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

[Viridae]

Apologise for the block Herostratus, it was idiotic. Way too caught up in teh dramaz back then.

[Moulton]

Apologise for the block Herostratus, it was idiotic. Way too caught up in teh dramaz back then.

Not that I've been keeping careful statistics or anything, but I frankly can't recall a single instance of anyone ever apologizing for a block.

[GlassBeadGame]

Apologise for the block Herostratus, it was idiotic. Way too caught up in teh dramaz back then.

Not that I've been keeping careful statistics or anything, but I frankly can't recall a single instance of anyone ever apologizing for a block.

There is a lot of social pressure to show kindness to pedophiles and even pedophile posers on WP.

[EricBarbour]

Apologise for the block Herostratus, it was idiotic. Way too caught up in teh dramaz back then.

You really should not apologize to him. It will only encourage his demented behaviour.

I notice that he hasn't commented here since that first one. Woops, the little man was
called on his bullshit by several people, and now he won't come back.

I see he's expanded his userpage, complete with links to the Arbcom flap
and this thread. And he's gone right back to editing and reverting,
just as if nothing happened. What a smug douche.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Fri 28th May 2010, 10:25pm

[jayvdb]

Apologise for the block Herostratus, it was idiotic. Way too caught up in teh dramaz back then.

Not that I've been keeping careful statistics or anything, but I frankly can't recall a single instance of anyone ever apologizing for a block.

Ahem, I said I was sorry for blocking you on English Wikisource, both on your talk page and (iirc) during our IRC discussions.
I would love to remove this block, but only if you agree to not use English Wikisource as a vector to bypass restrictions on other WMF projects. I would love it even more if you wanted to contribute to English Wikisource. ;-)

[Moulton]

Apologise for the block Herostratus, it was idiotic. Way too caught up in teh dramaz back then.

Not that I've been keeping careful statistics or anything, but I frankly can't recall a single instance of anyone ever apologizing for a block.

Ahem, I said I was sorry for blocking you on English Wikisource, both on your talk page and (iirc) during our IRC discussions.
I would love to remove this block, but only if you agree to not use English Wikisource as a vector to bypass restrictions on other WMF projects. I would love it even more if you wanted to contribute to English Wikisource. ;-)

See this page and this page. Even if you unblocked me, it would have no effect. I would still be obliged to post without logging in, and I would still have to manually sign my posts and manually link them to a frozen user page that no one (except a local admin) could edit.

It makes much more sense for me to do my work on the NetKnowledge Wiki, where I am free of the odious encumbrances of WMF prohibitions against doing academic studies of Wikimedia Ethics.

[jayvdb]

Apologise for the block Herostratus, it was idiotic. Way too caught up in teh dramaz back then.

Not that I've been keeping careful statistics or anything, but I frankly can't recall a single instance of anyone ever apologizing for a block.

Ahem, I said I was sorry for blocking you on English Wikisource, both on your talk page and (iirc) during our IRC discussions.
I would love to remove this block, but only if you agree to not use English Wikisource as a vector to bypass restrictions on other WMF projects. I would love it even more if you wanted to contribute to English Wikisource. ;-)

See this page and this page. Even if you unblocked me, it would have no effect. I would still be obliged to post without logging in, and I would still have to manually sign my posts and manually link them to a frozen user page that no one (except a local admin) could edit.

It makes much more sense for me to do my work on the NetKnowledge Wiki, where I am free of the odious encumbrances of WMF prohibitions against doing academic studies of Wikimedia Ethics.

Sorry, I forgot that you ended up with a global block. If you are no longer going to evade the indef block on en.wv, then I can ask for the global block to be removed as well.
I hope NetKnowledge works out for you.

[Moulton]

Apologise for the block Herostratus, it was idiotic. Way too caught up in teh dramaz back then.

Not that I've been keeping careful statistics or anything, but I frankly can't recall a single instance of anyone ever apologizing for a block.

Ahem, I said I was sorry for blocking you on English Wikisource, both on your talk page and (iirc) during our IRC discussions.
I would love to remove this block, but only if you agree to not use English Wikisource as a vector to bypass restrictions on other WMF projects. I would love it even more if you wanted to contribute to English Wikisource. ;-)

See this page and this page. Even if you unblocked me, it would have no effect. I would still be obliged to post without logging in, and I would still have to manually sign my posts and manually link them to a frozen user page that no one (except a local admin) could edit.

It makes much more sense for me to do my work on the NetKnowledge Wiki, where I am free of the odious encumbrances of WMF prohibitions against doing academic studies of Wikimedia Ethics.

Sorry, I forgot that you ended up with a global block. If you are no longer going to evade the indef block on en.wv, then I can ask for the global block to be removed as well.
I hope NetKnowledge works out for you.

Mainly, I hope NetKnowledge works out for SB_Johnny and Hillgentleman, both of whom have abandoned Wikiversity in the wake of the last round of interventions by Jimbo.

Note that Jimbo personally dictated the global blocks on both Greg and myself. Jimbo also blocked PrivateMusings and de-sysopped SB_Johnny. And he said he would do it again "in defense of Wikiversity." It occurs to me that if Jimbo believes Wikiversity cannot function with the likes of PrivateMusings, SB_Johnny, Greg Kohs, or myself in residence there, then I frankly see no future for the project.

[jayvdb]

I hope NetKnowledge works out for you.

Mainly, I hope NetKnowledge works out for SB_Johnny and Hillgentleman, both of whom have abandoned Wikiversity in the wake of the last round of interventions by Jimbo.

Note that Jimbo personally dictated the global blocks on both Greg and myself. Jimbo also blocked PrivateMusings and de-sysopped SB_Johnny. And he said he would do it again "in defense of Wikiversity." It occurs to me that if Jimbo believes Wikiversity cannot function with the likes of PrivateMusings, SB_Johnny, Greg Kohs, or myself in residence there, then I frankly see no future for the project.

I am sure that Wikiversity can proceed without contributors who are primarily interested in the Wikipedia Ethics project, but I am shocked to see that SB_Johnny was desysopped. No wonder the Wikiversity folk are pissed off.

[Moulton]

I hope NetKnowledge works out for you.

Mainly, I hope NetKnowledge works out for SB_Johnny and Hillgentleman, both of whom have abandoned Wikiversity in the wake of the last round of interventions by Jimbo.

Note that Jimbo personally dictated the global blocks on both Greg and myself. Jimbo also blocked PrivateMusings and de-sysopped SB_Johnny. And he said he would do it again "in defense of Wikiversity." It occurs to me that if Jimbo believes Wikiversity cannot function with the likes of PrivateMusings, SB_Johnny, Greg Kohs, or myself in residence there, then I frankly see no future for the project.

I am sure that Wikiversity can proceed without contributors who are primarily interested in the Wikipedia Ethics project, but I am shocked to see that SB_Johnny was desysopped. No wonder the Wikiversity folk are pissed off.

Sure, WMF-sponsored projects can continue without any kind of self-reflection on questions of ethics, but for how long?

Consider that such common features of WikiCulture as BLPs, RfCs, ANIs, and ArbCom cases all involve the examination of living persons -- either people who are the subject of articles or editors who are crafting those articles. How is it that a small project on Wikiversity to introduce the fundamental concepts of ethics is out of line, but all those BLPs, RfCs, ANIs, and ArbCom cases are just fine?

Which would have been better for Paul Mitchell -- a low-profile study of the ethical lapses of IDCab or the Arbcom case in which he was unanimously condemned as a corrupt admin who egregiously abused his powers?

[jayvdb]

Sure, WMF-sponsored projects can continue without any kind of self-reflection on questions of ethics, but for how long?

Consider that such common features of WikiCulture as BLPs, RfCs, ANIs, and ArbCom cases all involve the examination of living persons -- either people who are the subject of articles or editors who are crafting those articles. How is it that a small project on Wikiversity to introduce the fundamental concepts of ethics is out of line, but all those BLPs, RfCs, ANIs, and ArbCom cases are just fine?

Which would have been better for Paul Mitchell -- a low-profile study of the ethical lapses of IDCab or the Arbcom case in which he was unanimously condemned as a corrupt admin who egregiously abused his powers?

As I said in another thread, WMF projects do need to consider the ethics of projects. However the lack of ethics on English Wikipedia is not reason for Wikiversity to allow projects which lack appropriate ethical controls.
I hope that NetKnowledge will make a reasonable attempt to do the right thing in this regard.

[Moulton]

Sure, WMF-sponsored projects can continue without any kind of self-reflection on questions of ethics, but for how long?

Consider that such common features of WikiCulture as BLPs, RfCs, ANIs, and ArbCom cases all involve the examination of living persons -- either people who are the subject of articles or editors who are crafting those articles. How is it that a small project on Wikiversity to introduce the fundamental concepts of ethics is out of line, but all those BLPs, RfCs, ANIs, and ArbCom cases are just fine?

Which would have been better for Paul Mitchell -- a low-profile study of the ethical lapses of IDCab or the Arbcom case in which he was unanimously condemned as a corrupt admin who egregiously abused his powers?

As I said in another thread, WMF projects do need to consider the ethics of projects. However the lack of ethics on English Wikipedia is not reason for Wikiversity to allow projects which lack appropriate ethical controls.
I hope that NetKnowledge will make a reasonable attempt to do the right thing in this regard.

For what it's worth, the WV study project expressly adopted the WV Proposed Policy on Scholarly Ethics. The subjects of the review were invited to respond to the case studies or to write up their own alternate versions of the case studies. They were also invited to put questions to those writing up the case studies. But instead of doing that, they insisted on revising or deleting the signed submissions of others. Eventually they prevailed on Jimbo to delete the project altogether. In doing so, they demonstrated their appalling lack of ethical standards.

Note also that the members of IDCab did not extend any of those courtesies to those whom they were characterizing in WP BLPs, RfCs, ANIs, etc.

This post has been edited by Moulton: Sun 30th May 2010, 1:59am

[jayvdb]

For what it's worth, the WV study project expressly adopted the WV Proposed Policy on Scholarly Ethics. ..

The proposed policy has not been ratified by the community, and it is a long way from what would be acceptable in a real university. Ethical clearance from a reputable university should be obtained, first, until Wikiversity has appropriate controls in place.

[BelovedFox]

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.

Not exactly. Many post here because they are discussed here. When communication is not taking place on Wikipedia, it makes little sense to discuss it there, and it's not a tacit agreement that something about Wikipedia has "failed" in that realm.

[GlassBeadGame]

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.

Not exactly. Many post here because they are discussed here. When communication is not taking place on Wikipedia, it makes little sense to discuss it there, and it's not a tacit agreement that something about Wikipedia has "failed" in that realm.

Your defense concedes too much.

[Moulton]

For what it's worth, the WV study project expressly adopted the WV Proposed Policy on Scholarly Ethics. ..

The proposed policy has not been ratified by the community, and it is a long way from what would be acceptable in a real university. Ethical clearance from a reputable university should be obtained, first, until Wikiversity has appropriate controls in place.

The study project was obliged to demonstrate a higher level of ethical standards than could be found anywhere else in WikiCulture (including the rest of WV itself). What we (unintentionally) ended up demonstrating was that WikiCulture (as defined by none other than Jimbo Wales himself) expressly rejects any study of ethical principles (even abstract theory) as "beyond the scope" of any WMF-sponsored project.

[NotARepublican55]

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)?

Go suck off George Rekers or something, Seregain.

This post has been edited by NotARepublican55: Sun 30th May 2010, 11:50pm

[herostratus]

No problem, Viridae. Didn't bother me. I figured I would get blocked sooner or later - happens to the best of us. Thanks for the apology.

[jayvdb]

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.

I only indef blocked.
The oversight and revision deletion tools haven't been used on that page.
There are two revisions deleted in the ordinary way.

[milowent]

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?

he even got promoted today to editor. good for him.