Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Herostratus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Oppose Likley to abuse tools per experience on Lolicon. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Can you clarify this and perhaps give a diff or two? -- SCZenz 14:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- That's a less fair summary. Here is your first post to the talk page in question - [1]. 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Not in that diff, no. The reason being, it is not conducive to discussion to say "I'm proposing to delete image X because it's copyvio, and it's unencyclopedic, and it's liable to bring bad publicity, and it's ugly" or whatever. That would make for a difficult-to-follow discussion with lots of crosstalk. Better to sort out one issue at a time. Yes I wanted the image deleted to protect the 'pedia, and I never said otherwise. I'd like it if you'd strikethrough your charteriation of me as a liar. Herostratus 18:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't believe you yet, sorry. Specifically, you recently wrote "I always said the image was evil," but you didn't. In fact, you never alleged anything was wrong with the image aside from copyvio for quite some time. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- And I don't have to, just as you don't have to reveal all the motivations going on with your own self in this dialog. It just isn't required, or helpful. As I said, your proposal that I would have to say "I think this picture is evil but I'm proposing to delete it on copyvio grounds" would have caused copyvio to be basically ignored while we went into Freshman Dorm Bullsession Mode Part 37 regarding the nature of evil. That in effect means that, de facto, the image could not be proposed for deletion on purely copyvio grounds. I don't accept that. Redact your accusation, please. Herostratus 00:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't believe you yet, sorry. Specifically, you recently wrote "I always said the image was evil," but you didn't. In fact, you never alleged anything was wrong with the image aside from copyvio for quite some time. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Not in that diff, no. The reason being, it is not conducive to discussion to say "I'm proposing to delete image X because it's copyvio, and it's unencyclopedic, and it's liable to bring bad publicity, and it's ugly" or whatever. That would make for a difficult-to-follow discussion with lots of crosstalk. Better to sort out one issue at a time. Yes I wanted the image deleted to protect the 'pedia, and I never said otherwise. I'd like it if you'd strikethrough your charteriation of me as a liar. Herostratus 18:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- That's a less fair summary. Here is your first post to the talk page in question - [1]. 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Can you clarify this and perhaps give a diff or two? -- SCZenz 14:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, I was also involved in this debate and it was quite transparent what Herostratus's motives were. I do not recall Steve Block ever saying that the image was not fair use (or could not possibly be fair use), but that he changed his mind and believed that the image should be deleted for reasons other than the copyright concerns. [2] [3] While I do not approve of Herostratus's edit warring on Lolicon (which was for the most part with people that are banned now and were not doing much discussion... but it takes n+1 to edit war) or the tone of some of his comments (I believe I described them as 'combative'), they were not too far out of line in my opinion and I am not sure that he would abuse the privilegdes. Kotepho 00:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Spamming
I assume the abortive talk page spamming by support voters will not continue. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- A quick look at What Links Here only shows one or two mentions - no mass campaign. I don't see the problem. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Squidward
Here's the chain of events, and even this is a greatly condensed summary:
- There was an editor we'll call the "George Reeves person", an odd duck and an obsessively determined and persistant vandal and just a strange case. Clever, too... dropping the URL of an effective method of disrupting Wikipedia into the (undeletable) edit summaries, etc.
- Anyway, I appointed myself his bete noir, tried many many times to engage him, did the daily revert thing. He was efectively unblockable because his ISP assigns dynamic addresses. No admin was able to suggest anything different. I would have contacted his Internet Service Provider, but I figured he would just get a new one. It was very tedious work.
- At some point the Squidward vandal appeared. In some ways this matched the vow of the George Reeves person to "destroy" Wikipedia; at any rate, some admins became convinced that Squidward and the George Reeves person were the same. He certainly claimed to be. Some of that is here. I myself remain unconvinced, but I'm in a minority.
- You'll note that the other admins became convinced that they knew Squidward/George Reeves person's identity. I believe that's incorrect, and I think it's based on mail headers which is hardly conclusive.
- But I did find the George Reeves person's actual identity, of that I am sure, by another and far more definite method.
- Here's the bad part... I posted it (first initial and last name) at WP:SQUID. Actually I regret that, but on the other hand, the Georges Reeves person was an extremely dedicated vandal, he had made credible threats to never rest until he had uncovered my identity and harmed me any way he could short of breaking the law (and for complicate reasons I am very vulnerable to publicity), he called my ISP, he manifested an insanely obsessive desire to harm Wikipedia however he could, he was represented to me by several admins as being Squidward who was considered a major problem... so how much privacy does the guy rate? Anyway I regretted it pretty much right away, but by then the page was protected and I let it go...
- Anyway, the George Reeves person stopped at once, and it appears to me that Squidward stopped at almost the same time; at least, WP:SQUID went from daily activity to complete stasis. So maybe they are the same person.
- If they are, it was I who stopped Squidward. That should be worth something, I guess. Herostratus 22:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] No, he did not stop anybody
This is George Reeves guy and i was never squid, I only touched few sites, this sick man herostratus thinks he has me, no, he REVEALED NAMES OF PEOPLE I USED TO WORK BEFORE OR PLAY GAMES, THIS GUY CAN NEVER BE ADMINISTRATOR, IT WAS NOT HE WHO STOPPED ANYBODY, BUT WALES AGREED TO TAKE SITES DOWN AFTER SOME AGREEMENT... AND HE IS NOT FAIR AS WELL...DO NOT, DO NOT ALLOW THIS GUY TO BE ADMINISTRATOR, EVER, EVER, NEVER, BECAUSE NOT ONLY THAT HE VIOLATED PRIVACY POLICY, HE ACCUSED INNOCENT PEOPLE, HE REVERTED CORRECT INFORMATION, INCLUDING LINK I FIXED ON PAUL BERN SITE AND GENERAL ATTORNEY OF FLORIDA AND BBB HAS BEEN INFORMED AND CHARGES ARE PENDING AGAINST WIKIA, BECAUSE MOSTLY OF HEROSTRATUS... There is so much more to it, when I tried to proove my point, nobody on this lousy wiki wanted to do anything, herostratus jerk never stopped me, ever! I HAD NO IDEA THIS GUY WAS ALLOWED TO BE AN ADMINISTRATOR... SHAME ON YOU! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.99.3.235 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-20 19:33:59.
