I AM THE REAL HEROSTRATUS, BACK FROM THE DEAD!— Herostratus taking sysop powers seriously, 
Herostratus was the victim of a sick joke. A awful rumor about him was speaking throughout the Internet. People were claiming that Herostratus, who has been renown for removing pro-pedophilia bias from Wikipedia, was a pedophile himself. This rumor nearly ruined Herostratus' Wikipedia career. Ironically, Herostratus was the one who created the rumor. He created it as a joke, but everyone accidentally took it seriously. Of course, this is the result of Herostratus' chronic unfunnyness.
In ancient Greek mythology, Herostratus was a person who sought fame through vandalism. He set a holy temple on fire and proudly took credit for it. Since Herostratus sought infamy though vandalism, the Greeks decided to punish him by striking his name from history. Unfortunately, erasing him from history didn't work.
Although this would be an awesome name for a Wikipedia vandal, there wasn't any pre-2005 vandal smart enough to chose a name with historical roots. The person would would eventually carry the "Herostratus" username was a goody-two-shoes editor from Boston.
Pedophilia Article Watch
- See wikipedia:User:Herostratus/Pedophilia_and_Me for Herostratus' version of events.
Young Herostratus became a wikipedo in 2005 and quicky became involved in AfD discussions. On December 31, 2005, Herostratus happened to stumble upon Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Childlove movement. He couldn't expressed his distaste for the article in a secular fashion.
On January 6, 2006, Herostratus conceived an idea about organizing a group to combat pro-pedophilia bias:
Hey Lotusduck. Hey I was just down at the
ChildlovePedophilia advocacy AfD... sheesh... that one's gonna be kept. Anyway, somehow that led me here. I have serious problems with that article. Compare to say Holocaust denial -- man Pedophilia advocacy is a lot more subject-friendly. I think it needs some work, but by an organized group... do you agree?
He even compared pedophiles to Holocaust deniers. On January 21, 2006, Herostratus created Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, but the project was nominated for deletion due to "poor taste" on February 8, 2006. The project was kept due to a lack of consensus.
Also of interest is Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/Ham & Eggs, which was supposedly a list of pro-pedophilia editors ("Eggs") and banned anti-pedophilia editors ("Ham"). Unfortunately, it was deleted because Wikipedia wasn't going to keep shrines to disruptive users any longer.
Herostratus the sysop
Oppose Likley to abuse tools per experience on Lolicon.
On June 13, 2006, TantalumTelluride nominated Herostratus for adminship. As with President Obama's nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize, Herostratus received unwarranted support despite his inexperience and somewhat childish attitude. Herostratus' childish demeanor is made clear by his silly mock interview. Users such as Andypanty.UK (as in the ancient televised children's show believed that Herostratus didn't deal with vandals in the appropriate matter, while users such as Hipocrite believed that Herostratus lacked conflict revolution skills and misunderstood the image policy. Most users voted in favor of Herostratus due to his edit count and his activity against pedophilia. Some even voted for Herostratus' due to sense of humor:
Strong Support, especially after the Lolicon thing. Also, we need more admins that have a sense of humor, and that are committed to actually writing the encyclopedia.
- See Wikipedia:User:Herostratus/Holy Jumping Catfish! for Herostratus' version of events.
Creation of the rumor
The rumor was created on June 1, 2008. On that day, Herostratus added the following text to his userpage:
Ever since The Incident — you probably read about it in the papers — they have greatly restricted my computer access, therefore I have not been and will not be as active as I would like. For a while. After a certain period of good behavior the Local Council may restore my computer privileges. Thank you for your patience.
What is The Incident referred to on his user page? Given his, er, subjects of interest
:oI can only guess...
... but does anyone esleelse [sic] know?
On February 11, 2010, Herostratus elaborated on the situation:
UPDATE: Rather than improving, my situation has deteriorated. Now I am no longer allowed access to the internet, amd am forbidden to watch television or listen to the radio. Nor am I allowed to view any periodicals published before 1960. The only way I can make edits is to mark up a printout and pass it to my majordomo to be typed into Wikipedia. Frustrating!
Herostratus, notorious pedophile POV-pusher, is apparently in prison right now for possessing child pornography. Has anyone tried to revoke his adminship?
On February 24, 2010, EricBarbour started a Wikipedia Review thread about Herostratus:
Despite being banned from Wikipedia (and computers generally) by court order, notorious pedophilia editor Herostratus 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?
EricBarbour believed every word on Herostratus' userpage, and the thread grabbed the attention of Wikipedia sysop Viridae. After reading the thread, Viridae blocked Herostratus for account owner not in control of account. Herostratus unblocked himself a few hours later. Judging from his message to Viridae, Herostratus didn't have any idea about what was going on.
Instead of replying to Herostratus' message and ending the situation without drama, Viridae started an "Incidents" thread in order to gain the attention of the Wikipedian big dogs. Viridae also claimed that he or she didn't know that Herostratus was an sysop. Judging from the first few replies, most users believed Viridae. Viridae also Emailed ArbCom. Herostratus had to straighten things out himself with an emotional outburst:
For goodness sake, can't you people recognize a joke when you see one? Under what conditions on this planet is a person "not allowed to view periodicals published Template:Hover 1960", for crying out loud. Good grief. How about a note to the talk page before a block, hmm?
Once again, the Wikipedia Review's obsession with Wikipedia's flaws turned into a careless witch-hunt complete with lulz. This isn't a surprise since common sense and a sense of humor are in sort supply on the Internet. According to the Wikipedia Review, editing Wikipedia is serious business.
Of course, the drama didn't end there due to that Email Viridae sent earlier. on March 3, 2010, Hersfold opened an Arbitration case against Herostratus and Viridae. The case lasted until March 5, 2010. According to the decision, sysops like Herostratus shouldn't joke around with their userpages and that Viridae was too trigger-happy in weeding out suspected pedophiles. An silly argument also erupted on whether Viridae should be "admonished" for stupidity. The ArbCom was basically a waste of time since the issue was already resolved and understood in the February ANI thread.
Sometime in June 2010, the Kenneth Dickson article was nominated for deletion for the second time. The original discussion was deleted and then overwritten due to BLP violations, so what exactly happened can't be known. What is known for sure is that Herostratus said pretty nasty things about Dickson. These attacks on a political hopeful disturbed Cirt, who reported the issue on BLP Noticeboard. Apparently, freedom of speech isn't appreciated on Wikipedia. Since sysops are supposed to be nice to living persons in any namespace and criticism isn't acceptable, Off2riorob asked for Herostratus' resignation, and the recall process was initialized.
On June 23, 2010, after days of debate, the recall voting process started. Most users found the entire situation silly and voted in support of Herostratus. The recall RfA also created much controversy, especially since there isn't an official recall procedure. Due to the lack of a standard procedure, Herostartus was free to establish his own rules and guidelines for the recall. Herostratus originally barred sysops from voting, since he believed that they would vote in his favor in order to prevent future recalls. This caused further drama, especially since assuming that sysops would vote for him in order to save their position is Assuming Bad Faith. Due to the complaints, Herostratus allowed sysops to vote.
Drama also erupted over when and how the recall RfA would end. On June 24, 2010, Nihonjoe prematurely closed the recall, since he or she considered it an "improper forum". Ncmvocalist then reverted the closure and started an argument. The recall RfA was finally closed on June 30, 2010. Although 78 users users supported him and 48 users opposed him (excluding 21 neutral votes), it was decided that Herostratus should still be desysoped.
On June 30, 2010, Herostratus requested to be desysoped, and that request was accept. Herostratus' last action as a sysop (at the suggestion of a friend) was to live up to the name of the original Herostratus by deleting the Temple of Artemis article.
Wikipedia Review critic
After the false accusations of being a pedophile, Herostratus naturally developed a distaste for the Wikipedia Review. Nevertheless, Herostratus' criticisms of the Wikipedia Review's selective use of free speech (though ED's is superior) is absurd. He basically believes that the Wikipedia Review shouldn't criticize or mock Wikipedia users. Needless to say, Herostratus wouldn't last long on Encyclopedia Dramatica with that sort of attitude.
On August 14, 2010, Herostratus communicated his concerns to Alison. Herostratus claimed that Alison was being mean and that she should follow WP:CIVIL outside of Wikipedia. After failing to convince Alison, Herostratus decided to seek a second opinion from the Village pump on August 17, 2010 (full thread found here). By August 22, 1010, Herostratus wasn't satisfied by any of the responses he received, so he decided to ask King Jimbo for his opinion (full thread found here) under the false idea that Jimbo was the final arbitrator of Wikipedia law.
On September 20, 2010, Herostatus uploaded File:Cumfart_02.jpg and claimed that it was an improvement over the previous cartoon porn that the Creampie article used. Herostratus believed that the image shouldn't use a plain background, so he added happy faces to it. This didn't sit well with the Wikipedia establishment, and a silly argument resulted. It ended up on WP:AN/I, and Georgewilliamherbert accused Herostratus of disruption.
Of course, the argument didn't end there. Herostratus uploaded File:Cumfart_02.png on September 27, 2010. On November 6, 2010, Herostratus filled a request for mediation, and the strange debate continues to this day.