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

[EricBarbour]

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?

[Viridae]

Tax evasion is still tax evasion. It is still a crime. In this case, a compromised account is still a comropomised account. He was blocked because he had apparently intentionally shared his account password (explicitly not allowed) any further investigations into more serious allegations were immediately handballed to arbcom. Doesn't change the fact that the account appeared to be compromised. If that hadn't been the case no block would have occured.

(Nine days clean)

[everyking]

Tax evasion is still tax evasion. It is still a crime. In this case, a compromised account is still a comropomised account. He was blocked because he had apparently intentionally shared his account password (explicitly not allowed) any further investigations into more serious allegations were immediately handballed to arbcom. Doesn't change the fact that the account appeared to be compromised. If that hadn't been the case no block would have occured.

(Nine days clean)

When you start talking about being "clean" because you haven't edited, I think that's the beginning of the end.

[NotARepublican55]

Tax evasion is still tax evasion. It is still a crime. In this case, a compromised account is still a comropomised account. He was blocked because he had apparently intentionally shared his account password (explicitly not allowed) any further investigations into more serious allegations were immediately handballed to arbcom. Doesn't change the fact that the account appeared to be compromised. If that hadn't been the case no block would have occured.

(Nine days clean)

When you start talking about being "clean" because you haven't edited, I think that's the beginning of the end.

Yeah I know - God created man and woman for the sole purpose of editing His Free Encyclopedia 9 hours a day, 7 days a week. When one of God's Children claims to be "tired" of editing His Encyclopedia, that is a sign that the End Times are upon us. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

If, say, JzG had blocked a user for (1) a bad joke (2) indefinitely, (3) without warning, (4) without talk page explaination, (5) for reasons that were demonstrably false, I doubt WR would have the same reaction.

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.

And either way, Viridae did leave an explanation and the block was reversed immediately, so no harm done and much ado about nothing. And now Viridae is getting slammed just for making the best call he could. Sad.

[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:

[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.