User:Herostratus/RFA vote

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Herostratus[edit]

Final (96/25/9) ended 11:38, 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)

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)
Support
  1. Support as nominator. --TantalumTelluride 20:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. 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)
    P.S. Your humour, evident in your self-interview, rivals that of Bucketsofg. Kimchi.sg 04:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    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)
  3. 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)
  4. Whitie-tightie Support GREAT candidate.--digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 04:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)and I really mean that
  5. 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)
    Expand my support comment. I think Herostratus has a perfect mix of wit and wisdom necessary to edit controversial topics and be a good admin. IMO, some people opposing are taking a very narrow point of view about how to deal with difficult topics. Editing the serious pedophilia topic frequently puts an editor in the line of fire. Sometimes Herostratus uses humor to diffuse these difficult situations. That is a good thing. But he is also very kind and compassionate. When banned user Amorrow began harassing and stalking me, Herostratus sent me emails that were extremely supportive. He also offered specific supportive help. At the time, I had several outstanding issues on pedophilia related articles. He offered to follow up for me so I could chill out and decide whether to stay a Wikipedia editor. When I decided to comeback to Wikipedia and continue to edit the pedophilia and child sexual abuse articles, Herostratus gave me a barnstar for coping with the whole mess. Perhaps more important than anything else, he made me laugh and enjoy being a Wikipedia editor again.
    I think some of the oppose comments are about edits that are too old to be meaningful. He has clearly learned more about Wikipedia copyright policy since January. Additionally Herostratus has done an excellent job leading Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch Editors participating in PAW have a variety of pov about how these articles should be handled. Herostratus respects other editors pov and makes sure all editors can give input. In fact, Herostratus and I often initially disagree on a particular topic. Through discussion we have always been able to work out of differences.
    And most important to Wikipedia, Herostratus and the project would greatly benefit from Herostratus having the admin tools. For example, being able to see the deleted content often found on pedophilia related articles would greatly benefit him in investigating the issues related to these articles. Also these articles are subject to vandalism and rollback and block would be helpful of course. FloNight talk 18:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    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)
    Neutral now. Kotepho 00:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. 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)
  7. Support--D-Rock (commune with D-Rock) 05:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    Strong support for this.
  8. 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)
  9. Support. DarthVader 07:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  11. 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)
  12. Strong Support. Experienced level headed editor, sense of humour. I thought he was an admin! Lion King 15:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support. Dr Zak 16:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    Give him the mop for this display of good sense already. Dr Zak 20:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support per FloNight. AnnH ♫ 20:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support Sure, editor is a bit "rough-round-the-edges" with a few things (the vandal warnings), but he has a marvelous set of bedrock principles. He's right for the mop. Xoloz 21:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support, also per handwriiten instead of templated responses to vandalism noted in the oppose votes. Kusma (討論) 21:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  17. Strong support. Fundamentally sound judgment, does not shy away from difficult issues, seems capable of thinking twice, very stable and level-headed. Just the sort of person we need, with Brandt's mob chasing off the likes of Katefan0. As to the warnings, what wouold you be more likely to respond to - a generic warning or this gem? Just zis Guy you know? 21:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  18. Extreme Neutralizing-the-antihumor-bots'-votes Support. --maru (talk) contribs 22:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support. Examined issues raised in opposes carefully and found nothing that causes any worry here. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  20. 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. Silas Snider (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support, bascially on FloNight's strong recommendation above. Jkelly 22:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support - I have been convinced very thoroughly that he will make a great admin by the opposes below. Our admins need a sense of humour, else they're just dehumanised parts of the lumbering bureaucracy that Wikipedia can be at times. All the 'negatives' raised below are either A) funny or B) minor infringements made in good faith. --Sam Pointon 23:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  23. I like the breath mints thing, you can't go wrong with breath mints. --Merovingian {T C @} 23:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support, I happen to have known Hierostratus personally for years and can vouch for his integrity and resposibility (but not his sense of humor).Killdeer 23:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support Fred Bauder 23:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support--Cspurrier 00:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support per FloNight. Also, by not using the boilerplate warnings, he turned a vandal into making good contributions. And that is bad because....? Garion96 (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  28. Strong support Everyone has flaws; what matters is your attitude. Also per Sam Pointon. Λυδαcιτγ 02:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support per FloNight, JzG and especially Garion96. I never thought I'd see an admin candidate opposed because he helped a newbie "vandal" become a productive Wikipedian. He should be applauded for that, not criticized. FCYTravis 02:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support. Willing to take on difficult niche issues. -Will Beback 03:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support per FloNight and Xoloz. -- Deville (Talk) 03:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  32. Strong Support this editor will be a very good admin. There is absolutely no evidence that he will abuse the authority --rogerd 04:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support this guy for sysadmin; oppose humorless scolds Derex 04:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support per his explanation on my talk page.Voice-of-All 04:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support. per FloNight. BryanG(talk) 05:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support per FCYTravis. There is a difference between humour and messing around. This guy gets the job done in his own way, and it works. Rockpocket 08:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support. Everytime I look at something that appears to be a problem, I see an unorthodox but effective way of handling something. This guy looks to me now like he has what it takes to be a very proactive and valuable administrator; I apologize for my earlier oppose, and I hope others will reconsider their positions also. -- SCZenz 08:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support. Hardworking user who would make a good admin. Capitalistroadster 09:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  39. Strong support Having a good sense of humour and a level head is a real benefit in an admin. We need more admins with this attitute. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  40. Strong Support actually writes personal vandal messages? Forgot to sign a post he moved? Seriously, is this reason to oppose? Every time I have seen him in action or interacted with him, he has shown himself intelligent, thoughtful, and an assett to WP. Great sense of humor and unlikely to misuse admin tools. KillerChihuahua?!? 09:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support no reason to oppose. A very good editor.Anonymous__Anonymous 10:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  42. Strong support, per much of the above, and frankly, much of the comments below as well. I think the links posted below, especially those vandalism warnings, show above all that this user has a very healthy view on vandalism and on interacting with the users behind it. --JoanneB 11:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support support, quite frankly, per most of the opposers. Dig the humour and the day-brightening-effect you can have, which is WP:BITE antidote and can lessen the confrontation in many cases. dewet|✉ 12:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  44. Strong pile-on-from-the-mailing-list support. Seems like a smart and trustworthy editor with a tendency to do the right thing. The Mahk Twen diff, in particular, convniced me — there are very few people willing to put that kind of time and effort into such tedious work as vandal warnings, and we need every one we have. Frame that diff and hang it on the wall. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  45. Strongest Support Would be ridiculous not to accept him given the integrity of his work and his proven record of actually caring about Wikipedia, unlike many other ppl who are already admins. --DanielCD 13:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support, 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 (changed my support from neutral: the parts that swayed me from support to neutral are, on further reflection, not correct or valid). --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support -- Arwel (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: User_talk:Mahk_Twen&diff=prev&oldid=45857228 in itself is a strong contender for best vandal warning ever. -- Arwel (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support, seems a good editor capable of upholding the standards. Jefffire 14:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support. Has done a whole lot of good work so far, and shows no evidence of untrustworthiness. Added to that, he's shown a cool-headed thoughtfulness throughout this RfA. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  50. Strong support. There's a difference between treating Wikipedia like a playground, and treating it like a place where you can whistle while you work. The only semi-plausible reason for opposing is one misunderstanding about fair use...and that's it. Nothing is wrong with non-standard vandal warnings (if there is, somebody desysop me and fuddlemark now for occasionally exercising our sense of humour while on RC patrol). The vandal would very much get the point of the message, and at the same time think "Hey, these guys aren't pompous tightasses after all!" The fake categories are a non-issue. My overall experience with Herostratus has been positive, and I can think of few better candidates to wield the mop and bucket. The more people who understand the essence of what WP is about - having fun while you work, while not making fun the centrepiece - the better. Johnleemk | Talk 16:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  51. Strong support per JzG and Johnleemk. Adminship is no big deal, and the good thing about Herostratus is that he makes it seem that way.  RasputinAXP  c 16:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support: we need more admins who can approach the job with a dash of humour. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: frankly I am appalled at some of the reasons for opposition; I'm having trouble enough taking seriously the advice of users with names like "AndyPandy" and "RandyWang" without the added indications of total and utter sense-of-humour failure. —Phil | Talk 16:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support - good editor, good wikiradar, thinks first, overall good Wikipedian. Quite a few Oppose votes below read like recommendations for giving him the mop. Click here for anticipatory celebrations. AvB ÷ talk 16:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support: I've had a look through some edits, and H seems to tackle difficult issues with good humour. Stephen B Streater 17:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support to balance out some of those incredibly silly oppose votes. --Carnildo 17:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support. Goodness, yes. More common sense is always good. Shimgray | talk | 19:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  57. More editors who are able to take non-cookie-cutter approaches are always valuable. I see no problems that would stop him from being a good admin. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support - nice to see an editor who actually takes the time to write relevant warnings, rather than using impersonal templates. Adminship is no big deal, and I'm not aware of any requirements that admin candidates do any RC patrolling. --Philosophus T 21:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support - on the basis that an admin with a sense of humour would be a positive addition to Wikipedia when we've started to suffer from a degree of humourlessness in our editing patterns across the board. Also, the user has good reasons to need the tools and would deal fairly with vandals: the main job of an admin being to use the extra buttons to preserve and protect the 'pedia against the hard of thinking. And doing that with flair and wit against a vandal using poetry to vandalise us... well, hats off, just hats off to Herostratus. Quality editing and no mistake. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 22:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support. Good sense of humor and unique approaches. For the record, the absurd oppose votes convinced me this editor is highly worth supporting. Shell babelfish 22:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  61. Oppose. While I appreciate the sense of humor, and I empathize with getting carried away with ones sense of humor (we can smell our own), I don't appreciate the humor in the snarks listed here. I had never heard of snarking and I have to say I had a rather negative reaction to it, and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I don't think it embodies the correct attitude for an admin. Aguerriero (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC) Change to support after speaking with others. Aguerriero (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    Snarking is essentially the process of turning advertisements into neutral encyclopedic articles with reliable sources. If anything, well-written snarks should be a reason to support an RfA rather than oppose it. --TantalumTelluride 00:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    With all due respect, I disagree. Snarking strikes me as making a WP:POINT by impugning both the article and the author. However, this is not the place to debate the merits of snarking. Aguerriero (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    Eh? He takes a spam article, researches the subject, and turns it into a proper encyclopaedia article which covers the things the original spammer would probably rather you didn't knowe - and that is bad how exactly? I've not heard the term snarking before but I've sure as hell done this, and had edit wars with the spammers as a result. WP:V and WP:NPOV apply always, and I see no evidence that Herostratus has failed on those. Just zis Guy you know? 14:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support Sharp, funny, and capable. Herostratus is needed because Wikipedia process should remain personable. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 23:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  63. Jaranda wat's sup 01:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support per Flo and KC. FeloniousMonk 03:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support I like this guy. He's honest, he's funny, he has personality, and he believes in process without being a process drone. Opabinia regalis 05:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  66. [ælfəks] 06:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  67. Support Jeez, some people are treating adminship like the football. Thatcher131 06:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  68. Support. Quite apart from the absurdness of some of the justifications of the oppose votes, Herostratus would make an outstanding admin. He has a cheery outlook, which will help him get through the often-stressful job of being an admin. He has a proven track record of contributions and of admin-type actions. No reason to oppose. Batmanand | Talk 09:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support. I like his moxie. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  70. Support. I've liked his sense of humour for a long time. Haukur 11:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  71. Been agonising over this one a while. While there are some people I respect on the oppose side of the tally, and I do think Mindspillage has a point (which has been addressed, I think), on balance the large number of of voices speaking out in support, and a review of contributions, convince me to Support. Keep the sense of humour, but temper it with seriousness when it's called for. ++Lar: t/c 14:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  72. Support Joe I 15:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  73. Support, seems like a nice bloke. Thumbelina 15:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  74. Support; seems like a good user. --Delirium 16:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  75. Support. Seems to be balanced and reasonable, and has a good sense of humor. I find the "Oppose" rationales unconvincing. Jayjg (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  76. Support. Wikipedia could benefit from an admin with a sense of humor. So what if he replies to vandalism with a little song and dance? It doesn't mean he doesn't take vandals seriously, it means he is willing to deal with it in a way few people have thought of, which I thoroughly respect. The experience is certainly there. Make sure you understand copyrights thoroughly. (I tend to avoid pictures myself.) I also find the oppose votes unconvincing, and I strongly believe that this user can learn on the job and will be an invaluable asset to the community as an administrator. Grandmasterka 18:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    It seems to me a lack of goodwill and humor is what drives experienced editors and newbies alike away from this project, and I find most of the oppose votes very appalling for that reason. Changing to Very strong support with a cherry on top. Grandmasterka 21:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  77. Support, his way of dealing with some vandals is far superior to slapping a template on their page.-Polotet 21:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  78. Support, nothing wrong with having a sense of humour. I think he'll be a worthy admin. -- Avenue
  79. Support. A sense of humour can keep you sane in the madhouse. --Bduke 00:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  80. Support. We could use more admins with a sense of humor. And I thought that rhyming vandal notice mentioned below was pretty clever. Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 01:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  81. Strong Support Not much wrong with him and also had a very good sense of humour. Bringing lightness to editing on Wikipedia is a good sign. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  82. Support - give me more editors like him. -- DS1953 talk 14:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  83. Support - I am automatically inclined to favor someone who demonstrates a sense of humor. On top of that, the work Herostratus has shown on the pedophilia-related work demonstrates that he is the kind of calm and lighthearted person we should be encouraging to gather up the mop and bucket. Joyous! | Talk 20:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  84. Support for the helpfulness and kindness he showed an experimenting new user here. This kind of good faith brings many new, testing users into the fold rather then biting them and turning them away. -Mask 00:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  85. Support. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-18 04:24Z
  86. Support - I like the fact that he deals with vandals personally rather than relying on templates. Metamagician3000 11:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  87. Writers Block Support Karmafist Save Wikipedia 21:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  88. I'm borred support GangstaEB EA 23:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  89. Support --Ixfd64 22:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  90. Strong support. Since when is an admin not allowed to have a sense of humor? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  91. Support. PedanticallySpeaking 16:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
    Support: nice bloke. Thumbelina 17:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
    This is a duplicate, see 73. --Rory096 18:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
    Anyone may strike duplicate votes. Xoloz 19:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  92. Support the Mahk Twen message shows a very healthy and positive attitude. MLA 17:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  93. Support, can't see any reason not to. Stifle (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  94. Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
    You've also left your position in neutral, you can't have both :) Please strike one out. - Taxman Talk 19:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
    He has already changed it, but forgot to reactivate the support vote. Re-adding it. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 08:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  95. Support Vildricianus 21:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  96. Strong support. I'd trust this user with the tools. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Strong Oppose didn't seem to take vandalism here very seriously. Also a bitwr 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)
    Moved to Strong Oppose for using a fake signature here for no apparent reason.--Andeh 06:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    What on earth is this? No excuse for not using standard templates? What rot! Lots of people use hand-coded warnings or non-standard templates where occasion demands - what's wrong with tailoring a warning to the particular circumstances? The example above, where the wording prompted the former vandal to go ahead and make a valuable contribution tells us what we need to know here. Just zis Guy you know? 21:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    I would say exactly the oposite. There is no excuse for always using the standard templates. It's inflexible, lazy, and shows little consideration for the variation in situation and in human nature. Good on you Herostratus for not falling into this trap. -- sannse (talk) 08:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    I agree completely with Sannse here. Standard templates do have their uses of course but taking the time to go that bit futher and actually try to turn a user around to stop him vandalising should be commended. I urge uses who have voted oppose because of this to reconsider their position. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    What utter nonsense! The standard warning templates can be useful, particularly in the hands of the more clueless CVUers who would otherwise likely say something they might regret. However, as a general rule, the templates are to be used sparingly at best. If you're capable of writing a warning that treats the vandal/newbie as a human being, refers directly to the incident concerned, and (and this is Important) doesn't fill up some poor schmuck's talkpage with identical and meaningless comments, then you bloody-well do it. Encouraging people to use the templates in situations where they're inappropriate — even opposing because they don't do this! — is the worst kind of ... well, I don't know what it is, but it's the worst bloody kind of whatever it is. Yuck, man. Just yuck. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    Might I also note that this message is not in response to vandalism but to a good-faith newcomer who added some unsourced opinions to an article. Granted, Herostratus probably should have replied differently, perhaps with something similar to {{welcomenpov}} or a personalized version of it. However, there is absolutlely no evidence to suggest that he doesn't take vandalism seriously. --TantalumTelluride 23:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Agree with Andypandy. Certainly doesn't seem like a strong candidate for adminship.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amynewyork4248 (talk • contribs) .
  3. Oppose per Andeh abakharev 08:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Seems like a good editor, but does not take vandalism seriously enough. RandyWang (raves/rants) 08:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose per Andeh.Voice-of-All 09:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    Changed to support.Voice-of-All 04:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    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) Moved to neutral, then support. -- SCZenz 08:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    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)
  5. Oppose per Andeh. --Shizane 10:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. 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)
    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)
    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 Hiding 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)
    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)
  7. 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)
  8. 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)
    Further discussion refactored to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Herostratus
  9. Oppose Attitude to vandalism is a concern, per the thoughts expressed above. --Wisden17 14:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per all above. --Terence Ong (talk | contribs | ESP) 14:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per issues and concerns raised above. G.He 20:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose even before reading every single opposing comment. I like editors and admins with character, as they are people. However, I see a general inability to take things seriously. On my different standards, I note that I (m) seldom oppose candidates due to content on their userpages. However, the fake categories at the bottom of your page made to look like the Wikipedia sanctioned categories is not conveying an image of seriousness. Then, there are the unnecessary uses of web lingo to communicate in edit summaries and comments (as mentioned previously in this RfA). And how about Wikipedia:Snark!? The laissez-faire attitude towards vandalism once again contributes to the lack of seriousness. Like I said, I like character as we're all human. However, I don't get the impression that you'll be serious when you need to be. joturner 20:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    I hadn't noticed those -thank you so much for bringing them to my attention, they have brightened up my day no end. I am off to add the categories "delightfully insouciant Wikipedians" and "Wikipedians who insist on haivng the word Lobster in every article" to my user page; no doubt this will get me desysopped in no time :-D Just zis Guy you know? 21:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose for conduct unbecoming an admin per Andeh and others above - Draeco 06:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose strongly due to history of actions unbecoming of an administrator. Silensor 07:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. Doesn't meet my criteria.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose per above.  Grue  21:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose Too many concerns about conduct raised above TigerShark 22:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose due to a number of concerns raised above. I appreciate a sense of humour, but you need to spend more time learning maintenance tasks and copyright. In addition, I agree with Mindspillage about the concerns regarding "snarking." moink 01:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  19. Per Hipocrite, seems like too much of a risk to use the tools improperly. —BorgHunter (talk) 04:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose. Fails Diablo Test. Anwar 11:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    Hmmm. Diablo Test - interesting. I like it, I think. I like your reasoning (if not necessarily your vote). But though I see your point I'm not sure it's not overly rigid, and to be fair it should defintely be heavily publicized (and if an objection is "Well then people will work on a featured article just to be admins", well hey, is a carrot to work on a featured article such a bad thing?). And it would be one more thing to help weed out any stealth hidden-agenda candidates which we hear about, if such exist. But still, is it fair to apply a standard of which the candidate has never heard... your call. Herostratus 16:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    Ignorance is no excuse. This is an encyclopaedia first and foremost. Anwar 15:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    And encyclopedias also have editors who work on things other than creating good articles. In the case of adminship, the test doesn't make sense - creating featured articles has nothing to do with wielding a mop. --Philosophus T 00:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose as above.—Perceval 20:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose per Andeh. SushiGeek 00:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  23. I do not think this user has the comprehension or disposition to act in this capacity. robchurch | talk 23:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose User is to controversial at the moment to be admin at the moment. — The King of Kings 20:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose I'm sorry. I like the guy and gave him a parrot. There are too many foul mouthed sysops on the project, and I worry he's going to fit the same mold, based on the above. Really undermines the encyclopedia. -- Samir धर्म 08:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. 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)
    Er, just curious, but what is "lack of heavy involvement in certain articles", does this refer to particular articles, or what? Herostratus 19:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry--ambiguous phrasing. I mean that I'd like to see the candidate become entrenched, enmeshed, or really involved in several projects. (none in particular) Adambiswanger1 22:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. 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)
    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) Changed to support - I urge others to reconsider also! -- SCZenz 08:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    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)
    Changed to support. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    Neutral per Adambiswanger1. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    Changed to Support --Siva1979Talk to me 02:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral per Adambiswanger1. Roy A.A. 19:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral: Has spent a fair number of months on Wikipedia, but from all I've heard, he needs to be corrected. --Slgrandson 22:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    Corrected? how? In your mind, what changes would Herostratus need to make himself a good admin, if not now, but for a future RfA? --D-Rock (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Kotepho 00:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC) I would not call some of the article he has "snarked" neutral as they are dominated by the negative aspects. It appears to be promoting using Wikipedia to disparage subjects, which even if it is funny and deserved, is not what we should be doing.
    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)
    The point is to discourage vanity articles. Herostratus 02:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    This set of edits was what worried me the most. You say you are being nice to him, and slightly rail against him... and debate putting him in a category of criminals and generally deride him. The "Hell yeah" is a nice touch when you do add the category. Kotepho 21:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. I really, really like the sense of humor displayed in the vandalism warnings. Shockingly, treating people like people who can be talked to and not just bossing them around, even if they have done something dumb, is generally pretty well-received. And where it isn't, well, you tried. What I really, really don't like is the "snarking" bit. This sort of thing causes problems for Wikipedia when the companies involved have problems with the heavy weight criticism gets in the article. If the article shouldn't exist, get it deleted. If it should exist at all, it should be a neutral picture, not heavily weighted toward criticism to make an example out of them. Mention criticsm and problems but don't make it the focus unless it really is such a tremendous scandal that it deserves an article of its own. I don't know this editor at all otherwise, so neither support nor oppose. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    You make a good point. I myself wonder why I published a possibly controversial essay (which has been in my mind) now. I would like to think that, like storing my negative messages in an easily accesible location, or admitting to making the worst-ever Request for Arbitration in my self-interview, that I'm brutally honest about myself and should get some credit for that. More likely, I'm just a glutton for my doom, as the song goes. Anyway, as to the contents of the essay... I'll stand by it. It's hedged all about with warnings that information must be sourced and referenced and the resulting article should be balanced. In all three of the essay's example articles, the subject would be non-notable absent the negative information, but are notable with it. Would it have been better to just delete the articles instead? I say no, an article should not be deleted just because keeping it would require it to be balanced by including negative information. Obviously snark-hunting should never be a policy or even a guideline, it's just an essay, perhaps an encouragement to go a bit further in researching marginal vanispamcruftisment if one is so inclined rather than just deleting it out of hand. Herostratus 22:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    I edited the essay to include an admonition on the importance of NPOV. Herostratus
  7. Neutral although i can't see the point in his adminship, he's definitely a good editor --Emc² (CONTACT ME) 00:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. NeutralOppose intended to sit it out until saw the pro-support spam on someone's talkpage. Probably not your fault - but I cannot ignore it. Sorry. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    Definitely not my idea... and only one person if I'm correct, and I don't know if one message can be "spam". But that's semantics, it's a valid reason... although at 70% threshold that puts me net 1.5 votes in arrears. Ain't that life. Herostratus 16:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    The only spam I can find is to JzG and KillerChihuahua, both of whom regularly participate in RfA and would have found this nomination regardless of the messages on their talk pages. The user who posted the spam is new to the RfA process and probably isn't even aware that there is a taboo against it. Unless you have reason to believe Herostratus can't be trusted with the sysop tools, I would encourage you to reconsider your vote. --TantalumTelluride 17:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    Right on, I saw it on KillerChihuahua's page - my comment is just below. I reviewed FloNight's contribution history for that day, and these were in fact the only two. Thanks, TT, for being thorough. - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    FWIW the user who solicited the votes is not new to the RFA process, having gone through it themselves - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FloNight. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    Oh, I forgot about that. Still, I'm sure FloNight didn't intentionally break the rules. Crz, thanks for changing your mind. --TantalumTelluride 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. Strong Neutral - I see points for both sides on this one. --Cyde↔Weys 00:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Comments

Comment from nominee: You know, I got to thinking about something. I don't know if this will help or hurt my case, but it happened, so let the chips fall. Anyway, I don't really want to claim this because I'm not certain that it's true, and I'm not proud of my method... but as far as I can figure out I stopped the Squidward vandal, who was kind of a pain in his day... That would count as vandal-fighting, wouldn't it? It's kind of complicated, but I put a short summary on the talk page. Again, I'm not sure myself if it's true, if anyone has better info I'll pull the claim right away. Herostratus 22:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This is driving me nuts: There are quite a few commenters who think I don't understand copyright issues re images. I'm just not getting it... I don't even understand if I'm considered to lax or or too strict regarding copyvio. Aside from blanking a few copyvio pages and the Infamous Evil Coffee Cup Fiasco, my only real assay into copyright issues was at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 March 29, for which I posted some diffs, but to summarize, here is what I argued and what I still believe based on my reading of WP:CV, WP:FU, and the image-use templates. Would someone please enlighten me about where my lack of understanding lies.

    • It is permissible to use an unfree image of a Superman comic book cover to illustrate the article Superman, but not to illustrate the articles Superhero or Comic book. It's permissible to use the cover of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon to illustrate an article on that album, but not to illustrate the article Prism (optics), and so forth. This is my understanding of WP policy (which in turn follows US case law).
    • Mass-distributed artwork, such as art on a comic book cover, cannot be covered under the fair-use exemption for art, which only covers what we call "fine art", particularly one-off paintings and so forth (although limited-edition lithographs are probably covered.) Therefore a comic book cover cannot be used to illustrate Manga of art in the same way that a Picasso painting could be used illustrate Cubism. Unless of course that particular comic book is discussed at some length in the article -- which would be rather odd for a general article such as Manga. The US case law exemption for fair use on art is what it is, it can't be waved away.
    • If an image does not fall under WP:FU, it devolves back to falling under WP:CV. It does not devolve to being covered by no policy at all. (Obviously.)

Also: in my understanding, fair use is deprecated, fair use should be avoided (to my mind, because even though the servers are in Florida and US case law on fair use is relatively well-developed and on the lax side, the law in most other developed countries is less so, and the issue of fair use is not so much our use of an image but the diminished capability for someone else to redistribute our material with assurance that they are not violating the laws of their country). I think I've added one or two fair use images to articles. But I won't be adding any more (although I don't insist that anyone else not, unless instructed otherwise by a policy change.) Herostratus 00:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


User's contributions.Voice-of-All 09:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 

--Viewing contribution data for user Herostratus (over the 4433 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 235 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 19hr (UTC) -- 14, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 21hr (UTC) -- 22, September, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 97.28% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 7.97 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 210 edits) : Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 4433 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.61% (27)
Small article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 2.41% (107)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 17.37% (770)
Minor article edits marked as minor: 46.95%
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 1935 | Average edits per page: 2.29 | Edits on top: 7.53%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 52.9% (2345 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 12.11% (537 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 6% (266 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 27.99% (1241 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 29.64% (1314) | Article talk: 8.66% (384)
User: 12.23% (542) | User talk: 17.35% (769)
Wikipedia: 23.33% (1034) | Wikipedia talk: 5.73% (254)
Image: 1.62% (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)
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)
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)
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))
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)
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)
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)

DriniQuestion

Do you think admins performing actions (deletions, blocks) for reasons not covered on policy should be sanctioned? If so, how? -- Drini 19:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
A: No. If there's something/one that needs to be deleted/blocked but is not covered by policy, advocate to change the policy. That said, I once requested an out-of-policy deletion deletion of Jimbo (which was granted). So I can't say that's an ironclad rule. I guess I'd say the exception would be when there's a pressing need to protect the project from damage, such as a lawsuit. That happens very, very rarely. I guess I would say that out-of-process deletions and blockings should almost always only be performed by Jimbo or at his behest as a WP:OFFICE action. If I saw a need for an out-of-process deletion or blocking, I would appeal to Jimbo before doing it myself. Herostratus 21:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Completely Optional Question from Nobleeagle

Q: What part of Wikipedia do you dislike the most or feel most frustrated with in your time here thus far (this can be a user, type of user, policy, restriction etc.)? Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
A: It's a fine question NobleEalge, I would suggest you consider continuing to use it in future. Off the top of my head, I'd say:
  1. The sometimes long and tedious arguments with child-sex-normalization advocates. And not even them so much as people who are like "Well, why NOT, homosexual conduct used to be illegal", that sort of thing. Oh, and also people who believe WP:NOT censored is an absolute value.
  2. One or two admins are a little bit over the top sometimes, that can be a bit irritating.
  3. The restrictions on images (which I must and do follow), particularly fair use. I wish we could just say "Hey copy whatever content you like but you're on your own for legality, we follow US fair use law."
  4. This RfA.
  5. Hmmm can't think of anything else right off. Mostly it's great fun, the people are great, you're great, I'm great, everything's great.

Herostratus 00:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Unanswerable question from Carnildo

Q: Have you stopped beating your wife? --Carnildo 17:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
A: Yes. Except when I'm editing Wikipedia, because per the overhwelming failure (so far) of my proposal WP:NOT EVIL we now know that no moral rules apply when editing Wikipedia. It does make it hard when I have to use one hand for typing, though. Herostratus 00:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with frustration
You buy a dozen eggs. One of them is broken. Do you:

A. Eat eleven eggs,
B. Go back to Wal-Mart and pitch a fit about it,
C. Locate and kill the chicken, or
D. Other

— Jun. 19, '06 [19:24] <freak|talk>

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

Self-interview[edit]

Ego: First of all, I'd like to thank you for coming here.

Superego: Of course. I'd never miss an appointment. I had the devil's time getting him here on time, though.
Id: I'm here, OK?

Ego: So, let's start right in. Why do you want to be an admin?

Superego: Well, we feel that it’s important to contribute to the community, and
Id: Oh blah blah blah. Because it’s an honor, duh. Why do YOU want to be an admin?

Ego: Uh, I’m asking the questions here.

Id: Oh, c’mon.

Ego: Well, I must admit your point, after all RFA is the only formal validation in Wikipedia, for most people, and a rite of passage. The "no big deal" thing is hogwash. But back to you guys. What duties to you expect to perform as an admin?

Superego: Well, I’d be good at closing AFD’s I guess. I think I could rescue more speedies. I’ve done some speedy watch and rescued near as many as I’ve made, but not being able to see ones that have been deleted is frustrating.

Ego: Are there any downsides to being an admin?

Id: Yeah, work.
Superego: Well, it might make deletion review work harder, actually. Deletion review is not supposed to be about content, and I’d be tempted there I guess.
Id: Oh, God. You can be such an egregious prig sometimes, you know that?

Ego: Guys, please.

Superego: I dunno. I guess it might take away from article work, not that I do that much now.

Ego: What’s your take on the Great Userboxen War?

Superego: Well, I’ve seen a lot of people with hardened positions. Argument is supposed to change people’s minds. I don’t think that’s happened much, it’s just sniping from entrenched positions. I myself considered the various points of view, and my position has evolved from pretty much a pro-userboxer to being against some major classes of userboxes. I don’t see that many people considering each case as it comes, as I try to do. But out-of-process deletions are, to quote Tallyrand, worse than a crime, they are a mistake. They frost me, and I sometimes jump in with a snark when that happens. Otherwise I stay away.
Id: It’s boooooring.
Superego: Yeah. And it’s depressing to see a bunch of people who know basically zero about how organizations work bloviating like they were Peter Drucker. On both sides. Waste of time.

Ego: Is there anything you’re particularly proud of regarding your work on Wikipedia?

Superego: Well, founding the Pedophile Article Watch, and working some in that area, even though I don’t really like doing it and it doesn’t win me any popularity contests. I think it’s important, because Wikipedia articles come up so high on searches now.
Id: For me, um… well, corresponding with A.J Weberman, I’ve never corresponded with an actual celebrity before.
Superego: He’s no celebrity, dork.
Id: Maybe not. Um, I guess, finally digging up the identity of the George Reeves guy after several people had been misled, which finally got him to desist. Writing.articles, some of which are good. Some of my graphics.

Superego: Yeah, I can agree with you for once. Most of the articles aren’t really that good, though.

Id: Oh, and getting astronomy information into an article on a breath mint.
Superego: That was stupid. And anyway, it’s a candy mint.
Id: It’s a breath mint.

Ego: My understanding is that it’s two mints in one. But let’s move on. Is there any reason you think that you shouldn’t be an admin?

Id: Yeah, there are too many damn admins. Plus, you have to hang with a lower class of people, y’know?

Ego: Uh, I’ll take that as a joke…

Id: Take it however you want to.
Superego: People can look at User:Herostratus/hate mail and judge for themselves, if they want to.

Ego: What was your worst Wiki moment?

Superego: Submitting an Request for Arbitration that was dismissed out of hand as “The silliest RfA ever, and that’s going some.”

Ego: Wow.

Superego: It was a learning experience.

Ego: Moving on here… to finish up, a few personal questions. Is there anything about yourself, personally, that you’d like to share with the readers?

Superego: Good Lord, no. Are you kidding? Take a look at User:Herostratus/george reeves mail – and that’s nothing compared to the emails, which are chillingly more threatening, and credible. I’d never reveal identifying personal information. And I think admins who do are playing a dangerous game. I don’t see how you can be an effective vandal fighter if your real identity is known.
Id: We have an IQ of 146.
Superego: Oh my God. Do you really that that statement is going to win us votes? Plus, it's not even true, fool.
Id: Whatever.

Ego: If your RFA succeeds, how will you celebrate?

Id: Strangle and eat a chimpunk, I guess.
Superego: Rearrange all the objects on my desk to precisely face geographic north.

Ego: Boxers or briefs?

Superego: Uh, I’m not sure that that’s an approp…
Id: Tighty whities. From K-Mart. He buys them.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Herostratus/RFA_vote&oldid=1199043823"