revs AND delete any BLPs or other items that are at all questionable. Then they can let the general public back in to write new material---but with edit controls in place.

But, of course, fuck me. I'm not a "privileged insider". I don't have the "trust of the little God-Boy-King". As long as it keeps running like a half-assed imitation of the Bohemian Grove, it will remain broken.

[GlassBeadGame]

I sometimes find myself morbidly fascinated by the mentality and motivations of people like Mr. Herostratus - what drives a person to deliberately insert himself into an issue like pedophilia, on a website like Wikipedia, for the purpose of (ostensibly) playing peacemaker and compromiser between pedophiles - a thoroughly disreputable bunch if there ever was one - and (potentially) the rest of the world? Is it just "someone has to do it, so it might as well be me"? Does he gets some sort of supreme self-satisfaction (hey, alliteration!) from it, i.e., "I'm probably the only one capable of dealing with this, and I want everyone to know that and be impressed," even if he never actually identifies himself?

Whether Hero is a genuine pedophile or not, you have to admit, his editing patterns and smarmy userpage don't exactly make for happy reading, much less "encyclopedia material". And it really gets me that he refuses to explain why he does these things--most WP editors of his obsession level are usually crystal-clear in terms of their motivations. This guy, on the other hand, is one of the most obscure and obtuse admins I've ever seen. Even Irishguy (T-C-L-K-R-D) wasn't that bad.

I'm really damned sorry that you WP lovers don't want to accept this, but I do not think an "encyclopedia" of any value will result from the current obscure-obtuse World Of Warcraft management style. Just to say "sure, pedophiles are acceptable as editors" leaves the door open for POV-pushing--something that WP has repeatedly shown itself to have great difficulty controlling. There aren't enough volunteers who have transparent, honest motives to clean up after the POV pushers, of whatever type. And there never will be, with raving freaks like SV, Will Beback, Elonka, Chillum, Hu12, Raul, Hersfold, Tiptoety, Nawlinwiki, and several more, allowed to have admin powers and to run it their way.

I would fire everybody. ALL of them. And put in new management, who would then install flagged revs AND delete any BLPs or other items that are at all questionable. Then they can let the general public back in to write new material---but with edit controls in place.

But, of course, fuck me. I'm not a "privileged insider". I don't have the "trust of the little God-Boy-King". As long as it keeps running like a half-assed imitation of the Bohemian Grove, it will remain broken.

You may not be a a "privileged insider" but you are certainly trusted by me to interpret editing patterns. This is especially important to me because for the most part my wading through extensive editing history days are over. This allows me spend about 1/3 the time I did on WR a year ago. I rely on contributors to the Review to do this work and I trust you much than say MZM who still requires a great deal of reconstruction. If you and Somey feel the guy's edit history is not outright pro-pedophile, or no more than providing cover to pedophiles through extensive and obtuse edits and cryptic explanations like the "joke," I will depend on that judgment. Still due diligence requires that this editor provide IRL police clearance to demonstrate he is not under the criminal sanction he himself claimed.

I suppose the subtext of the joke is something like hey look the criminalization of pedophiles is oppressive, it is a witch hunt, and might even extend to a fine citizen like myself. Essentially some kind of statement of solidarity with his brother Wikipedian pedophiles. His "constructive engagement" of pedophiles is certainly enough to de-adim or even ban him. The only sane policy for a project that encourages collaboration between children and adults is to make every decision in a manner that would isolate them and eliminate their participation.

[thekohser]

But like I said, there's a capricious quality to such sanctions. Durova was admonished for blocking User:!!, which she reversed herself in less than half the time it took for Viridae's block to become undone ("no harm was done," as she could tell you). On the other hand, many others are not sanctioned for bad blocks.

Durova blocked the user as a sockpuppet but admitted afterwards in private that she had no evidence of it, she "just knew" it was a sock because it was editing "too well for a new user". I don't see much similarity between the incidents. Viridae was going by what the account itself posted on its userpage.

Durova also came to her self-appointed conclusions via a dialogue (or was it a soliloquy?) on a secret, "invitation only" mailing list that was hosted on a Wikia, Inc. server. That, to me, adds another layer of nefariousness to the wiki-witch's poor judgment, as opposed to Viridae who (as has been mentioned) simply erred on the side of professional caution.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Sat 6th March 2010, 1:26pm

[One]

One interesting incident that I found with Herostratus involved this unsuccessful AfD on something called the René Guyon Society (T-H-L-K-D) - supposedly a pro-pedo organization, but actually a hoax perpetrated by one person. He begins by stating: "As near as I can determine, the René Guyon Society is an urban legend that never actually existed." He's challenged on this point by anti-humanity zealot JoshuaZ (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who essentially says that if Herostratus (or whoever) can't come up with a "reliable source" to prove that the organization didn't exist, it must therefore be worthy of inclusion. At the time (Feb. 19, 2008), of course, JoshuaZ had lost his own admin rights just two weeks earlier due to his use of multiple accounts to influence deletion discussions, and this was just five days after evidence of this appeared here on WR. But as a result of his intervention, the article was kept, and still exists to this day.

Wow. As if we didn't know, AFD is hash.

He left a block summary saying that the account appeared to be compromised (ignoring the pedophilia allegations, the userpage did state that the account was being shared, joke or no). He might have jumped the gun, but I don't think there was anything bad faith about it.

I endorse this summary, and hope doing so does not make me a republican.

Yeah, correct summary. "Block first, ask questions later," contra Giano, is not good administrative practice.

[herostratus]

You people. Sheesh.

First of all, you start off this thread by calling me a "notorious pedophile", which is if anything the exact opposite of the truth. While I found this amusing, you really shouldn't sling inflammatory accusations at people, especially when they're not true. Eric Barbour, you owe me an apology.

And a bunch of others of you should think before you talk. Your idea of "research" leaves a lot to be desired. I like this "The admin who did the most talking was Herostratus..." Gee, I was only trying to move heaven and earth to get this (prohibition of minors posting contact info) accepted. Of course I had the most posts. And this. Jack-A-Roe a pedophile? Is it humanly possible to be more wrong about stuff than you people are?

In fairness, several of you did come to my defense in the cause of sanity, although it was usually a little half-hearted.

But whatever. All in good fun.

EXCEPT those fools who talked about trying to find out my real life identity. People, chill. NOT FUNNY. If you're going to lynch someone, try not to lynch the wrong people. (Hopefully, you can all see now why I do hide my identity and post little true personal information. Because of YOU.)

Anyway, FWIW, my take on the whole thing (basically a repeat of the above) is here!, and an explanation of why I edit in this area is here.

I wrote these basically for you, so I guess you can feel flattered and attended to, just as I felt flattered and attended to by your poring over the details of my edit histories. Gee I didn't know I was so important.

I guess there's plenty of room for cogent criticism of Wikipedia, but if you allow yourself to be led by the Eric Barbours of the world you're never going to get anywhere.

Cheers, Herostratus

P.S. You know, things have improved in this area over the years - partly thanks to tye criticisms by this site, and others. Thank you. But stop calling us names, when we now have several editors watching over this. If you see something wrong, message me (on Wikipedia) and I'll look into it.

[Alison]

You people. Sheesh.

First of all, you start off this thread by calling me a "notorious pedophile", which is if anything the exact opposite of the truth.

Well, no. Eric called you a "notorious pedophilia editor" - big difference! Furthermore, less of the 'you people'; WR is far from monolithic.

[EricBarbour]

First of all, you start off this thread by calling me a "notorious pedophile", which is if anything the exact opposite of the truth. While I found this amusing, you really shouldn't sling inflammatory accusations at people, especially when they're not true. Eric Barbour, you owe me an apology.

No, I don't.

Whether you're obsessed with pedophilia for good reasons or bad,
I still think you're a freak. Your jokes are ill-considered and not funny at all,
and your dedication to keeping yourself fully anonymous is bizarre. Why must
you do that? Did it ever occur to you that someone might think you're
hiding something very bad and real in your personal makeup or history?

I think I speak for most people here, when I say that your deep and long
involvement with the Pedophilia Article Watch is weird. It would be
understandable if you were known to be a professional in mental health,
an advocate for child protection, a good parent, or someone else personally
interested in discouraging WP's use as an informational playground for sex offenders.

But until you admitted to being opposed to pedo-positive information on WP,
I had no idea who (or what) you were. And that idiotic joke about "The Incident"
made a lot of people wonder what the hell you were trying to do or say.

Nobody laughed.

Are you really so damned clueless that you will sit there and deny that anyone
could take exception to your activities since 2006? Most WR people have
realized that one of Wikipedia's major flaws is its openness to role-players, who
manipulate others and wear masks. So far, you've been a down-the-line
perfect example of someone who is using Wikipedia to push an agenda that
is incompatible with a "neutral" publication, while posting obtuse and irrational
attempts to be "humorous", in order to mask your activities.

You said it yourself:

Of course, slanted editing is never welcome. But in this area it's especially problematical, because:

* This is a subject where we really don't want people to get the wrong ideas. It's not good if people get the wrong ideas about, say, the history of the Slovak language, but misinformation on this subject could cause real-world harm.
* This is a potential political problem for the Wikipedia. We don't want outside parties to get the idea that we present slanted information on this subject or countenance over-emphasis on fringe ideologies in this area . This could be quite a disaster.

So that is why I edit in this area. Solely because I care about the Wikipedia and wish to defend it.

Well, you managed to give the wrong impression, and make yourself look slanted.

Congratulations, twit.

If you had said as much back in 2006, I would not regard you as a possible
slanted editor today. Wikipedia has entirely too damned many freaks running
around loose as it is (why do you think this forum has become the leading
Wikipedia criticism site? Because the regulars here have mostly fallen afoul of
some of those freaks).

You don't need to add to the noise floor, by posting coy little jokes to your userpage
that practically invite misunderstanding. Fools keep telling me that Wikipedia is an
"encyclopedia", yet they run it more like a 4chan subboard.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Wed 26th May 2010, 9:17am

[MZMcBride]

Eric: That's quite a long way of saying "I was wrong and I apologize."

[GlassBeadGame]

Is this the guy that made the unfunny "joke" about being under some kind of criminal sanction for pedophilia? If so then remember that the any responsible project would have required he show a police clearance before ever being permitted to do anything on the site again. Saying "ha ha...only kidding" really doesn't cut it. Thanks for demonstrating how truly irresponsible Wikipedia is.

[gomi]

Is it humanly possible to be more wrong about stuff than you people are?

Yes, Wikipedia seems to manage it on a larger scale and on a daily basis, to much more pernicious effect.

But whatever. All in good fun. ...EXCEPT ... trying to find out my real life identity. People, chill. NOT FUNNY.

I would say the lesson you can take away is that if you edit in a way that -- even for a moment -- leaves open the possibility you might be a pedophile, people will try to hunt you down. That is as it should be. There is no inherent right to anonymity, on Wikipedia or elsewhere.

I guess there's plenty of room for cogent criticism of Wikipedia, ... things have improved in this area over the years - partly thanks to tye criticisms by this site ... But stop calling us names, when we now have several editors watching over this. If you see something wrong, message me (on Wikipedia) and I'll look into it.

In a word, no. One of the fundamental aspects of much of the criticism of Wikipedia here is that Wikipedia's internal systems for self-correction do not work. Our members here range from WP agents provocateurs to wiki-apologists to those who think Wikipedia can be fixed, to those who think Wikipedia should be destroyed by any means necessary. But it can be inferred that they post here because communication on Wikipedia has failed. If you don't like being called names, stop pretending to be an encyclopedia editor.

[Moulton]

Is it humanly possible to be more wrong about stuff than you people are?

Yes, Wikipedia seems to manage it on a larger scale and on a daily basis, to much more pernicious effect.

Hyperbole aside, Gomi is manifestly correct on this point.

It is not uncommon for people to labor under lamentable misconceptions for a time, before they revise their understanding of difficult issues. In all my decades as a science educator, I have never met more intractably and intransigently self-deluded people than on Wikipedia.

[NotARepublican55]

You people. Sheesh.

First of all, you start off this thread by calling me a "notorious pedophile", which is if anything the exact opposite of the truth. While I found this amusing, you really shouldn't sling inflammatory accusations at people, especially when they're not true. Eric Barbour, you owe me an apology.

And a bunch of others of you should think before you talk. Your idea of "research" leaves a lot to be desired. I like this "The admin who did the most talking was Herostratus..." Gee, I was only trying to move heaven and earth to get this (prohibition of minors posting contact info) accepted. Of course I had the most posts. And this. Jack-A-Roe a pedophile? Is it humanly possible to be more wrong about stuff than you people are?

In fairness, several of you did come to my defense in the cause of sanity, although it was usually a little half-hearted.

But whatever. All in good fun.

EXCEPT those fools who talked about trying to find out my real life identity. People, chill. NOT FUNNY. If you're going to lynch someone, try not to lynch the wrong people. (Hopefully, you can all see now why I do hide my identity and post little true personal information. Because of YOU.)

Anyway, FWIW, my take on the whole thing (basically a repeat of the above) is here!, and an explanation of why I edit in this area is here.

I wrote these basically for you, so I guess you can feel flattered and attended to, just as I felt flattered and attended to by your poring over the details of my edit histories. Gee I didn't know I was so important.

I guess there's plenty of room for cogent criticism of Wikipedia, but if you allow yourself to be led by the Eric Barbours of the world you're never going to get anywhere.

Cheers, Herostratus

P.S. You know, things have improved in this area over the years - partly thanks to tye criticisms by this site, and others. Thank you. But stop calling us names, when we now have several editors watching over this. If you see something wrong, message me (on Wikipedia) and I'll look into it.

Well dude, you're a grown man who writes Wikipedia articles about kids' cartoons and "child sexuality". If you don't agree that that is creepy, then there's something wrong with you. And if you're not a pedophile, then you have nothing to hide, so if someone Googles for you, then I guess that's karma. Find something better to do with your life than spend all day at home watching "Codename Kids Next Door" and writing about child sex on WP. Phuckin' weirdo.

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/awful-link...s-next-door.php

[SuaveArt]

Well dude, you're a grown man who writes Wikipedia articles about kids' cartoons and "child sexuality". If you don't agree that that is creepy, then there's something wrong with you. And if you're not a pedophile, then you have nothing to hide, so if someone Googles for you, then I guess that's karma. Find something better to do with your life than spend all day at home watching "Codename Kids Next Door" and writing about child sex on WP. Phuckin' weirdo.

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/awful-link...s-next-door.php

So how does it feel to AGAIN be blocked from Wikipedia for being a sock (while lying about it again)?

[Moulton]

So how does it feel to AGAIN be blocked from Wikipedia for being a sock (while lying about it again)?

Not to answer for him, but I'll guess he's feeling chagrinned.

[EricBarbour]

So how does it feel to AGAIN be blocked from Wikipedia for being a sock (while lying about it again)?

And which sniveling, lying, backstabbing SPI regular are you?

(Never mind. Nobody here really cares who you are. Because you're nobody, outside WMF servers.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Fri 28th May 2010, 9:19am