Who is this lunatic? Herostratus (T-C-L)



Lying about a group of people (many self-identified) as threatening murder, slander without evidence, and planning things we are in no way planning to do? On Wikipedia? Of course!

Edit: Posts split from 'Russavia AkA Scott Bibby' -Zoloft

He's that guy who used to go on about how pedophiles on WP could be "mentored" and "monitored" so that they could make "positive contributions" to "the project" without necessarily using it as a platform for predatory behavior and child-grooming. He was an admin at one point, but people got a little queasy about the potential for pedo-advocacy and took away his admin privileges (which he now explains on his talk page "my performance was judged lacking").

He doesn't appear to be a pedophile himself, far from it in fact - but the fact that he doesn't mention this stuff in relation to sites like Wikipediocracy proves, as it does with so many others, that he's doing the usual Wikipedian hyper-narcissist thing, I'm afraid. Best to ignore him, unless of course you're a parent.

And frankly, nobody should feel the slightest bit apologetic about having made him feel uncomfortable whilst going out in public. He made a mistake, a bad one, and he should own up to it - but he won't, that I can just about guarantee.

Interesting that both Prioryman and Herostratus used to be admins but had their privileges revoked, in part, because of their battleground behavior. And yet, here they are, explicitly calling for more battleground mentality.



These folks have apparently learned nothing from their own history, which is especially ironic given Herostratus' own choice of username.

Keep up the [[WP:BATTLE]], folks. See things in black and white, and try not to ever consider the possibility that your "enemies" might have a point. Sure, that approach might not have worked out too well for Fae, but maybe you'll have better luck with it.

https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Herostratus

@DanMurphy: Herostratus isn't lying. I wrote an Encyclopedia Dramatica article on Herostratus, and I included information about the incident where EricBarbour and others called Herostratus a pedophile based on nonexistent evidence. Wikipedia sysop (and WR user) Viridae blocked Herostratus based on that nonexistent evidence. By "lynched", Herostratus meant a lynch mob of people such as Viridae who would block people and destroy careers based on gossip and rumors instead of clear, tangible evidence.

@Midsize Jake: Herostratus has done much to combat pedophiles and their agenda. In addition, Herostratus was barely involved in "Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/Pedophile topic mentorship":

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch/Pedophile_topic_mentorship&action=history

Herostratus only touched that page twice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch/Pedophile_topic_mentorship&diff=208782506&oldid=208755947

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=move&page=Wikipedia%3APedophile_topic_mentorship

The first time was to criticize VigilancePrime (T-C-L) (now banned), and the second time was merely maintenance.

Unlike others, Herostratus didn't try to have me blocked over my role at ED:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2011/04#My_ED_page

I do not understand. Are you saying that EricBarbour called Herostratus a pedophile based on nonexistent evidence, and he's still sysop here, EricBarbour that is ?

Jeez. It was years ago, on another site, and as far as I recall (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone), Herostratus had edited the subject area, but with a POV opposed to pedophilia, and Eric misinterpreted some edits of his. The error has long been cleared up. No one here, including Eric, believes that Herostratus is, or ever was, a pedophile. Okay?

Neved: It was a mstake, quickly corrected. Would I still be pissed? Sure. But it pales against the extended pogroms that Wikipedia practices against editors like thekohser.
Also, Eric Barbour is not a sysop here. He's a moderator.

We're not nearly as rotten as Prioryman and a few others make us out to be.

Herostratus has authored some falsehoods about me and then went on to be a royal dick about it, so where does that put us? Even, I say.

As I recall, Hero posted a snotty little note on his userpage about his "restrictions".
He was semi-famous for making snarky comments, and for doing a lot of editing in tandem with actual pedos. The histories are very
difficult to tease apart. This time, he really outdid himself -- since I was already looking into the history of the Pedophile Article Watch,
his "jokes" didn't seem very funny at all. I seem to recall that I posted some comments about this in WR's old "book club", which is restricted
access and not for public consumption.

I thought the result was hilarious. One idiot blocks another idiot, based on hearsay posted on an outside forum (in a restricted area). Then the other idiot unblocks himself without any explanation. Then Arbcom shows up and flops around.

Hmm, perhaps I should write this up as a shining example of administrative incompetence.

Look at the block log. Look at the arbitration page. Tell me these geniuses are "valued contributors". And you already know what I think of Arbcom.

So all in all it looks like something Herostratus bought upon himself. It isn't a very wise thing to joke about being a pedo.

Herostratus didn't joke about being a pedophile. He didn't state the reason for the fake Internet restrictions. "Pedophilia" was something that popped into the heads of WR conspiracy theorists.

So, as a regular editor of pedophilia and pedophilia-related subject, he said something that was liable to be construed, and was construed, in an unfortunate way. How exactly did he intend it to be read?

No, Viridae's block of Herostratus wasn't based on the "hearsay" published in Wikipedia Review. As your link to Herostratus's block log shows, Viridae's block was based on his own conclusion from the "snotty little note" that Herostratus's account had been compromised.


Again, no. Your posting of the "hearsay" was not limited to a "restricted area", it was posted on a publicly accessible forum and further elaborated on another one.


I would hope that your account of your own role in the affair would be a little more accurate than the travesty you have produced above. With the possible exception of the "as usual" qualification, Cool Hand Luke's (One, on Wikipedia Review) comment on the matter appears to me to be spot on.

Why would a pedophile be barred from viewing TV, watching the radio, or reading any periodical published before 1960? Use your heads. Anyone who knows Herostratus knows about Herostatus' position on sex and children. Look at the present "Sexology" ArbCom case. Herostratus' position is clear. The conclusion that the WR arrived at wasn't logical. The people on the WR should've done more research instead of jumping to conclusions. Opponents of pedophilia are involved in those articles as well. Articles on subjects aren't solely edited by advocates; they're edited by opponents as well. You can see this on articles related science and politics.

EricBarbour publishes pedophilia claim (22:18)

EricBarbour links to a thread containing his earlier claim ("Mentioned here"), and asks "Why is his [Herostratus'] account still active?" (00:06)

Viridae blocks Herostratus (00:31)

Viridae posts to EricBarbour's thread (01:32)

I don't believe that the timing is a coincidence. I believe that Viridae read EricBarbour's thread, possibly read EricBarbour's pedophilia claim by clicking on "here", and responded to Eric's "Why is his [Herostratus'] account still active?" comment by blocking Herostratus. In addition, Viridae was concerned about pedophilia at the back of his head. Even if Viridae didn't believe that Herostratus was a pedophile, Viridae almost certainly blocked Herostratus due to EricBarbour's posting of rumors on the Wikipedia Review.

Edit: Viridae definitely believed the pedophilia rumors (or at least believed them a few hours after the block):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=346023696 (03:40)



http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28685&st=20&p=223243&mode=linear#entry223243 (17:27)



Please do more than "flicking" through the contributions list next time. Examine and analyze the contributions.

Posts split from 'Russavia AkA Scott Bibby' -Zoloft

Neither do I. In fact, not having checked the precise timing of events, I had wrongly assumed from the contents of Viridae's first two posts to that Wikipedia Review thread that he had not yet blocked Herostratus when he posted the first one. The grounds for my assertion about Viridae's reason for blocking Herostratus are several:

• The explanation given in the block log: "account owner not in control of account".
• The explanation given at the start the AN/I thread which Viridae opened after Herostratus unblocked himself:
  

  	Viridae wrote: Herostratus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is an administrator who, according to their userpage, is no longer allowed to have access to the internet, and has given the password of their admin account to someone else to edit on their behalf "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!" diff. Not realising they were an admin, I blocked them as arrangements like that are not allowed. They have just unblocked themselves, so rather than slipping into a possible wheel war, I am asking for some advice from others.

• On the Wikipedia Review thread Viridae explicitly promised that he would change his block reason if he was given evidence for the accusation that Herostratus had ""apparently" been convicted of possessing child porn". Since he never did change the block reason, he presumably remained unconvinced by the pathetically inadequate speculation that was provided as supposed evidence.
  

I can't see anything here to support the conclusion that "Viridae definitely believed the pedophilia rumours". "Having suspicions" (of something that remained unspecified) is very far from being the same thing as definitely believing rumours of pedophilia. Viridae was clearly concerned that Herostratus might have been convicted of some offence relating to child pornography, pedophilia or something of that nature, but I can see no evidence that he ever "definitely believed" anything of the sort.

Alright, maybe you're right about Viridae and his or her motivation, and I shouldn't had said "definitely".

Locking as off-topic to this site and this present time.