User talk:Herostratus/Archive 3

I will usually respond to your messages on your talk page unless otherwise requested.

Archives Memory hole Archive 1 Archive B Archive Alpha Centauri Archive LVXII

deletion of Sarah Kay

hi Herostratus, i've posted on the "Articles for deletion" page for Sarah Kay about why I feel it should not be deleted. Just wanted to make sure you saw it - thanks for your help and further advice. Erochelson (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Danny Kirwan

It might be more polite not to call anyone a lunatic in your edit summary. In cases where you don't know what you're talking about, just use the edit summary to describe your edit, not cast judgement on someone you don't know. Bretonbanquet (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Rotolo vs Helstrom

Hi Herostratus, I've written a query [1] on WikiProject Bob Dylan Talk page. Best, Mick gold (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply

That warning cuts both ways. You have removed an image that multiple editors have replaced. I have quoted the sections of WP:CENSOR I believe applies, and I believe it fully justified replacing the image. There are a multitude of similar images across wikipedia, and I believe all of them are equally allowed and encouraged under WP:CENSOR. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I am very, very surprised to see a warning dropped on my page, rather than a discussion of the points I raised here, particularly from an admin. I'm actually quite baffled. I have stated why I believe the image is appropriate, and rather than engaging substantively on the talk page, you tagged me with a warning on my talk page. I have no problem with regulars being templated, but I persist in being surprised that you would tag me rather than discuss my actual rational, which I believe very clearly supports the inclusion of the image. Please engage with my comments on the talk page, as policies and guidelines are the issues that determine page content, not individual preferences. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. As a measure of good faith, I'll remove the image until the discussion is complete. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL

:) --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder

I noticed the message you recently left to Klashss. Please remember: do not bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Regarding:http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales. Really, there was no need to respond like that.Canadakid2 (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

PlaneShift article

Hi, the article of PlaneShift video game has been moved to the Incubator for improvements as suggested by other admins. Many new sources have been added, including scanned magazine articles, computer programming and open source books. I think it's ready to be evaluated and moved to the main space. Please review it and move the article to the main space if you think it's ready. Here is the article Thanks. Xyz231 (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Igbo

Hi, your keep on the Igbo categories is quite curious. Four editors commented and 3 recommended upmerging. In your rationale, you said yourself, there is no Players of American Football by ethnicity main category, so I don't understand why you kept it. It really makes no sense and, by keeping it against the consensus of other editors, are really just opening the category up to a ridiculous diffusion. Do we really want to categorize athletes by sports and ethnicity on a large basis? Being of a certain ethnicity usually is not notable in relation to their sport. If they were born in the US, they are African American. If they were born in Nigeria, they are Nigerian. My recommendation is that you re-open the category discussions (all of them, though I am just commenting here on the American football one) and let another admin take care of it. Thanks--TM 19:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned about this close too. Your close sounds to more more like an opinion than a reflection of the discussion. No way can I find a "do not merge" consensus there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Response

I appreciate your concern and applaud your involvement. However, in this case I cannot honor your request. My reasoning follows.

Three comments is not much of a a quorum. This close rests on strength of argument. The cogent comment "...these categories are part of the greater category scheme, Category:People by ethnicity and occupation" is entirely correct, and this commenter seems to be the only one who understood the actual situation.

I admit this was a difficult close. I had to draw the various category relationships out on paper. Not until I had done so did I realize that the nominator (and "per nom" commentors) had fallen into a very understandable error.

The first part of the nom was "Category:Players of American football by nationality should only include nationalities, not ethnicities..." But this has nothing to do with Category:Igbo players of American football, which is not a subcategory of Category:Players of American football by nationality. The nominator simply misunderstood the situation. So I ignored this part of the nom, and accordingly discounted that part of any "per nom" comments.

This leaves the nom (and "per nom"s) solely hanging on the assertion "We shouldn't be categorizing by ethnicity and sport." This is an opinion. However, look for example at Category:Igbo people by occupation, which contains 25 subcategories and scores of articles. Are we to retain "Igbo Doctors", "Igbo Lawyers", and etc. but only cut out those occupations which are athletic? Why?

And then what about Basque, Hmong, Native American, and other ethnicities found in Category:People by ethnicity and occupation? Also cut out the athletic occupations from these categories? This would be nonsensical, and would represent a big overhaul of Category:People by ethnicity and occupation, which I think would be a wholly unanticipated result of the nom.

Yet to delete only Category:Igbo players of American football without also deleting all these other categories would also be nonsensical. It would only make sense if there is something unique about the Igbo people vis-a-vis their relationship to athletic occupations, which I don't think anyone is suggesting.

If the nom and commentors truly believe that "We shouldn't be categorizing by ethnicity and sport", then they need to clarify:

1. Do they really mean "We shouldn't be categorizing by ethnicity and any occupation"? (In which case they should nominate Category:People by ethnicity and occupation for deletion.)
2. Or do they really believe exactly what they said, that sporting occupations are special, and we shouldn't categorize by occupation only for athletes? (In which case they need to include Category:Native American boxers and scores of other categories in their nomination, and make a case for why athletic occupations are different.)
3. Or do they really believe that there is something unique about the Igbo people in particular? (In which case they need to say so, and provide reasons.)

Herostratus (talk) 05:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• This doesn't really answer my question of where the consensus was found. Generously, the overwhelming power that you gave to one phrase by one user may have been able to knock this into "no consensus"—but a straight up "keep"? I'm not seeing it. As for the substantive issue, I think that as the closer that should be something you should largely be avoiding, but to me, it's a question of how far do you take it. There may not be a problem with Category:Igbo sportspeople (the general occupation), but there well may be with subcategorizing it by specific sport, just as Category:Igbo lawyers might be OK, but not Category:Igbo prosecutors. Note that the proposals were to upmerge, not to straight-out delete. But if you don't mind, I think I'm going to take these to WP:DRV to get some second, third, fourth, etc. opinions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok. Good luck! Herostratus (talk) 06:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Just to be clear, if I do so, my intent is not to slam you or nitpick. But I would like to get some clarification from other users if a close like this is acceptable. I close a decent number of CFDs, and it would be nice to have a better idea of what sort of discretion there really is. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Of course I understand, going to DRV is entirely your right (and even responsibility). I'm sorry I couldn't honor your request to overturn, but I still believe I am right and my close was correct. Bit I could be wrong, and if I am wrong, I would rather know it than have an incorrect close stand. Cheers, Herostratus (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• FYI, DRV link. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Chain of Rocks Bridge

Greetings Herostratus. This is MetroFan. Yes I am interested in the Article. Do you also have interests in the Streets of Streets of St. Louis, Missouri? (Jordan S. Wilson (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC))

"Anti-pedophile activism" Article Nominated for Deletion

You have previously edited or commented on the article entitled "Anti-pedophile activism." It has now been nominated for deletion. If you'd like to follow or contribute to the AfD process, please visit the page created for this purpose: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-pedophile activism. Your input would be appreciated. ~ Homologeo (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC).

Chuwentao888

He's believed to be a sock of another user, apparently ... see this. Daniel Case (talk) 04:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Uğur Yiğit

Sorry for the mistake. Türk Deniz Kuvvetleri Komutanlığı confirms İstanbul as his birthplace. - Darwinek (talk) 08:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

AFD close

Regarding [2], please see [3]. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

template talk: sexual orientation

It's against policy (and generally considered bad form) to delete or edit talk page comments from other editors. if you have a problem with what I wrote, please add a comment of your own and we'll discuss it. thanks. --Ludwigs2 17:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed PROD on San Francisco Creamery

Deprodding of San Francisco Creamery

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from San Francisco Creamery, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! - No deletion rationale was given plus this place is most likely notable.--Mike Cline (talk) 21:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Service award

Hey, thanks! Yworo (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Re - 16 & Pregnant

You asked - Should the 16 and Pregnant page be protected - I wasnt sure how to reply but I did on mine and now yours.

Yes, there have been two users (maybe more) vandalizing Leah Messer's and Jenelle Evan's summaries. Posting very horrible things. The IP address that was abusing it was 71.233.82.25 and Master22.. You can see this in the VIEW HISTORY section. I have been trying to do as many edits hopeing they would get lost and stop. My IP is 173.81.108.198 and AmyLaDawn. They were posting things about abortion on Jenelles and that Leah was incest and that her baby has Down Syndrome on hers. I find this disturbing and as Leahs friend I have been trying to get it stopped but I am unfamiliar with WIKIPEDIA as I only came here when someone asked me to check the VANDALISM out. Please put a protection on it. As far as I know I have it all back to the way it was orignially, Ive been trying very hard. Thanks so much for writing me. AmyLaDawn (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

ATTENTION - 16 & Pregnant

I just checked the page and the VANDAL has been back, I undid the EDIT they made but I wasn't logged in so it shows my IP address not my username "AmyLaDawn" Please put a protection on this site permanently. Thanks so much. AmyLaDawn (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Herostratus defcon maritime 5.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Herostratus defcon maritime 5.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. nn123645 (talk) 05:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

User pages

Hi, Herostratus. I saw that you had some question about userfying the My Hustle page. I wanted to let you know that we don't allow copyrighted text anywhere on Wikipedia -- including user subpages. So we are unable to userfy G12 speedy pages. This is essentially because every time an editor pushes the "Save Page" button (which we do for any WP page), it is an implicit agreement to the statement above the button that the text must meet Wikipedia terms-of-use. As far as the User:Mg1200/My Hustle is concerned, I don't think the latest incarnation was an obvious g12 violation anyway -- it appears to have been rewritten enough to pass. It's probably just a notability and self-promotion issue now. This copyright stuff can be confusing, but I hope this clarified that part for you. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Notice regarding BLPN

Please see [4]. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Your comments have been raised at BLP

Just so you know, your comments have been raised at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Is_it_okay_to_violate_BLP_policy_in_the_talk_space.3F---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD

I have deleted your AfD nomination of Kenneth Dickson as a violation of the biographies of living persons policy. You are welcome to renominate the article for deletion, but in that nomination, you must use wording which is sternly neutral and only has to do with the notability policy. If you carry on breaching the bounds of the BLP policy, you will most likely be blocked from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you not only deleted it, you sent it to the memory hole. How'd you do that? Herostratus (talk) 05:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Admin recall

Your BLP violations at that Kenneth Dickson article / AFD represent to me that you are no longer have my trust as an Administrator and I would request recall of your Administrator status, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If you feel inclined you can go to wiki meta stewards and ask for removal of your Admin status and if you want to you can then re-apply for Wikipedia:RFA to see if you have community support or you can also just comment that you are prepared to accept these sample process conditions and see if any other users feel the same. Thanks.Off2riorob (talk) 07:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Admin recall petition for Herostratus

An editor has asked for the removal of my admin status, so let's use Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Sample process. This looks pretty simple, we get six editors in good standing to sign below, then I do a standard RfA. At least, I think that's how it works. I guess maybe I'm not supposed to write my own bill of impeachment, but here goes:

We, the undersigned, being editors in good standing (with 500 edits, one month of service, and no recent blocks) do assert User:Herostratus has abused his administrator rights and that he therefore be impeached, and be required to undergo a new WP:RfA in order to keep his admins status.

1. Support recall,your BLP violations and your refusal to get it since the deletion of said violations leave me without trust in your ability as an Administrator. Off2riorob (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
2. Yes, Herostratus seems to be too erratic. Making attacks on an article subject in an AfD and not knowing that BLP applies outside articles is pretty shocking for an admin, especially one who is not a newbie. Fences&Windows 13:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Notice posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Recall petition. Fences&Windows 13:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
3. Yes, sanction by ArbCom, coupled with BLP violation does indeed show this individual is not fit to be an admin any longer. -- Cirt (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
4. Yes, I'm afraid so. BLP is there for a reason and just because it's in project or talk space doesn't make the potential affects of comments any less severe. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

   As one of the few people who thought your "proxy editing" joke on your userpage was actually funny, and as someone who was willing to give you a pass on your ill-thought-out self-unblock, and who is uncomfortable whenever I find myself agreeing with one of the people listed above, I'm surprised to find myself here. Anyone can make a mistake, but your continual defense of a really clear BLP violation has pushed me over the line. I think a new RFA if you want to be an admin would be a good idea. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Upon reflection, I prefer Balloonman's RFC suggestion below. This isn't the non-issue that some people are saying it is, but it's not a recall-level issue either, as long as Herostratus is willing to listen to feedback. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

5. I concur with the above reasoning. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
6. If your response to the whole issue had been "I'm sorry, I understand the policy now and won't do it again", then I wouldn't see a problem there. People make mistakes. But you still apparently do not understand that what you did was wrong [5] so I reluctantly have to support this recall. --B (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
7. Support recall. Significant BLP issues. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

<strikethrough>OK, you can stop now! We only need six! We'll go to the next step. I believe this has never been done, so this should be interesting and instructive. (Or maybe done once).

I will be off-wiki for a bit, but I'll set up the RfA later today. I claim the right to write my own RfA, so don't jump the gun! Herostratus (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)</strikethrough>

Oh wait. We're supposed to wait seven days. I guess I'm OK with waiving that... I'm not sure if I have that right. Do I? Herostratus (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you can waive the 7 days. –xeno^talk 18:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, but no, I don't think I will waive the seven days. Cooling off periods can be a good thing, and I don't see a huge rush; emergency de-sysop is always available if there is one. And if it's written in the standard, it'd be better to stick to it, all things being equal. The only problem is, you need more than six signatures, because, what if if someone (or more than one) changes their mind? So I guess you all need to keep piling on... damn. (But you know, you don't have to put a reason in this phase, signature is sufficient...) Herostratus (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

"To allow time for cooling off and to facilitate discussion and compromise, petitions remain open for seven days. Petitioners may strike out their signatures at any time. A petition may be closed early as successful at the admin's discretion, but not as unsuccessful. If at the end of the petition period the required threshold is met, then the re-confirmation stage begins; otherwise, the recall fails."

• Herostratus, do you regard the signatures of petitioners who have not pointed out a specific instance of "admin power abuse" as invalid ? –xeno^talk 16:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Erm, well. I see your point, but... I think an admin's non-admin actions can have some bearing on his retention of his admin bit. I do think that abuse of admin powers should have more weight, though. Maybe a lot more; it's not for me decide. I can certainly envision a scenario where a editor who also an admin goes out of control with incivility, edit warring, 3RRing, POV-pushing to the point where you don't want then to be an admin anymore. What, to invent an extreme case, if an admin turns to out-and-out widespread penis vandalism, but doesn't abuse any of his admin rights? Do we not de-sysop this person?

On the other hand, I certainly don't want set a precedent for other admins. De-adminning shouldn't be a "punishment" because we don't like a particular editor in general. Se I would tend to support other admins making this claim. Goodness knows the "standard" criteria I'm using is pretty lax as it is, more lax than most admins use, such as Lars's. We don't want to go down the path where vandals and contentious editors can too easily "get back" at an editor this way.

At the end of the day, I think that admin abuse can be pretty toxic. It's demotivating if there's too many hoops to jump through to remove a bad admin. So, for me, and not claiming to set any precedent, no I don't consider them invalid. Herostratus (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed response. –xeno^talk 18:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like the idea of your sitting for an RfA. I think there has been a pattern of bad judgment (the joke, the bad AFD, and moving a copy-vio to a persons userspace), but I think it is more encumbent upon those who want to see the bit removed to demonstrate a repeated lack of policy knowledge/understanding. Right now, I see 3 isolated incidents of bad judgement, and trust me IMO they were mistakes, but I'm not sure if desysopping is the proper course. I do think a review of actions ala an RfC might be.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm beginning to lean in the direction of an RFC myself, if only because Herostratus appears open to feedback. I'm not sure though, after a while multiple little things start adding up to a big thing. I'll think about it some more before striking out, or confirming, my signature above. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't like it? How do you think I feel? Herostratus (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I also think its probably a waste of everyone's time. I think that the Tribe of SysOp will not like the idea of pulling bits for non-admin actions and will (reluctantly) gang up on "my" side. This is a guess. I don't think that's fair, and I'm mooting the idea of asking SysOps to recuse. I'm not sure that other SysOps should !vote in de-adminning actions. It makes it too difficult to de-admin, maybe. On the other hand, if I do that, I will almost certainly "lose", which would personally devastate me. I'm not made of stone, you know. But then, I'd rather not be an admin than be a bad admin, and I think that all admins feel this way. This is a difficult decison to make, and I kind of doubt if it should be my decision. Yet I don't know who else could make it. Herostratus (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

But look. This is not a case of "3 isolated incidents of bad judgement"; this is who I am. Look at the Opposes on my original RfA, and that was like five years ago. People have been saying Jesus Christ what is the deal with this guy ever since... well, long before any of you were born, I trust. I can modify my behavior somewhat, but I can't change entirely, and it's long past the point where it would do me any good, anyway. But I do understand your frustration. But I'm not sure how to advise you to express it. Yes an RfC is possible, but jeez, so consuming of everyone's time. Shouldn't we be writing articles? Your call. Herostratus (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This is from someone who's only been here a few months, but I think this whole thing is a travesty. First of all, I'd have to agree with Herostratus that BLP is getting out of control. Not only that, but come on- we aren't allowed to voice our opinions, even if they're negative, every once in a while? I read those remarks, and there was nothing that horrific (indeed, I found them a bit amusing), and certainly nothing beyond the bounds of normal political argy-bargy. If someone can kindly point out the "wanton BLP infringement", kindly do, but I'm not seeing it. So what, a disparaging remark against a politician? Since when is that a new phenomenon? We're not talking about anything as serious as the Siegenthaler incident here, just someone's opinion, and no politician in their right mind would try to sue for libel over something like that on the Internet. Come back when you have a serious complaint. As for the joke, I can't believe someone actually believed that for a second (really, a majordomo?), and I can see the copyvio thing as an honest mistake.

Oh, and we even have an article called the Streisand effect. That's more disparaging than anything Herostratus said. People, loosen your jockstraps a bit here, we're allowed to have some fun while editing, aren't we? The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• In AfDs regarding attractive females and their notability (especially so if they do porn or have posed nude anywhere), there are regularly offhand comments made about their "racks" and such, and very rarely are such comments even noted as a BLP violation. We'll be recalling many admins if such comments are now recall-worthy.--Milowent (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Recall, "Shouldn't we be writing articles?" Yes we should. "BLP Issues" is a bogeyman. Yesterday I commented that an article lead-not the article subject--"SUCKS BALLS" and dragged off to the BLP noticeboard. Recall is drastic and will only create more drama when uninvolved editors weigh in.--Milowent (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, not because of some Admin cabal loyalty but because so far all of the evidence submitted for Herostratus' de-Adminning is over that increasingly toxic BLP policy. (And this is the first time I've heard that one can't express one's honest opinion about living public figures. I guess that would mean I'd be permanently banned from Wikipedia for sharing what I thought about certain politicians.) -- llywrch (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Is or isn't the first time? Not sure if that was a typo or not. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No typo: "is the first time" is what I meant to type. (And yes, I know making derogatory comments about the subject of an article is discouraged, & doing so really doesn't help resolve differences over a biographical subject to badmouth the individual -- even if said subject was a scumbag asshole.) "Public figure" is an US technical legal term which includes politicians & celebrities; in other words, one can't be successfully sued in US court for saying an elected official enjoyes sex with farmyard animals -- even if it's not true. -- llywrch (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. People shouldn't become famous if they never want to see their names smeared. That's just a fact. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per my rationale above (I can copy it down if necessary). I can understand BLP to the extent that we don't want the Siegenthaler incident all over again, but I think it's time we have a reality check here. BLP is becoming a dangerous weapon, and just a cursory look at the BLP noticeboard shows the spectacularly unecessary wrecks it can cause. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 06:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment In no way am I saying that posting your opinion or your oppose responses have to stop, however do they serve a purpose? Right now it would appear that a reconfirmation is in order and your opinions would be valuable there. I can understand that this discussion could sway the recallers, but it appears almost like a counter consensus thing? While I've only seen a few things is the criteria for the recall limited to the supporters of recall or do oppose opinions count to this too? Seriously just asking and not discouraging people from posting their opinion. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a way of putting our rationale for seeing this recall dropped. If all the comments on this page were in favor of a recall, it would create a somewhat skewed perspective for someone just entering the fray, when in fact there are both people who want to see Herostratus recalled and people who want to see him left alone. That way, anyone who drops by here during the seven days can read through both sides of the argument, and make their decision based on that. I hear what you're saying, though. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 06:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Hell, I agree with Blade. This recall is going to create useless drama if it proceeds. Based on the comments I saw Herostratus make on the now-deleted Ken Dickson AfD, this recall attempt will be seen a witch hunt and outside the "bounds of reason" society normally adheres to, but not always.--Milowent (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I've seen peopple desysopped for worse. See the case of User:Trusilver, interesting stuff. But as said I wasn't trying to suppress your opinions. Thank you for sharing your rationales with me. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Kinda wonder what Jimbo would make of this situation (or the Trusilver one, for that matter). The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It was a whole fiasco related to the Speed of Light Arb case. Really messy stuff. I believe we asked Jimbo about this and nothing happened. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Cooling off periods are nice. So this means that the new RFA starts 08:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC), then? Timestamped based off of this edit, though I guess it could start at exactly seven days from the timestamp of the sixth signature. Not sure it really matters. I suppose I'll go watch Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2 now; should be interesting! --MZMcBride (talk) 02:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting? Um, I suppose so. Glad I can at least provide amusement, I guess. Maybe the word you might have used is diverting. I'm not sure if diversion is what we need here, but whatever. I'll write up the articles of impeachment tonight, I guess.

I don't want this to turn into a circus over the application of WP:BLP in general, as opposed to my case in particular, so I wrote this as a place where people can discuss these more general issues. Herostratus (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Argh, still didn't get to it. I'm not going to make the deadline! May I have a one or two day extension of my own, I hope? Herostratus (talk) 07:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be ok by me, but I don't think this is the time to talk about changing the BLP policy (nor do I think that policy will be allowed change, nor do I see any need for it to change). The only big worry I have is that you may be unwilling to abide by the policy that all project pages fall under BLP. This said, I do think it's meaningful to remind that you didn't use the admin bit in the kerfluffle that stirred this up, you posted wording in an AfD nom, which strayed from BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe it isn't, but it's my right to make proposals. You are probably right about the policy not being allowed to change. I do promise to abide by the policy as God has given me the light to understand it.

Off topic, but may I say Gwen Gale, I do appreciate your patrolling the BLP issues. BLP problems have hurt us in the past, and I appreciate the difficult work you do, and I mean that sincerely. I just don't want us to go overboard, is all. Maybe I will do some BLP work -- on articles :) -- in future, and we will have the opportunity to work together. I'd like that. Herostratus (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a massive hurry, at your convienience is imo fine. I guess this part of the process is over and the next is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2 , regards. Off2riorob (talk) 08:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Glad I watchlisted it, the drama magnet is live now.--Milowent (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes I have created the page. I don't see it as a drama magnet. It's probably good to get this aired out. Herostratus (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

speedy deletion

sorry i am not trying to vandalize i have heard of this person (ronald spelpts) and decided to make an article about him, i dont mind you deleting it as he is not very well known. sorry Tariq harr (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

BLP

Herostratus, it seems to me, this has been a good faith understanding by you. BLP applies to the whole project space and it's going to stay that way. There is no encyclopedic need to get snarky about living persons here. If someone isn't, say, notable, it's all about what coverage they've gotten, it's not about them. Moreover, saying glowingly wonderful stuff about a living person can stir up other sundry worries, so non-neutral language does cut both ways. So far as Kim Jong-Il and his ilk goes, there are plenty of sources to be had which carry all kinds of adjectives like dictator and much worse. With someone like him, it's an NPoV worry, rather than BLP, that holds articles back from being hit jobs. Truth be told, for many readers, neutral encyclopedic language tends to speak far more strongly than attack language (such as one might find in a blog or frontline political commentary). Now, I'm not saying you have to agree with me about the latter, but please understand, either way, BLP has sway everywhere on en.WP. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

For the present. Now, again: how did you the second AfD for Ken Dickson to disappear? Herostratus (talk) 12:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops, nevermind. Brain freeze. Herostratus (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello again

Yea, I come around from time to time. I don't have the time to edit the way I used to. Hope things are well with you. DanielCD (talk) 02:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, just peachy. Herostratus (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Spoke Emery

Hello - You stated your reasoning for deleting Spoke Emery from the Bay City, MI page was becuase he only played for one week with the Philadelphia Phillies. However, Ernie Gust who played 3 games in 1911 remained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisemery (talk • contribs) 20:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

RFA closed early

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2 was closed by a crat, as being an "improper forum". In addition there was some confusion as to what would happen if/when it had closed after running its course, due to your retaining admin tools during the ongoing RFA process.

Perhaps it might be prudent for you to post to m:Steward_requests/Permissions#Removal_of_access with a self-request for removal of sysop rights, citing Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2. Then, you could open a new RFA, which would run just like any other RFA. This would be less confusing, but also still be in-line with the admin recall process, as outlined at Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Clearly Herostratus opened himself up to a process that current wikipedia rules do not allow to function as planned. Herostratus already made clear before that he was not interested in resigning. The only way a new RFA can happen currently is if he resigns first, which he did not agree to do. He followed what he agreed to do in good faith. Doing more would be inappropriate. Nihonjoe directed you to the proper avenues, which do not require Herostratus to act if anyone wants them to proceed.--Milowent (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That is not what he said. Herostratus stated, "An editor has asked for the removal of my admin status, so let's use Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Sample process." His words. That process was not allowed to fully run its course of 7 days. The recommendation above to utilize m:Steward_requests/Permissions#Removal_of_access followed by WP:RFA, is the best way to address Herostratus's intentions to abide by Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Sample process. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The sample process has been found invalid unless he resigns first, but the sample process does not require him to resign. Heros. said earlier in discussions about the petition process that he wasn't interested in resigning. I believe the best way to ascertain Heros. intentions is to await his opinion on the matter, and he will decide. My opinion based on what I have read is that he never agreed to resign as a requirement of allowing a new RFA to be conducted.--Milowent (talk) 03:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I am quite reluctant to resign just on the say-so of a couple of editors. I'm upset and confused that the RfA was not allowed to proceed. I'm looking into it. Herostratus (talk) 04:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I voted Oppose however this is bullshit. This is not a new process and Herostratus should not resign his tools under these circumstances. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right it's not a new process... for process indicates that there is something to it. The proper avenue would be an RfC, not an RfA. The community has never accepted reconfirmation RfA's.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)