Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:16, 14 June 2006

Herostratus

Discuss here (12/10/4) ending 04:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Herostratus (talk · contribs) – I was recently surprised to notice that Herostratus wasn't already an admin. He has been a registered user since September, 2005, and has made 4398 edits. He is the founder of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch. The project was a little controversial at first, but Herostratus and the project's other participants have demonstrated their good faith by dramatically improving the quality of Wikipedia's articles concerning pedophilia. He has a good bit of experience writing articles, including several related to Bob Dylan. He also has a strange obsession with breath mints. He has a decent amount of experience with several aspects of the community. He is active in the deletion process, he is willing to help newcomers, he reverts vandalism and warns vandals appropriately, and he occasionally comments here at RfA. Most importantly, he can be trusted not to abuse sysop rights, so it is my honor to nominate him for adminship. --TantalumTelluride 20:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes, sure, I accept, and thank you for your nomination and your nice words, Tantalum. I keep compulsive info on my edit history on my userpage and on a subpage. There is also an interview with me here. Herostratus 02:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC) Oh yeah, and my talk page is archived by content, so you can look at my hate mail or my love letters, however you're inclined. Herostratus 03:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support

Support as nominator. --TantalumTelluride 20:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support a level-headed contributor to a controversial topic. And your answer to question 1 is reassuring - I like editors who sacrifice a little speed for some thought. Kimchi.sg 04:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Your humour, evident in your self-interview, rivals that of Bucketsofg. Kimchi.sg 04:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change to strong support after considering his answer to question 4. This is the right person to give the extra buttons to. Kimchi.sg 04:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Honest user, that will never abuse tools. Would be an excellent addition to admin team, and I love the self interview. I might ~~steal ~~borrow that for something. No question support. Yanksox 04:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)~~~~[reply]

Whitie-tightie Support GREAT candidate.--digital_m e^{(TalkˑContribs)} 04:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)and I really mean that[reply]

Strong support Excellent, well rounded editor. Great fun to work with but also works hard on serious topics. FloNight talk 04:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support. I've had my disagreements and arguments with this user, but I believe he always kept a reasonable level of decorum. Only weak because of a little edit warring. Kotepho 04:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Kotepho and inasmuch as, amazingly enough (I've disagreed rather stridently with Hero w/r/to, for example, WP:NOT EVIL), the question answers are almost identical to those I would have given (well, they are, of course, considerably more succinct and cogent than mine would have been, but the underlying beliefs are the same). The edit history he keeps, FWIW, is rather remarkable; not only has he preserved a very fine record of his important contributions, from a glance at which one quickly learns about him, but so also has he made such preservation meticulously (I tried to document my AfD participation as he and barely made it through 20 discussions before I jettisoned the idea). Joe 05:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~--D-Rock (commune with D-Rock) 05:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for this.

Support. Has several edits under his belt, has contributed very neutrally to some of the most controversial topics on the encyclopedia, and seems to be a very friendly editor. He has my vote. Эйрон Кинни (t) 05:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. DarthVad e r 07:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I am rather impressed by the level headed tone he has been able to maintain while dealing with one of the most delicate and controversial subjects of the last times. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 08:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support. Experienced level headed editor, sense of humour. I thought he was an admin! Lion King 15:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Dr Zak 16:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~
Strong Oppose didn't seem to take vandalism here very seriously. Also a bit concerned that the majority of the users last 1,000 edits are involved with child pornography and Lolicon, I'm not discriminating the user for the type of subjects he/she is editing but the fact that about 80% of the last 1,000 edits are either edits to it are discussions on it. I also couldn't find any RC patrolling in the last 1,000 edits. Placing "WTF man" on a users talk page here regarding vandalism shows lack of knowledge when dealing with vandalism/blanking.--Andeh 05:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Strong Oppose for using a fake signature here for no apparent reason.--Andeh 06:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, OK, but that's not a fake sig, it's a copy of a user's comment, including the user's sig (and original time stamp), to the user's talk page. I guess I forgot to sign it, though, so touché. Herostratus 08:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to your other points, FWIW... I wouldn't change either response. Here, I engaged the user at his level, and in fact convinced him to turn his unfocussed energies into quite a nice little article, which simple blank-faced warning templates didn't seem likely to do; I consider it a success. Here, if you follow the link, you can see my conundrum: (1) an egregiously inappropriate edit, but also (2) a crie de couer from a fellow human in pain and, perhaps, moral danger. What to do? The person must be engaged; but a simple "go away" blank-faced warning template to a perhaps lonely person, I couldn't do that. Yet I cannot patronize the person either; his cry is not overt as such, and the world has crushed him enough, maybe. I chose a very brief, offhand comment, to let him know he's being watched and to give him a chance to engage if he wanted to (he didn't, but he didn't make any more edits either). IMO the warning templates are designed for speed and ease of use, but are not inherently superior to a customized message. Herostratus 13:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no excuse to not use the warning templates for users vandalising, especially IP users. Each and every vandal should be treated the same depending on their type of vandalism, some don't require poems written on their page.. I couldn't find any edits by the comment you said you copied with the heading "LOL", your choice to use words such as "LOL", "WTF" "FWIW" and "IMO"(above) also concern me. Yes you are a great editor and you have contributed greatly to the child pornography related articles and I have seen edits that show you can handle heaty discussions well but I'm just getting the picture you lack the experience an admin requires for tackling and dealing with vandalism.--Andeh 18:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Agree with Andypandy. Certainly doesn't seem like a strong candidate for adminship.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amynewyork4248 (talk • contribs)

Oppose per Andeh abakharev 08:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Seems like a good editor, but does not take vandalism seriously enough. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 08:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Andeh.Voice-of-All 09:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~. (Moved to neutral) I very much enjoy this user's sense of humor, but I have some concerns about his understanding of our image use policies. For example, as he notes, he used Jimbo in an article in this image. However, if you read the image page carefully, the x-ray specs in that collage are copyrighted by an unknown party. There are other issues that can be seen on his "hate mail" page, for example Image:Coffee_cup_drawing.jpg, an unfree image he uploaded. More experience is required of admins on fundamental policy issues. -- SCZenz 09:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, actually I think that image is probably OK because it's an original-work collage composed of a free image of Jimbo, some actual drawing (the left-side frame), and a heavily hand-altered version of an unfree image which is fair-use anyway, in the context of the article, granted that fair use deprecated. Admittedly, I don't know for sure where the line of "original work" lies, exactly. Herostratus 13:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Andeh. --Shizane 10:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, uh, sorry, uh, no, I guess, uh, no. No grasp of copyright, thinks vandalism is funny, and anyone who happens to casually mention 'I might undelete some articles' makes me concerned. Expressing an intent to wheel-war before even getting the administrative tools does not provoke trust in the candidate's good intentions. Proto||type 10:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a little unfair, first because your tone should be more civil, and second because undeleting bad speedies is not wheel warring—there is a certain rate of fairly obvious errors, and it's a good thing to take a second look. -- SCZenz 12:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is very much easier to turn a successfully funny vandal toward becoming a good editor than do the same for a penis vandal, idiot, or single-minded POV pusher, in my experience. As to the copyright issues... um, I've studied copyvio issues quite a bit... on the coffee cup, didn't know how to speedy an image (then) so I wrote "I NOW REALIZE THIS IMAGE IS COPYVIO, PLEASE DELETE IT" on the talk page, if that matters. As to the other, ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair Use member Steve Block if I have a grasp of copyvio, or check these diffs: [1], [2]. And as to the speedies, I spend some time on Speedy Watch; while editors argue a length about the exact wording of CfD, you'd be surprised what just quietly goes away; I've moved several articles from speedy that came nowhere near meeting any CfD and that easily passed AfD. However, I can't check articles that are already gone; and they go fast. I've had a few deleted out from under me as I was editing them. Herostratus 13:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also BTW re copyvio... for some of the breath mint articles, and since I don't have a digital camera, I drew the pictures by hand in PhotoShop (which took hours) rather than use a web image that might be tainted... if that counts for anything. Herostratus 13:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per SCZenz. Going back through the past 1,000 edits the talk comments are not those I'd hope to see from a sysop and there seems to be nothing in the edits that indicates the admin tools would be useful. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Likley to abuse tools per experience on Lolicon. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify this and perhaps give a diff or two? -- SCZenz 14:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. User wanted disturbing image removed because it was disturbing. Instead of stating this argument plainly, he misrepresented our fair-use guidelines in a way that he believed would require the image's removal per those guidelines, instead of using his true arguments (his lax attitude with respect to copyright, and his lack of any other action with respect to copyright is well documented.) As such, I expect that he would do the same with respect to other guidelines - there to be distorted to do what he feels is the right result. This would be possibly acceptable if I believed that his goal in editing was to either write an encyclopedia or distribute knowledge more widely. I do not believe that to be the case for this editor. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't see that as fair summary of that situation, Hipocrite. He's referring to the Infamous Image (a seminude 7-year-old with an a bedildoed S&M teddy bear and a come-hither look). I wanted it removed for it's possible devestating impact potential for negative publicity. Actually, the image was non-fair-use copyvio (Steve Block eventually admitted this), but neither discussion, RfC, or IfD was able to shake it loose (it was very heavily defended, as you might imagine; Lolicon has seven pages of archived talk, mostly about That Image), so I finally appealed to Jimbo for an out-of-process deletion, which was granted. Enh. That's the only out-of-process action I've requested in 4400 edits, so whatever. I'd do it again. The situation was just too potentially dangerous for the 'pedia, IMO. If that looses me an RfA, so be it. Herostratus 15:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a less fair summary. Here is your first post to the talk page in question - [3]. You discuss the removal of the picture based on fair use guidelines, which you do not now, nor did you then, understand, not based on the "devestating impact potential for negative publicity." I oppose based on the fact that your willingness to lie about your motives there (you came clean later - after your false argument failed) demonstrates a fundamental willingness to dissemble to get what you want, which is not a quality I believe adminstrators should have, not based on one out-of-process deletion. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never lied about my motives and I request a retraction. I always said the image was evil as well as being copyvio. It is legitimate and indeed required for editors to remove copyvio images. That there are may be other reasons an image should not be in an article doesn't prevent one from making a copyvio case. (BTW anybody who thinks I don't understand copyvio and fair use is recommended to check the diff Hipocrite mentioned.) Hipocrite, I think further comments on this issue should go on the talk page, where I will respond to them, lest we end up with eight archived pages on this RfA, too. Herostratus 15:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where in the diff I present, or prior to the diff I present, do/did you say the picture is evil? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Attitude to vandalism is a concern, per the thoughts expressed above. --Wisd e n17 14:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per all above. --Terence Ong _{(talk | contribs | ESP)} 14:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~
I don't think he'd be a bad admin, but the disproportionate amount of User namespace edits, and the lack of heavy involvement in certain articles strikes me as a bit of a lack of drive. He seems smart, but he has an unsure, stream-of-consciousness tone that won't come in handy when mediating or explaining policy. Adambiswanger1 05:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I like answer 4, I agree being able to admit mistakes is vital. Humor shown in your "interview" is also a plus. But Oppose 1 and 2 make good points, and your answers 1-3 didn't convince me. Neutral for now. -Goldom (t) (Review) 07:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Copyvio may now be less of an issue—I didn't realize that the coffee cup image was six months old before, and I'm not 100% sure about the Jimbo picture (although I think it's pushing things)—and certainly I can't claim he's ignorant of policy on these matters. Nevertheless, I'm uncertain about the user's tone in a few examples cited above. At the same time, it seems that in some cases positive results have come from unorthodox responses to problem editors, and I like his attitudes on many issues. I will think, research, and perhaps reconsider my vote again. -- SCZenz 13:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, I'm impressed by how he handled the pedophilia hoo-ha-ha when it happened in the midst of the pedophilia wheel war (and the subsequent MfD). This shows his ability to edit controversial articles and to keep a cool head. The problems mentioned by the oppose voters (especially his response to vandalism) simply indicates a lack of experience with some of the maintenance tasks in Wikipedia. This means that you are an excellent editor, but in need of some more experience as a janitor. I suggest you take a look at how other folks use the admin tools and give some of the non-admin maintenance tasks a try. I hope you'll give a future RfA a try, because you'd be an excellent addition to the mop-and-bucket brigade! --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~
~~User's contributions.Voice-of-All 09:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
--Viewing contribution data for user Herostratus (over the 4416 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ) Time range: 235 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 9hr (UTC) -- 14, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 21hr (UTC) -- 22, September, 2005 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 97.29% Minor edits: 100% Average edits per day: 7.92 (for last 500 edit(s)) Article edit summary use (last 214 edits) : Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100% Analysis of edits (out of all 4416 edits shown of this page): Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.61% (27) Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 2.42% (107) Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 17.44% (770) Minor article edits marked as minor: 46.95% Breakdown of all edits: Unique pages edited: 1934 | Average edits per page: 2.28 | Edits on top: 7.7% Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 80.91% (3573 edit(s)) Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 13.07% (577 edit(s)) Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 6.02% (266 edit(s)) Unmarked edits: 28.1% (1241 edit(s)) Edits by Wikipedia namespace: Article: 29.76% (1314) | Article talk: 8.7% (384) User: 12.23% (540) | User talk: 17.39% (768) Wikipedia: 23.17% (1023) | Wikipedia talk: 5.68% (251) Image: 1.63% (72) Template: 0.27% (12) Category: 0.41% (18) Portal: 0.02% (1) Help: 0% (0) MediaWiki: 0.02% (1) Other talk pages: 0.72% (32)
See Herostratus's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.

Herostratus's edit count retrieved from Interiot's javascript tool at 20:29, 13 June 2006:
Username Herostratus Total edits 4402 Distinct pages edited 2033 Average edits/page 2.165 First edit 21:32, 22 September 2005 (main) 1315 Talk 384 User 536 User talk 766 Image 72 Image talk 2 MediaWiki talk 1 Template 12 Template talk 19 Category 18 Category talk 9 Wikipedia 1016 Wikipedia talk 251 Portal 1
~~Questions for the candidate~~
~~Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:~~
1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Uh, well, mostly helping out as requested, I guess. I'm not gonna look for people to block or pages to protect, much, but I'll do it if I run across it. I'm kind of slow and methodical, so I won't make too many mistakes, I hope. I will do a bit more straight-out vandal fighting, rollbacks and blocks as needed, if I'm made an admin, to do my bit. I'd like to try closing some AfD's and other XfD's, I think I'd be OK at that. I might undelete some speedies. I'm still gonna concentrate mostly on my present activities.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Not really. My articles are short. Mel Lyman is an OK article I guess. Starting up Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch has probably been worthwhile. To be honest, I most enjoy little things, like using Jimbo in an article, translating an article from Russian to English when I don't know a word of Russian, some snarks, some graphics, that sort of thing. I dunno. I'm not really into tooting my horn.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Uh, yeah, a few. I deal with it in different ways, usually by persistant application of logical arguments. That usually works. I don't think I've ever had to warn an editor that I've been in direct conflict with, and I've practically never reverted. It helps if you're willing to listen to the other guy and maybe change your mind. Stress? Not really. In the future? Not any different.
Note: also, a self-interview is here. Herostratus
Question from Yanksox (optional)
4. Are there any editors/admins past and present that infulenced you greatly? What was one important lesson that you learned that could relate to adminship? Yanksox 04:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Well, I learned a certain level of patience emulating User:DanielCD, and the value of phrases such as "You've go a point, you've convinced me, I was wrong". Some editors (and admins) would rather die than then type those, it seems; I find that useless. I always enjoy User:Silence's erudition. Working on the George Reeves case, I appreciated how fast User:Curps is; I'll never fight vandals that fast. Those editors that are able to work on pedophilia-related articles with calmness, clarity, and erudition... User:FloNight and several others that I can't recall their exact usernames. They're a rare and most useful breed. Overall, I haven't learned a lot because, having been around the track a few times in meatspace, I came in with a fairly well-formed set of principles and stuff. I believe in patience and listening when dealing with editors, and ruthless speed in dispatching vandals, and I guess you have to be careful in telling the difference; I've seen some mistakes made, on both sides of that questions. Herostratus 04:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. (from HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs)): The opposition so far seems to be based on the idea that your sense of humour interferes with good editing. Can you point us to some examples to convince us otherwise? There are two diffs linked from Oppose 1 (Andeh), and an image linked from Oppose 6 (SCZenz) - can you answer their points?
(I do not consider that an accurate characterization of my reasons for opposing. -- SCZenz 12:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Fair point - sorry, SCZenz. I should have put the words "some of" at the beginning. I'd still like the question answered, though - I'm looking for clarification of the candidate's approach to policy. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A:Right, I answered them all above below the individual comments before I saw this question. As to humor in general... I haven't gotten a sense that it's interfered with my work. Jeez it's not like I'm always joking or whatever. I have had one editor note note that I helped defuse a fraught situation with humour, I got a barnstar for another slightly humourous comment... The case of user Mark Twehn (sp?) I noted above... I didn't make any April Fools edits as some editors did... I'm not getting it as being a hugh problem, but hey I could be wrong. Herostratus 13:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, policy, OK, you asked about that. I believe strongly that policy should be followed, and some policies must be followed for legal reasons. I don't think I've ever stated otherwise. Like any editor, I've probably violated policy at times, but always inadvertantly, I believe. I also think that process is important (and I contributed the images to Wikipedia:Process is important, an essay of which I approve, as opposed to WP:SNOW which I don't think is a good idea. Herostratus 14:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 #::Uh, OK, but that's not a fake sig, it's a copy of a user's comment, including the user's sig (and original time stamp), to the user's talk page. I guess I forgot to sign it, though, so touché. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] 08:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 #::As to your other points, FWIW... I wouldn't change either response. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mahk_Twen&diff=prev&oldid=45857228 Here], I engaged the user at his level, and in fact convinced him to turn his unfocussed energies into [[A Literary Nightmare|quite a nice little article]], which simple blank-faced warning templates didn't seem likely to do; I consider it a success. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Frankovich&diff=prev&oldid=48964848 Here], if you follow the link, you can see my conundrum: (1) an egregiously inappropriate edit, but also (2) a ''crie de couer'' from a fellow human in pain and, perhaps, moral danger. What to do? The person must be engaged; but a simple "go away" blank-faced warning template to a perhaps lonely person, I couldn't do that. Yet I cannot patronize the person either; his cry is not overt as such, and the world has crushed him enough, maybe. I chose a very brief, offhand comment, to let him know he's being watched and to give him a chance to engage if he wanted to (he didn't, but he didn't make any more edits either). IMO the warning templates are designed for speed and ease of use, but are not inherently superior to a customized message. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] 13:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
+#:::There's no excuse to not use the warning templates for users vandalising, especially IP users. Each and every vandal should be treated the same depending on their type of vandalism, some don't require poems written on their page.. I couldn't find any edits by the comment you said you copied with the heading "LOL", your choice to use words such as "''LOL''", "''WTF''" "''FWIW''" and "''IMO''"(above) also concern me. Yes you are a great editor and you have contributed greatly to the child pornography related articles and I have seen edits that show you can handle heaty discussions well but I'm just getting the picture you lack the experience an admin requires for tackling and dealing with vandalism.--<font style="background:white">[[User:Andypandy1337|Andeh]]</font> 18:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 #'''Oppose''' Agree with Andypandy. Certainly doesn't seem like a strong candidate for adminship.{{unsigned|Amynewyork4248}}
 #'''Oppose''' per Andeh [[User:Alex Bakharev|abakharev]] 08:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)