Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Herostratus

Final (78/48/21); Ended 17:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• First editor closing: I vote that the request for adminship was not successful.  – Tommy [message] 15:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC) (closing rationale)
• Second editor closing: I vote that the request for adminship was not successful. Herostratus (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC) (closing rationale)
• Third editor closing: See Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2#Gwen Gale's close. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Herostratus (talk · contribs) – Self-nom. This is an administrator recall. I am an administrator now, but six editors in good standing have initiated a recall here. A bureaucrat person (TBD) Three selected editors should will close this RfA exactly like any RfA (see below). If I "pass", nothing happens; if I "lose", I promise to immediately go to m:SRP and request removal of my admin status under the "under a cloud" provisions. Just as with any RfA, you if think I should be an administrator, you should vote Support; if not, Oppose. It is entirely in the hands of the closing bureaucrat editors whether he will use the same closing criteria as any other RfA or not.

Now: I do not want to be de-adminned and don't think that I should be.

First of all, if you look at the recall petition, all of the petitioners cite WP:BLP issues. This is in response to a particular incident, which we'll get to in a moment. That is, in effect, I am being recalled over this incident. I think that is a great overreach of BLP. It's too complicated to discuss this incident here, so I made a separate subpage. It's here. This is not a BLP discussion, you can go here for that.

Second of all, no one has suggested that I have abused my administrator rights. That is, no one has claimed or can claim that I have ever inappropriately blocked an editor, deleted a page, protected a page, published deleted material, that sort of thing, except for this one instance: about three months ago, I was strongly admonished by the Arbcom, for 1) unblocking myself, and 2) general lack of decorum. As to the first, I would say:

• I was blocked by mistake (the blocking admin was kind enough to later admit the mistake and apologize.)
• I thought that the block was a simple technical mistake -- the blocking editor had typed in the wrong name, or the software had screwed up, or something -- since I hadn't received any warnings or messages and the block summary didn't make any sense (to me).
• I abjectly apologized and promised to never unblock myself again.
• I've served my sentence, in that I was taken to the woodshed by ArbCom, so why should I be punished again now?

As the second, lack of decorum - that is, putting a joke on my user page - I don't know what to say. I didn't apologize for this and won't. I have never been noted for decorum, this was raised at my first RfA, I passed anyway, and... meh. If people don't think I'm decorous enough to be an admin, they should vote against me. The whole incident was a tempest in a teapot and is not worth further explaining. I will if asked. I also wrote about it here.

As for the rest... I'm not a very active admin. I had to be away for two years, and I made at least one stupid rookie mistake when I came back (though not with the admin tools). I'd see a fair point in de-adminning me on that ground and making space for new blood. When I do do admin work, I do it as well as the next person, I guess.

I think interviews can be useful. In my first RfA, I posted a self-interview. For this RfA, I asked my friend the noted art critic Lazlo Toth to interview me. It's here.

Finally, I'll specify that admins recuse themselves from please be mindful of the appearance of possible conflict of interest when voting and discussing on this page, thanks. Admins exist to serve the editors, not each other, and there's the danger here of the Tribe of Admin being inclined to protect one of their own. We don't want people to get the idea that anyone would be self-serving (i.e., "I myself would not like to be recalled in this manner, therefore I will not support this recall"), as this is toxic to the trust needed to maintain this kind of project.Herostratus (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Well, if I am not de-adminned, I promise to try to be a little more active generally. I din't like to specialize in any one area. Requested moves, CfD closes, protection requests, wherever a big backlog comes up. Some areas I'm just not good at -- I'll never be good at Admin Intervention Against Vandalism, I'm just too slow. And I don't really like working with images and copyrights. Basically, what I do now, except as much more of it as I can stand. Which may not be that much more than I do now.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I don't have any really big contributions, just this-and-that. It's basically laid out on my user page, so go there. I am pleased with the Service Awards since they were basically all my own work (originally) and I'm glad they've taken hold, while at the same time recognizing that some editors find them loathsome. And of course that is meta-work, not real work. And let's be honest: compared to real editors, editors who have real subject matter expertise, I'm nothing.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I haven't been in a lot of huge conflicts over editing. Except for the Pedophilia Watch articles, which are pretty much under control, I don't get all that excited about content. Other users don't cause me too much stress, generally. I'm not immune from occasionally getting snarky, but I try to find the good points in all the people and all the work here, generally. For instance, the people on Wikipedia Review who called me horrible names? That didn't stress me, it made me laugh. The editor who blocked me? That didn't stress me, he was acting in good faith to protect the Wikipedia and that's what counts; as far as I am concerned we are good colleagues and I look forward to working with him. An ArbCom case being brought against me? That didn't stress me, it's his right. This admin recall against me? That doesn't stress me, it's your right. You know what gets me mad, though? People trying to hijack the Wikipedia for their own purposes, whether ideology or PR or whatever. I hate that. I despise puff pieces and advertisements. I don't even know why, but I do. That's why I'm here now, I guess. I don't usually use intemperate language, but I let myself get goaded into it this time, and here I am.

;Additional optional question from S Marshall

4. I think that the concerns relate to BLP and particularly whether your knowledge of BLP policy is current. Accordingly, I'll ask you a question about BLPs that isn't about a past incident you've been involved with. The purpose of this is so that editors can judge whether this recall petition arose from an isolated incident or whether there's an ongoing issue with your understanding of BLP.

Background: A hypothetical article is about Jane Smith. She's an English businesswoman. She's received significant coverage in the media on two occasions. First, she was a contestant on The Apprentice (UK TV series). She didn't win, but she did attract more than enough coverage to meet WP:N. Then a couple of years later, she was arrested on a charge of financial irregularities in the management of one of her businesses. This was also widely-reported in the media.

Scenario: A new editor appears on Wikipedia. It's a new account, called (let's say) User:Caveat Lector, and it immediately begins making edits to Jane Smith's article (and edits to that article comprise all of its namespace contributions). The edit Caveat Lector wants to insert is to say that although Jane Smith was arrested for financial irregularities, she was released after questioning and the charges were dropped. Caveat Lector does not provide any sources for this assertion, and when challenged, cannot do so. Caveat Lector nevertheless insists on adding the edit, saying that "regardless of whether it's sourced, it's true!" and another administrator blocks Caveat Lector for 3RR. No reliable sources can be found that either confirm or deny Caveat Lector's account; the coverage just stops after the arrest.

In an unblock request, the account then begins making legal threats on its own talk page, saying that Wikipedia's current content is false and libellous. It also argues that Wikipedia's current content does not present a neutral view of Jane Smith (whom Caveat Lector describes as "my client"), and says that a balanced view would require Wikipedia to add that the charges were dropped.

Please tell us how you think Wikipedia should react to this scenario.

Please disregard this question.—S Marshall T/C 14:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Tommy2010

5. When you say you don't want admins to vote here because you feel they may be more biased to support you as they may want to "protect one of their own"... can you elaborate more on that? I can't help but feel it's because non-admins cannot see deleted contributions which a sysop would, which would be useful in an RfA such as this.

A:Sorry. I have removed this request, anyone can vote. I just did not want the possibility of SysOps voting "Support" because they oppose the recall procedure becoming established in precedent and they themselves becoming subject to it, which would be self-serving. Or of this possibility becoming a questions in editor's minds. If I had any ulterior motives, I'm not consciously aware of them. Herostratus (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Cube lurker

6. If you do believe that you were wrong to refer to the article subject the way you did, why would you then propose policy here Wikipedia:Material_concerning_living_persons_in_non-article_space that would make such behavoir within policy?

A:It is possible to do something wrong that is not a BLP violation. The AfD I wrote was poorly written indeed and I was wrong to do that. However, it wasn't a violation of WP:BLP in my understanding of the spirit, purpose, and raison d'etre of this policy. Is this splitting hairs? Maybe I am splitting hairs. Anyway, Wikipedia:Material_concerning_living_persons_in_non-article_space is really a separate issue. It's just a place where people can discuss some of the repercussions of BLP enforcement and make a change if the community wants to. It doesn't really have much to do with the AfD. Herostratus (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying it was wrong, but you want to make sure that there are no consequences for other people doing similar wrong acts?--Cube lurker (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

A trout slap is not "no consequence". Herostratus (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from TPW

7. Regarding that oft-cited AfD, you claimed that the subject himself claimed to be a redactophobe and a redact. Could you explain what led to that particular assertion? I just can't find any hint of a suggestion of where he might have said anything that could be interpreted that way, and I believe your clear response could be very useful for those on the fence.--~TPW 22:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

A:In politics, we have such things as "code words". He has a web site. It is filled with them. An assertion written in Japanese is still an assertion, and an assertion written in code is still an assertion.

Now, please note, that when I did call the person a redactophobe and a redact, I was violating BLP. It wasn't libelous, because the person is a politician and in the USA it's practically impossible to libel a politician (unlike in Britain). But that's a technicality. It was a BLP violation, and I'm ashamed and promise never to do that again, win or lose. But I was provoked. But that's no excuse. I lost my head. I am passionate about the Wikipedia and protecting it from spam, especially from redacts. But a violation is a violation, it is still a perfect;y valid reason to vote Oppose. Herostratus (talk) 03:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Question from Doc Quintana

8 If a consensus is found to put in a fact that is clearly wrong and harmful to the encyclopedia(let's say, a group of users come to a consensus that George Washington was the first man on the moon and invented the cheeseburger), what do you do? Respect consensus or respect the encyclopedia?

A"...put in a fact that is clearly wrong..." How can a fact be wrong, I don't understand this part of the question. However, as to "put in a fact that is... harmful to the encyclopedia...", each situation has to be weighted, but avoiding harm to the Wikipedia trumps most everything, ultimately. For instance, if you recall the Daniel Brandt case, he was 1) notable, and 2) demanding that his article be removed or he would move heaven and earth to destroy or harm the Wikipedia, and 3) of the type of person and with the resources to make such a threat extremely credible. I strongly advocated removing the article, its passing WP:NOTABILITY notwithstanding. You have to be reasonable about these things.

Let me cite a much more pertinent example, a struggle over a lolicon image. There was a drawing in the Lolicon article (not the one there now, that one is OK) that depicted an essentially unclothed six-year-old with a teddy bear in S&M regalia, a dildo, and a a come-hither look. It was to my mind a clear political danger to host this image and I went hammer and tongs to rid the Wikipedia of this image, and there was a very extended and lively debate, but alas all my powers of persuasion were unable to achieve consensus to this effect. So I asked an admin to delete it under WP:IAR, and this was done. A lot of people found this hateful and maybe they are still mad; I can't help that, and I'd do it again.

So ultimately consensus is a means to an end, I guess, not entirely an end in itself. That being said, it is a terrible thing to override consensus, as it is toxic to the general workings of the Wikipedia, and is demoralizing, and should only be done in the most extreme cases. I've closed many XfD's with results that made no sense to me but followed the consensus, and so forth.

So in a case where, say, it's stated that Language X is an offshoot of Language Y, and there are good references to this effect, and the general consensus is that it's correct to state that in the article, but it isn't true -- I would leave it. One has to. "Truth" is a slippery concept, and the Wikipedia never promises to tell the truth but rather to present unbiased and properly referenced material approved by consensus. (I believe there is a policy to that effect but I would have to look it up). Herostratus (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Question from Townlake

9. So now you have decided you will be closing this RFA yourself, with the help of two mysterious unnamed editors. Why shouldn't a bureaucrat close this as "no action taken"? Why the extra unnecessary theater?

A.What's mysterious? You can find them in ten seconds if you look at my edit history or talk page. I haven't named them because I don't have their permission to do so, yet. As to the other: the bureaucrats won't close this RfA; they refuse to. What would you have me do? I could just let the deadline expire and let the first bold editor so inclined to close it. Maybe this would be better. I honestly don't know what to do and am trying to do the best I can. Please take further discussion of this to the talk page. Herostratus (talk) 11:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Herostratus
• Requests for adminship/Herostratus/Interview
• Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2
• Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2/Interview
• Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2/The Great Galoot Scare Of 2010

• Links for Herostratus: Herostratus (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Herostratus can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• "if I "lose", the closing bureaucrat removes my admin status"

  As a point of order, bureaucrats have neither the community mandate, nor the technical ability, to remove admin status. You would need to request removal of the rights at m:SRP. –xeno^talk 14:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, got it. Herostratus (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Some of the comments below are a bit disingenuous. I would like to ask the community to tone down the sarcasm and invalid counter-arguments.  – Tommy [message] 16:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

How this will be closed: According to the bureaucrats, they are not tasked with closing this type of RfA, or even allowed to (except in their capacity as regular editors). Therefore per various discussions and suggestions, I (Herostratus) will close the RfA myself, assisted by two editors I have asked who have been kind enough to agree to assist me. Thus the close will be made by a trio, with the majority prevailing. The editors I have selected are persons who, I believe, cannot be accused of being biased toward me personally or my situation generally. I hope and trust this is to everyone's satisfaction. (Comments, if any, on the talk page please.) Herostratus (talk) 04:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering you brought this as an RfA, you could request that a bureaucrat close it. Question 9 stands. Townlake (talk) 04:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, they cannot. There is a lengthy discussion at bureaucrats' noticeboard (permanent link) about this recall RFA, and it is made clear that bureaucrats cannot close this recall RFA themselves. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

On a skim, I don't see Herostratus being forbidden from requesting 'crat closure in that thread. Would you mind sticking some sort of marker / "arbitrary break" in the spot in the thread where this is clearly stated? I believe you that it's there, I just don't see it. Thanks in advance. Townlake (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Deskana's comment:

“ You're right, many believe that they [reconfirmation RFAs] don't represent a well-accepted practice and that they are ill-defined. Again, all standard arguments against reconfirmation RFAs. But a bureaucrats job is not to decide what is and what is not acceptable to the community, it's their job to implement it on a technical level by handing out administrator flags and determining consensus. So until there's a consensus against reconfirmation RFAs or this particular RFA, it would be completely inappropriate for me to shut it down as a bureaucrat. ” — Deskana 00:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC), Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Herostratus' "recall" RfA

Reconfirmation RFAs are sometimes closed by bureaucrats, but not always. They have usually been a disputed process, and no consistent process has been agreed on. A bureaucrat may close the RFA, but given the mess that it is in so far, that seems unlikely. Herostratus is probably going to have to close this himself (or with the helpers he mentioned above). —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Per the nomination requesting that admins recuse themselves, I am noting that I am an editor, not an admin. I offer my extremely strong support for not de-admining this editor. At worst, Herostratus offered a few obviously sarcastic but poor taste comments in a BLP AFD discussion. This happens all the time, so I fully expect most admins here on the project to resign if Herostratus is recalled. Let's drop it and go work on improving articles.--Milowent (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   • ETA: Note that Bureacrat Nihonjoe closed this RfA at 3:30 on 24 June[1] as the "sample recall" process being utilized is not a guideline or policy, and as implemented here, is not in accordance with policy. See discussion at User_talk:Nihonjoe#Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship.2FHerostratus_2. Then Editor (not a crat or admin) Ncmvocalist unilaterally reverted the close. I expect that it will not (and should not) remain open.--Milowent (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
   • ETA: See also Jimbo's points on why this case is flawed: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Herostratus_2#Some_philosophical_thoughts--Milowent (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
   • ETA3: See my determination that the article subject is a bigot and homophobe, Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Herostratus_2#revelation_break.3F, though Herostratus has not argued that in his defense.--Milowent (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

   Why are you suggesting that most admins will resign? Off2riorob (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   Because I assure you we can find similarly evil transgressions from many admins. And if Herostratus should go for his, shouldn't they all?--Milowent (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   - I don't see any other Administrators who have edited in a similar manner. You are welcome to provide diffs but without them your comment seem to be opinion only. Off2riorob (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Is_it_okay_to_violate_BLP_policy_in_the_talk_space.3F shows the comments that Herostratus made on the offending AFD. I will look for other admins who have made similarly disparaging comments in a single AfD at some point for comparison.--Milowent (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   OK, it literally took 5 seconds to find my first example. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Lynn admin RockMFR disparaged the BLP AFD subject thusly, "When a subject's tits and sex appeal (and awards resulting from it) are the only bits of notability, there needs to be strong evidence that they are worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia along with the tens of thousands of other chicks with nice racks. BTW, nice rack."--Milowent (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   Is your argument therefore that because another admin did it it's OK for this one to do it? Malleus Fatuorum 17:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   No, the argument is about double standards. Why hold one person to the standard and not another, admin or not? The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   No, Malleus, my argument is that you should be made a superadmin.  :-) My real point is that recall of an admin is a drastic response to a minor and common infraction in AfDs.--Milowent (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   Example 2, in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Orly_Taitz_(2nd_nomination) there were references to the BLP subject as a "fame whore" and "attention whore", including by admin johnk. The use of the term whore was later subject to minor scolding within the AfD, not the admin recall of johnk. No doubt some people might find this word use offensive.--Milowent (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   There is a long list of admins who should be removed but hide behind the lack of mandatory recall procedures. That has no bearing on this RFA IMHO.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   Well, I am asking you to consider whether the admins I identify above should be recalled for those comments. They know the rules.--Milowent (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   If i'm reading the logs right, your first example took place 2 years before the user became an admin (I believe I am reading the logs wrong). On the second I believe the potential was there. If he followed it up with a policy proposal allowing the use of the term whore in AFD's of living people I'd oppose in that RFA too.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   Had my dates wrong but #1 was still pre RFA and still ancient history.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   If someone can collapse the discussion of my support !vote to avoid getting all off track, that is fine.--Milowent (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   I tried to but it keeps blowing out the numbering. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

2. Support with the codicil that the information I have reviewed is decidedly missing what may be key information, so I may have to reconsider. I admire the ethics underlying this reconfirmation, and do not believe that any specific BLP violations rise to the level of requiring this level of sanction. The violations of WP:CIVIL are troubling, but I have seen far worse examples from admins that have not submitted a reconfirmation.--~TPW 15:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   Reaffirming my support after considering all the information here. Herostratus' jokes amuse me, but really don't belong on this site because editors may not get the joke because they are busy, distracted, don't speak English fluently, or because dry humor translates particularly poorly online; many editors here are also humorless and Hero should know that by now. His comments at the AfD do not rise to an extreme BLP violation in my view; he made an assertion about the subject based on his (likely biased) review of the facts, and should certainly have bitten his tongue or walked away from the keyboard instead, but he believed that it was a claim of the subject himself. The fact that he stated so shows extremely poor judgment, and his comments after the fact show that he was unaware what a hot-button issue BLP has become. On the other hand, the comments made about Hero himself were certainly inappropriate in the context of BLP policy; I am always amazed at how easily accusations like that come out on Wikipedia, and it frankly sickens me. Herostratus should agree to re-attend the new admin school or otherwise get brought up to speed around here as a condition of keeping his admin rights.--~TPW 14:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

3. Support wholeheartedly I don't know and honestly could not care less what the BLP violation was. BLP is taken far, far too seriously here on Wikipedia and some people really need to get a life if they are offended by the little things editors get admonished for sometimes. I like a user with a good sense of humour, who doesn't feel the need to conform to exactly what's expected of them. The fact that some of you are calling this man a pedophile without even knowing him just shows how prejudiced and pompous some editors really are. It's a disgrace that anyone should ever have to put themselves up for recall in this manner and if it fails, I will lose the very last shred of hope I have that this place can ever be a reasonable community. As for civility issues, I have seen much, much worse from many admins in the past and the "misdemeanours" of Herostratus are definitely nothing to deserve revocation of admin status. BigDom 16:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   Who are you speaking to? As of right now, I am the only user who has brought up the pedophile issue...and I am not yet convinced one way or the other, but when the issue of HAVING SEX WITH CHILDREN is involved, it's damned sure the right thing to do to look into it. Keepscases (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   Like I commented below, RL should not be confused with Wikipedia, ever, unless the user is the one who wants to out himself. If true, we can hope he seeks counseling but as long as it doesn't impact Wikipedia, it's not our concern. Thank you.  – Tommy [message] 16:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   Not speaking to anyone in particular, I realise that you are the only one in the RfA who has brought up the idea of this user being a pedophile, but I assume that it has been mentioned before and you haven't just dreamt it up from thin air? One way or the other it has no bearing on whether or not Herostratus is an admin. If he is a miscreant, that is for the courts to decide, not us. BigDom 16:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   Breaches of WP:BLP can potentially get the Foundation sued for libel, and breaches by admins could really be a PR nightmare. Wikipedia has plenty of enemies would could easily pounce on stuff like this, and so I think it's really quite a serious issue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   Oh golly gosh, we wouldn't want enemies now would we? Mummy, make the bad people go away. BigDom 16:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   I really don't think sarcasm is going to help here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   Oh, get a grip. BigDom 17:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

4. Support: If for no other reason than to offset Cirt's stupidity below. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
5. Strongest possible support for two reasons. First, per MZMcBride above. Secondly, and far more importantly, this looks an awful lot like a witch hunt- it seems like there's a sort of WP:IDONTLIKEHIM attitude, as opposed to actually being concerned about his administrative capacities. He's been doing a fine job, and there's no need to pillorize him now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
6. Support unless and until abuse of admin tools to a degree warranting their removal is demonstrated. Also linking [this page], for the benefit of users like BigDom who, judging from his comments above, may not have seen it and may be confused by that part of this discussion. Finally, I want to express my admiration for an Admin prepared to go through this process. Many have pledged openness to recall. How many have honoured that pledge when the time came ? - Begoon (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks for the link, which shows beyond any reasonable doubt that this man is not a pedophile. If people are being accused of such vile things simply because they focus their edits in a particular area, I count myself lucky that I tend to stick to articles about professional footballers. Like you say, the fact that Herostratus has honoured his recall pledge is a real credit to him. BigDom 16:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   Quite. It's unbelievable really. An editor decides to clean up some potentially very undesirable agenda pushing, and ends up being accused of being a paedophile because they edited the articles. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

   It is worrying. That's why I included the link. I happened to have seen that essay at the time of the ridiculous WR slur, and it was not obvious to me that other people voting here would find it. Sad, though - I reverted some vandalism and reverted some POV editing at Incest at one point, when I was looking at "Recent Changes" - I'd probably think twice before doing that next time because I've seen this happen. - Begoon (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

7. I don't really find his "jokes" funny, nor I would agree with him on his views of BLP, but mainly I see no evidence of abuse of administrative tools either, it would be a different story if the admin tools got involved in the articles he's been editing however. 山本一郎 (会話) 18:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
8. Support. I don't agree with his proposal, and will shortly say why there, but just proposing a change that I don't agree with isn't a reason to desysop someone. As for namecalling, it was certainly wrong, but he admits it. ("..I went completely insane...") We make mistakes, it's part of being human. If he makes a habit of this, we can return here, but I don't think he will. Finally for being a pedophile, that's just ridiculous. So he edits pedophilia articles, surely somebody has to. I wrote the articles about two Ugandan rebel groups, an Indonesian musician, and a city in Tajikistan, does that make me any of those? (Caveat, I think I met this editor face to face for about 20 minutes in a meetup recently. I don't think that's a major factor in my support.) --GRuban (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
9. Support – Just because he's an admin does not mean he isn't human. We need to accept that admins do make mistakes. I also congratulate Herostratus for undertaking recall, as I have seen many recall RFAs usually fail. I still trust Herostratus, even if he has made some mistakes. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 20:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   Impressive that you've seen many recall RFAs fail, since it's only happened once in the entire history of Wikipedia. – iridescent 20:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   Actually, many of the Recall RFAs listed on the page did not even start. I meant that out of the ones I saw (which weren't that many) the tally would not have passed as a normal RFA. I have edited my comment above. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

10. I have considered my !vote here carefully. I land here ultimately because I don't think Herostratus has abused the tools in a way warranting recall, and the BLP incident - while unbecoming - is not of sufficient gravity to warrant desysopping. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
11. Support I cannot see any actual abuse of the admin tools, so I see no reason to de-sysop. Immunize _{Contact me} 20:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
12. Arrgh. I don't appreciate his sense of humor, and I believe his attempt to change policy in line with his beliefs defied consensus. However - he was blocked for something he did not do, and then admonished for unblocking himself. He's not really abused his tools. Herostratus, try to act more like an admin. Help me to be happy about this !vote. →StaniStani  23:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
13. Support Herostratus has made a not-so-right decision but I believe he has learned from it. There has been no outright abuse of the tools and I'm completely satisfied with his explanation in the nomination statement. BejinhanTalk 07:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
14. Support The name-calling (I think the main word generating this issue was wiktionary:mook) is impolite and completely uncalled for, but this response is over-the-top. I personally don't name-call very often, but I shouldn't have to worry that, just because I comment "the guy lacks intelligence" [a polite way to call someone dumb] in an article talk page that I'll be strictly sanctioned. I also support at least in principle the idea of Herostratus's proposed new policy Wikipedia:Material_concerning_living_persons_in_non-article_space although it should be consolidated into the main article. Name-calling is just bad in general, but I don't really see calling ones' colleagues bad names as being intrinsically more acceptable than calling a "living person" a bad name. II | (t - c) 07:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

    No, the main words generating this issue were "bigot" and "homophobe", and a reference to the subject's "noxious bigotry" - see my Neutral !vote, below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

    I think when Herostratus writes "galoot", he's using it as a synonym for mook. By all accounts mook was indeed one of the words used, see permalink. It's unfortunate that this wasn't laid out more clearly. I do think homophobe is more offensive, but it is also more likely to be supported by the sources - skirting the edge of BLP (it could certainly always be phrased better, but can we never call a spade a spade??). "Fringe scientist" could be considered equally offensive, but good luck on enforcing that. I have a feeling that Herostratus is being used as a scapegoat to absorb pent-up anger at other admins. II | (t - c) 16:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

15. Support. Whatever WP:BLP covers, I do not think it was intended to prohibit statements of opinion about a public figure in non-article space. Herostratus may have acted in poor taste in the AFD incident, and rashly in the unblocking incident, but I do not think he has abused his adminship and do not think it is appropriate to strip him of administrator privileges. Tim Pierce (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

    So, you support the freedom to assert statments of personal opinion about the living subjects on talkpages. If such a thing was policy this wikipedia would be close to anarchy. Off2riorob (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

    I do support that, yes. Moreover, I think it happens all the time without hurting the encyclopedia's mission. I also think that Wikipedia is already a thinly-controlled anarchy, and anyone who believes otherwise has not been paying attention. :-) Tim Pierce (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

16. Moral support. This isn't a collegial and reasoned discussion, it's a lynch mob. I've struck my question and I'm going to stand in the path of this rolling snowball to support you simply because you've had the bottle to face this process. Kudos for that. And thanks for showing us how much it needs to improve.—S Marshall T/C 14:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

    I actually think this is the opposite of "mob mentality"; the problem isn't that we're suppressing all discussion and all moving in the same direction, the problem is that there are many different questions being discussed at the same time ... which can be just as oppressive, in its own way, until we slow down and take the questions one at a time. - Dank (push to talk) 15:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

17. Support. As someone who was de-sysopped, I flatter myself in thinking I have a better grasp on what rises to that level and what doesn't. I disregard the unblocking as the work of a humorless idiot (where, in this century, are there actual major-domos?). And the BLP strikes me as uninteresting; any damn fool can write in some over-reaching clause to policy somewhere, and BLP fanatics are known for their extraordinarily thin skins and highly developed sense of dudgeon. (You know you're fanatical about BLP when even Jimbo isn't supporting your crusade to quash the heretics.) If we cannot speak what we see as truth even at AfDs, then we are in a sad state indeed. And besides that? Little to nothing. --Gwern (contribs) 15:13 24 June 2010 (GMT)
18. Support. No abuse of admin tools. Irrational mobbing. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
19. Support. I read that AfD that got deleted, and I am on record at the time as saying I could not see it contained a BLP violation. If it said the words 'bigot' or 'homophobe' they must have been in invisible type. I do not think saying "Elen of the Roads is a mook" is a BLP violation. I do think that saying "Herostratus could be a paedophile" is a potential BLP violation, but no-one seems bothered about that. I think you have a terrible sense of humour, and should stop and ask your mum/sister/gf before cracking any more jokes, but I can't see anything worthy of desysop. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

    The exact words were "I particulary like the "Respect for Family Values" bit. He's the one who proclaims himself in public as a bigot and a homophobe -- how respectful do we have to be to these kinds of people? As for WP:BLP, where that matters is in the article -- which makes him look ridiculous. I would be ashamed to have an article about me which proclaimed that "my father taught me honor" while highlighting my mediocrity vis-a-vis people with actual articles and documenting my electoral failures, noxious bigotry, and complete ignorance of the actual public policy issues". I don't know where this idea that the BLP violation was "mook" has come from. – iridescent 15:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

    I've now managed to track that part of the AfD down on one of the mirrors - prior to that I hadn't seen the comments in context, and they were made after the nomination (obviously), which was what I saw, and which DID NOT say "this article should be deleted because the subject is a bigot and a homophobe". While I fully endorse that Wikipedia articles should not contain lies, rumours or personal opinions, and talk pages should not be stuffed with lies and rumours, there is no way that can be read as anything but a personal opinion - the editor believes that by his statements on family values the subject shows himself in the editors opinion to be a bigot and a homophobe. Wikipedia may feel it is desirable to have a policy of "no personal attacks on the subjects of articles anywhere on the project", but I would never, and still don't see the editor's statement as a BLP violation.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

20. Support. When I came across this RFA and the circumstances behind it, I didn't expect to support; I believe WP:BLP is the most important policy we have, and it must be respected at all times. I believe Herostratus' comments on the AFD in question were inappropriate, and that his proposal to exempt talk pages from BLP rules is misguided and wrong. However, I have seen no evidence that he is a bad admin, has misused the tools, or is in any way unfit to be an administrator. He made a mistake, but he showed great responsibility by putting himself through this process and being willing to resign as a result, and I respect him for it. We should not lose one of our valuable admins over a single error of judgement. Robofish (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

    Oh, and if it's relevant, I'm not an administrator (and have no wish to be one, seeing what hell they go through on a regular basis). Robofish (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

21. Support - There are definetely reasons an admin should have their acess to the tools removed. Looking through all the discussion to this point and those actions I can see, I see no pattern of admin abuse that would justify removal of the tools. Now looking at the editor actions, while there have been some actions that are questionable I do not feel that those actions rise to the level that require removal of the tools. Even putting everything together the lapses do not in my mind rise to the point of requiring the tools be removed. I think Hero should step back and thiink about their actions before taking them to stop the lapses from continuing. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 15:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
22. Support in an editorial capacity. That Herostratus is prepared to go through this RFA and that he has admitted he made the mistakes outlined above means that I am prepared to support. I have seen no evidence of severe abuse of administrative powers here such that I cannot retain confidence in this editor being trusted with administrator's privileges. Mjroots (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
23. Support First of all, the dialogue Herostratus wrote to explain this deal was one of the most honest things I've ever read in an RFA, and pure honesty is very good for an administrator to have. As for the BLP drama, this is a good example of how we are getting a bit too extremist with the whole BLP idea. I don't see what's the big deal about mentioning negative information about living people as long as it stays off our articles. BLP is an important policy for what we publish in our articles but outside our articles what is proper decorum should be left up to the much neglected WP:CIV. Anybody who reads over the AFD will clearly see that this is one editor's opinion of the subject and not a blanket statement put out by Wikipedia. Most every other discussion-based website would permit remarks such as what Herostratus made without thinking twice about them. Unless he goes and publishes these remarks within our articles I see no infraction of the intent behind the BLP policy. I also echo SMarshall's voice above about the lynch mob and BigDom about BLP. ThemFromSpace 16:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
24. Support the request for recall is based on a single comment made by the candidate in an AfD. Now that comment was in extremely poor taste, and Herostratus has had the sense to apologise for the worst part of it. But this one offence, by itself, isn't sufficiently serious to justify a desysop in my opinion. There is no long-term pattern of poor judgement and Herostratus has not misused any of his administrator tools. Hut 8.5 17:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
25. Support Herostratus made some mistakes, sure, but I feel this is a step too far. I agree with S Marshall that this is more of a lynch mob than anything else and it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 17:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
26. Per S Marshall. T. Canens (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
27. Support This is more a reflection of my particular dislike for the idea of condemning somebody on the basis of evidence I'm not allowed to see. The concept of a lynch mob acting on rumor, innuendo, and tone, without solid evidence, offends my sense of justice. As I have no access to the material in question, I issue no judgment on the merits. Ray^Talk 18:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
28. Support I can not support punishing an administrator for expressing his honest opinion about a politician, even if somebody does not like it. Ruslik_Zero 18:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
29. Support This situation really shouldn't be this big of a deal. - MrOllie (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
30. Weak Support I regard the BLP/AFD and the copyvio issues as both meriting trouts. I'm not convinced by the argument that admin tools weren't involved as I think that admins should behave properly on this site, but I wouldn't have supported a desysop for either incident. ϢereSpielChequers 19:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
31. Support with mixed feelings. Admins should be accountable just as editors are, and the sole reason I support is this statement of Hero's "Admins exist to serve the editors, not each other, and there's the danger here of the Tribe of Admin being inclined to protect one of their own." - which is a position I think far too few admins hold. GregJackP Boomer! 19:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
32. Really sorry to hop around guys, but after Hero's comment at WP:BN, I feel I have to support, because it's my personal preference that he pull out of this and not resign the tools at this time ... I would prefer that we tackle the issues raised one at a time, then we can come back to Herostratus's issues another time (and hopefully in a different forum, this doesn't seem to be working). - Dank (push to talk) 19:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
33. Support If it was me posting the AfD in question (which I do remember well, having !voted in it) you wouldn't even have blocked me for an hour. Maybe I would have gotten a warning on level 1 or 2, and that's about it. Now you want to desysop someone over this? That's totally out of proportion. --Pgallert (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
34. On balance support (switch from oppose). I still stand by what I wrote below while opposing. I also think that your understanding of the motivations for BLP policy, as shown by your proposal is wrong and misguided. But I see that you have expressed regret at your actions and are discussing in an exemplary way. I hope you will take the emerging consensus here on board as go ahead as a sysop and long-term user. Martinp (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
35. Weak support (switch from neutral). I still think Herostratus displayed a lack of good judgment here, but I'm not convinced that it merits desysopping if he shapes up and takes his role more seriously and conscientiously from now on. I also have serious misgivings about the current recall process in general, so I'm reluctant to see anyone's mop taken away in this fashion except in the most egregious of circumstances. Richwales (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
36. Weak Support. I don't very much like that AfD nomination. In fact, I do not like it at all - but to immediately request recall over it seems over the top. I'm sure Herostratus have now realized that he needs to tone down his rhetorics and take a slightly different approach if he is to remain in good standing. On a side note, I examined Herostratus' logged actions, and found that he has generally been using his tools well. Of course, that's not very relevant in a discussion regarding removal of said tools... decltype (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
37. Support. I don't see anything here that suggests you area "bad admin". You made a few isolated mistakes, and perhaps your actions warrant some sort of intervention, but desysopping is not intended to be punitive. It seems that those who support your losing the bit do so for the reason of "conduct unbecoming", or something similar. Admins aren't special, they're just editors with more buttons and a certain degree of trust/respect. If your conduct is unbecoming an admin, then surely it is also unbecoming an editor as well, and should have resulted in an AN/I thread or RfC. I don't see you having the bit as being a threat to the project. To the extent that your actions might bring the project into disrepute, I think you've learned your lesson. This RfA is unnecessary. Carry on. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
38. Support. wiooiw (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
39. Support. I came to this position after reading links and discussion here (I wasn't aware of any prior controversy about Herostratus). I was initially inclined to oppose because he seemed kind of lackadaisical and inclined to be neutral because I've seen admins behave a lot worse (I'm an admin, btw). I've learned enough to like both his sense of humour and his serious stand here. The logs of his admin actions look OK. All in all, I deem it appropriate to support. – Athaenara ✉ 00:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

    Just a quick note, someone said in a thread somewhere that they didn't want to click on any pages that talked about pedophilia at work ... the link just above is User:Herostratus/Pedophilia and Me (I thought the page was helpful, btw.) - Dank (push to talk) 00:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

40. Support We all make mistakes here, even if they are huge, so I guess a little forgiveness is in order here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

    Mistakes by non admins result in blocks. Mistakes by admins result in so much hypocritical bollocks it would be hard to know where to start. Malleus Fatuorum

    That's a ridiculous reductio, and does you no credit whatsoever. It may be late where we are, but even so, it's not even statistically, let alone rhetorically, valid. I expected better from such a talented editor. Rodhullandemu 01:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

    Mistakes by non-admins should almost never result in blocks. Blocking is typically reserved for cases of persistent and deliberate misuse. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

    Yeah, right. Believe whatever makes you feel happy. Malleus Fatuorum 01:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

41. Support actual admin thus far actions appear to be of quality. extransit (talk) 02:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
42. Mistakes have been made, but not enough to require de-sysopping, in my opinion. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 02:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
43. Support I've seen way, way worse. SBHarris 02:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
44. Support This self recall is enough to prove to me that this editor deserves to keep the mop. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

    You are aware that this recall was petitioned by six editors with legitimate concerns, right? Swarm^Talk 03:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

    I imagine that RP459 is referring to the fact that Herostratus could have dropped out of this recall request at any point, but has instead had the integrity to allow it to proceed. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 08:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

    Spitfire you are exactly correct. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

    Alright. Swarm^Talk 20:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

45. Support. Herostratus has been and continues to be of positive value to the project as an admin and as an editor. He's been willing to work in difficult areas and his work has made a big difference there. The recent mistakes were just simple mistakes, not abuse of admin tools or anything else that would rise to the level of admin-recall. There are situations where admins should be recalled, but this is not one of those. We need more admins, not fewer. Herostratus has earned my trust and respect, I support his re-confirmation as admin. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
46. Support: Q7 - Herostratus finally accepts that calling someone a bigot and a homophobe is a violation of BLP! That's all I wanted to hear, and I really don't understand why he didn't just say so up front instead of diverting us by making out it was all about the unimportant "mook" nonsense. Anyway, with that accepted, I'm happy to accept that he won't do it again and to give him another chance. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
47. Support, while the comments from Herostratus were certainly uncalled for and unnecessary, there was no misuse of administrator tools used here and therefore I think de-adminning is not justified at this time. I have to say I'm also impressed by someone actually going through with admin recall and facing the music rather than trying to weasel out of it, as well. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC).
48. Everyone makes mistakes and I'm convinced that Herostratus will not make a similar mistake again. I'm impressed by the way this editor has handled this recall process. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
49. weak Support No abuse of tools, nothing quite blockable and an understanding of the issues means to me he should probably keep the bit. I would however hope that he'd be a lot more careful in the future. Hobit (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
50. Support, seems the recall process has served its purpose and corrected the issues at hand.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
51. Support - as per SarekOfVulcan, RP459 Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 14:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
52. While i opppose the reöpening of a bureaucrat-closed RfA i see no proof that anything bad was done. Use of hiderevision on what is alleged to be the offending edit on a AfD page leaves this non-admin to consider this entire process ungainly, cumbersome, and clumsy. I can not in good conscience oppose on hearsay and secret evidence. Or, in other words, i agree with Stifle on RfA #1.[2] delirious & lost ☯ ^{~talk to her~} 15:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
53. Support - I'm supporting another chance; but you need to take more care in the future, my man. Orphan Wiki 16:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
54. Weak Support The behavior of the user in question here was incorrect and correctly criticized but it looks as if they learned their lesson and it may thus be in the project's best interest to let them keep the mop. Also, from what I have seen, the criticism was not in reaction to misuse of the tools granted to Herostratus, so taking away those tools is not the best way to solve this anyway. An admin who misbehaves without misusing the tools should be treated exactly the same as an experienced user without the tools acting this way. Regards SoWhy 18:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
55. Support Let me first of all stipulate that I am an admin, and if my !vote should be disregarded then so be it. I do not recall ever interacting personally with Herostratus, either positively or negatively. This admin has been guilty of judgemental error, but who has not? The only abuse of admin tools was a self-unblock, where the block itself was an obvious error and which Herostratus has admitted to, and explained, in his opening statement. I do not believe that desysopping is necessary. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

    Self-unblocking is not infrequently cited as one of those "bright-line offences", but clearly different rules are applied to administrators. No surprise there. Malleus Fatuorum 20:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

    Yeah, I got lots of flack for unblocking myself as a lowly editor. Did you see that I vindicated Herostratus on the "bigot" and "homophobe" comments, not that he has chosen that defense, but the terms were accurate.--Milowent (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

56. Support continued adminship. He has an irreverent attitude and has made unfortunate mistakes, but it should take more to take away admin rights. And also because of this: [3], noting that this admin is vigilant in guarding wikipedia against such destructive conduct. Minor4th • talk 20:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
57. Support, the alleged BLP violation is a red herring and the rest of it is far too minor. There is simply no evidence of abuse of admin "powers". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
58. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
59. Weak Support I think that despite the BLP issues that Herostratus deserves the benefit of the doubt. Best, Mifter (talk) 02:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
60. Support Nothing large enough to warrant loss of the mop. Acather96 (talk) 07:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
61. Support. It looks to me like Herostratus is an asset to Wikipedia. The six recallers, while properly and formally "in good standing", do not all of them put forward arguments that impress me. This is simply my opinion; I've no intention of arguefying about it. Bishonen | talk 12:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC). (admin)
62. Support Yes, he screwed up. No, he didn't screw up badly enough to warrant removal of his mop. C628 (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
63. Support BLP is a tricky topic, and one that gets many people all worked up, but we take it to an embarassing extreme. For example, look at this YouTube clip on Palin. The clip underscores the hard fact that "calling bullshit" on this type of politician can effectively only take place when done accidentally. Herostratus rightly asserts that an encyclopedia has to reserve the right to discuss notability of a subject. While a vanilla discussion on a talk page might have been a more effective tactic, the more colorful conversation on a talk page is in no way a violation of BLP. In losing our heads over this kind of thing we only serve to harm Wikipedia's mission to serve as an objective compendium of knowledge by conflating SHOUTING with reasoning. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

    Addendum - That Hero was actually stating a fact makes this whole incident even more absurd. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

64. Support I see no reason to de-sysop this admin at this time. I do feel that six editors calling for it to be a bit extreme and not showing good faith, IMHO.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 18:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

    Support I don't think he's done anything that the Arbitration committee hasn't already attempted to resolve. --Rockstonetalk to me! 23:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Changed to Neutral See my entry there--Rockstonetalk to me! 23:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

65. Herostratus fucked up big time, and still does not appear to get it... Well, it is obvious that if you make a serious mistake it is because you are unable (presently) to understand the issue; it is in the nature of error. Mistakes happen, and you learn from it and try not make the mistake again - sometimes by simply staying away from the area where your understanding of what is correct is at variance with what appears to be the norm. Repeating that mistake is another issue, and not one I see is being seriously promoted here. Outside of this matter I am not aware of any reason to think that Herostratus would abuse his position of responsibility, let alone misuse the tools. A person made a mistake, but the admin retains my Support. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
66. Support, per herostratus examplary behavior. also lhvu above. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
67. Ultra-support — BLP is a joke policy, and the culture of extremism which surrounds it would lead any onlooker to assume this must be the most urgent moral issue of our time. If Wikipedia is to have any future as a serious encyclopedia, rather than a censored and whitewashed PR-style Who's Who, BLP and BLP-mania must die. My infinite gratitude to any admin willing to strike any kind of blow against the hysteria, no matter how small. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 06:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

    Cautious Support I would be lying if I said I didn't have concerns. Hero has demonstrated several behaviors that I find somewhat problematic and has shown some lack of maturity. If he were running for adminship from scratch, these issues might cause me enough of a concern that I would oppose. But there is a difference here. Hero is already an admin. Now some might argue that we should use the same standards that we use when evaluating new candidates when assessing already existing candidates, but that is not true. We know how Hero is as an admin. So far nobody has shown an abuse of tools or priviledges---just a few dumb (and they are dumb) mistakes. A new person wishing to become an admin for the first time, we do not know how they will behave once they get the tools. Will they go off half cocked? Will they abuse the tools? All we have is how they've acted in the past. We don't want to give tools to those individuals because once the bit is given, it is hard to get back. Now, I'm an advocate of making it easier to loose the bit and easier to get it back a second time. So the question is, should it be removed? Possibly. He has some major flaws, and I hope he is taking the comments on this RfA seriously. Mr Zman really highlights what IMHO is the strongest argument for the removal of his bit. But there is one thing that brings me to the support column. I like niche candidates. Hero works in an area that I find deplorable. One where working in that arena is going to have people asking questions about you. It is only natural---and unfortunately, his own comments have helped fuel the flames. But looking into his involvement there, I have to give him the benefit of the doubt in that he has Wikipedia's best interest in mind. I may think he's a fool, but if that is where he wants to be... we need people willing to work in those areas who are striving for neutrality. I'll give his explanation as to why he works there the benefit of the doubt.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Moving to Neutral---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

68. Support. Reyk _YO! 13:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
69. Support. Haha, majordomo :D Haukur (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
70. Support. Kudos for invoking this process, and the way you've gone about it. But please handle yourself with more decorum when discussing BLP subjects in future, and please refrain in internal discussions from disparaging them in a coarse manner for their views, however distasteful they may appear to you. Whether we think someone is a bigot or not does not affect their notability, or the amount of respect we owe them as BLP subjects. It's perfectly alright to think that someone is a bigot, and I have little problem if you say what you think about a public person on a user talk page, but in processes like AfD, we should be seen to be objective, rather than swayed by likes or dislikes. --JN466 22:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
71. Strong Support - per his polite, reasonable and exemplary behavior through what must be an exceptionally trying process. He retains my trust. LK (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
72. Support. Hero has merely made some errors. Administrators, in my view, are entitled to make some mistakes, so long as they are upfront in their actions and do not abuse content editors. Hero has done nothing which seriously damages Wikipedia, unlike other administrators who have unjustly alienated valuable content editors, and have not been held accountable. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
73. Support - The self-unblocking was found by the Arbcom to have happened in good faith, and not worthy of a de-sysop. His other mistakes were unrelated to his admin position and he seems to understand why they were mistakes. --Latebird (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
74. Keep —People are not perfect; mistakes happen, and those with clue learn from things. I don't believe I've ever interacted with Herostratus, but I looked at this a few days ago and came back and looked further today. He's fine, doing good work, has a clue and a sense of humour. And I see this whole page and how he's dealing with the concerns as appropriate. I've watched his page and hope to work with him at some point. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
75. Support - He made a mistake, big deal so does everybody. As others have said he seems to have done fine with his actual admin edits. Mauler90 _talk 04:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
76. Support - he screwed up, he knows it, he's most likely not going to do it again. I had the same thing happen to me multiple times in the last week. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
77. I am sure that Herostratus has learned everything that can be learned from the situation. Will removing his admin rights keep the project from harm? Not that I can tell. Going through such an experience already has taught him enough, and this request shows his humility. Malinaccier (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
78. Support Everybody is human, and we all make mistakes from time to time, but this is not a hanging offence.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
79. Support As I believe almost all established editors should have admin tools, and that you have not abused said tools. You've made some poor judgement calls, but not those that specifically affected the readership. Pedro :  Chat  22:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose-As recall requester. User violated BLP to the extent that the comments had to be removed, after the issue was brought to his attention he still did not appear to understand the issue and has since not shown understanding either and has even begun to attempt a rewrite of the policy Wikipedia:Material_concerning_living_persons_in_non-article_space. One of the guidelines of Administration is that they at least understand and conform to policy themselves. As this user has failed to do that and has continued to seemingly dispute current BLP policy I have lost trust in his ability to administrate Off2riorob (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Sanction by ArbCom, coupled with BLP violation does indeed show this individual is not fit to be an admin any longer. -- Cirt (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   Cirt, I would have thought that you'd respect Herostratus' request for administrators not to support or oppose. BigDom 16:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   Let us keep discussion of that to the talk page, and not threaded below here, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

3. Oppose I have the benefit of having read your AFD prior to it's deletion. I've just read your commentary on the incident. There's more to BLP than keeping away lawsuits. There's a key moral/ethical factor. You're comments wern't actionably slanderous, however they were clearly abusive to the BLP, and without any need. You say you're for BLP, yet after having the benefit of hindsight on this incident you propose a policy that would allow abuse of living people as long as it wasn't legally actionable. I would strongly oppose any fresh RFA candidate who came in with that attitude, I feel I must oppose.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose. When I talk and nobody listens about my belief that admin terms should expire, this is exactly the kind of situation I had in mind. For whatever reason, Wikipedia adminship does seem to have a peculiar moral corrosiveness of its own; after a while, it turns people who have always been perfectly reasonable into petty tyrants who think Wikipedia's rules apply to the little people and not to themselves. This page shows that not only does Herostratus not "get it" as to why people were getting upset with him, but that he genuinely believes Wikipedia policies are for other people and don't apply to him. (The reason you're "banging your head against a wall trying to get people to understand that none of this is BLP violation" is that you appear to be the only person on the whole project who believes it, regardless of your attempt to retroactively rewrite the BLP policy.)
   Regarding "On [failing to adhere to the standard of decorum expected of administrators] I've served my sentence, in that I was taken to the woodshed by ArbCom, so why should I be punished again now?", in my opinion the fact that you're apparently treating this whole process as one big joke shows that the lesson clearly hasn't sunk in. Wikipedia now isn't the Wikipedia of five years ago, made up of a relatively close-knit community who mostly knew each other and shared each other's in-jokes; it's a loose-knit global community of around 40,000 occasional editors and 4,000 regulars, and what was appropriate then isn't appropriate now; not in an editor and certainly not in an admin. Like it or not, WP:NOBIGDEAL is a thing of the past and those 8,000 new editors joining each month do look to admins as role models; crap like this is never going to be appropriate any more. Resign, and come back in six months if you find you actually miss adminship; I'll lay a reasonable bet that you'll find you don't. – iridescent 16:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
   Note: while our paths may have crossed at some point, to the best of my knowledge I've never had any dealings with Herostratus, and have no particular ax to grind here. And I think EricBarbour's accusations were ludicrous. – iridescent 16:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Herostratus should be held to the same standards as any other RfA candidate. Too many administrators forget that. Malleus Fatuorum 17:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   Oppose, wasn't Tanthalas39 desysopped for self unblock? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Strike-through text

   That was under very different circumstances- I'll dig up the link to the discussion in a moment. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   Here [4] and here. [5] The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

6. Oppose The recall candidate shows a worrying lack of judgement, which as far as I'm concerned is the foundation of all good administrators. Everyone makes mistakes from time to time and if this had simply ended with him needing to brush up on his understanding of the BLP policy I would be voting Support. Instead he tried to retroactively reqrite the BLP policy and seems to be treating this as a joke. That tells me that not only does he lack judgment regarding current policies, but that he also believes he's part of the old boys club and therefore in no real danger of being desysopped here. I see this attitude among a number of admins, and particularly amongst those who have been admins for many years (although certainly not all). I like iridescent's "term limits" idea above, or at least think admins should be required to be "reelected" every two years. I think we would avoid problems like this if we did that. (I also can't figure out why the numbering has restarted...) nevermind, figured it out. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
7. Oppose Continuation. Looks like I'm agreement with Iridescent and Malleus Fatuorum. This candidate wouldn't have a hope of passing today. Aiken ♫ 21:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   Questionable. RFA is pretty political and anyone with a few years admin experence is likely to have enough political skill to do better than average regardless of how things have changed since they last went through.©Geni 22:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

8. Oppose Given the candidate's recent actions and words, I do not trust him or her with the tools. ElKevbo (talk) 21:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
9. Oppose Herostratus has been largely absent since 2007, and has shown poor judgement since coming back. The ArbCom incident, the CopyVio incident and now this BLP incident. Mistakes are acceptable. Three serious mistakes in three months is a bit much to take, but can just be allowable if it were not for Herostratus' defending his "right" to defame someone on Wikipedia's servers, and for not telling the whole story in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2/The Great Galoot Scare Of 2010 - the tone of Herostratus' comments throughout the AfD were hostile and derogatory toward the subject of the article, and contained libelous statements that he does not mention. There are few hard and fast rules that Wikimedia Foundation lay down for what we write here, but one very important one is not to defame other people. If Herostratus has a personal dislike of anyone and wishes to slander them, he has a "right" to do that at his own risk in his own publication, not this one. If there is any area in which we are better to err in caution, it is in the area of slander and libel. The extra drama that he is drumming up only adds weight to the overwhelming impression of a person who appears lively, intelligent and interesting, but has some serious gaps in good judgement. SilkTork *^YES! 22:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   I note that people are talking about "abuse of admin status" - that is, however, not what this is about. Abuse of admin privileges are dealt with by ArbCom. This is about assessing the community's trust in Herostratus' judgement. This forum has been selected because the process in assessing that trust is the same as a RfA. I am basing my oppose not on abuse of power, but on my assessment of Herostratus' judgement. Would I have supported him as an admin in a RfA based on his long term absence from Wikipedia, his poor judgements in the three months since he returned, and his clear lack of understanding of current policies, processes and community attitudes? No, I would not have. So if I wouldn't have supported him if he were applying to have the admin tools, I cannot support him now when he is asking if I trust him, just because he already has those tools and hasn't (yet) blocked Jimbo. We shouldn't have two standards - one for people applying for admin status, and a lower one for people who already are admins. I cannot bring to mind at the moment any individual who had recently been admonished by ArbCom for poor judgement, had displayed poor understanding of core and vital issues such as BLP and CopyVio, and had been both so arrogant in dismissal of concerns raised about the BLP issue, and so misleading in their retelling of the incident (saying that what he said was "probably worse than "Ol' son-of-a-gun", but not as bad as "big galoot") that they passed a RfA - and I don't think it fitting that we set a lower standard here just because Herostratus is already an admin. What I'd like to see is Herostratus, who appears an interesting and intelligent chap who can string a few sentences together, resign as admin, then spend at least six months getting to understand the current situation here at Wikipedia - get familiar with policies and guidelines - show good judgement - assist perhaps in dispute resolution or clearing some backlogs - and then come back and apply for admin status properly. This RfA is a little too diverting, and is taking us away from building the encyclopedia. SilkTork *^YES! 08:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

10. Oppose While I don't think calling an article subject names on the talk page necessarily a WP:BLP violation, it is very disruptive, and an admin should know better. This, combined with the other lapses in judgement listed above, tell me that adminship is no longer appropriate. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
11. Oppose; bad judgement shown with regard to WP:BLP, copyright violations and bizarre "jokes". When reminded that the BLP policy applies outside of article space he says "Yes, but I don't think most people really expect that to be applied with rigor to people's collegial intercommunications ... It's just sort of an aside", which is a little bit astounding for an administrator. There's no way I'd support if this was an ordinary RFA, and I don't see why a recall RFA should require lower standards. --BelovedFreak 22:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
12. Oppose due to conduct unbecoming an admin and editor - especially the attitude towards BLP. As an aside, I agree with Iridescent's comment on WP:NOBIGDEAL's obsolescence. While useful in the early days to set an egalitarian tone in the community, it is now an actively harmful meme that encourages the promotion of unfit candidates. Skinwalker (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
13. I'm less concerned about the specific "violation" (I haven't actually looked at it in detail TBH), I'm opposing purely because of what I see as significant lack of basic policy knowledge. I've seen several recent comments by Herostratus, including on his proposal to weaken BLP on talk pages where he states in no uncertain terms that he believes the primary purpose of BLP is to protect Wikipedia from lawsuits. This is simply ... not correct. The primary purpose is to protect the subjects of our articles from undue harm and invasions of privacy due to incorrect material, undue weight, etc. That it helps to shield us from lawsuits is just a bonus. WP:LIBEL is about lawsuits, "libel is removed" is all it needs to say. BLP is about getting articles right. I would expect any admin candidate to know this, and I would certainly expect it from a current admin. This is not about knowing the specifics, which can change day to day, this is about the spirit of the policy. Knowledge like this is something that should only increase with experience and should be unaffected by "politics." The implication that all admins will engage in groupthink-like behavior and that admins somehow cease to be members of the community once they get the tools is also rather diconcerting. Mr.Z-man 23:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

    Looking some more, 5 of the 7 people who signed the initial recall petition were admins. I find it hard to believe that one would except most admins to support after that. Mr.Z-man 03:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

14. Oppose - I'm not an admin and have been here long enough to know this is not how one should act. These "jokes" don't look much better than a lot of the vandalism I revert with Huggle. Creepy stuff... but when you throw in ArbCom and the rest, it becomes overwhelming. No, I suggest you resign, and perhaps sometime in 2011 ask for the tools back. Right now, I strongly feel you need to give the mop up, earn community trust, and start over with a focus on why we are here: to build an encyclopedia, and hopefully without all this drama. I sincerely hope you can learn from this. Jusdafax 00:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
15. Others have given more eloquent reasoning than I can at this point. Summation: wouldn't have supported him had he not been an admin here at RfA. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
16. Oppose Poor judgment, leading directly to much drama distracting the volunteers of this project from doing constructive things. Townlake (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
17. My gut reaction in looking at this reconfirmation RfA (without even reading the discussion) is to place my name in this section. I'm sorry, but that nonsense about the "incident" and his "local council" revoking his internet access (especially with the situation a few months ago) left a very sour taste in my mouth. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

    I have now familiarized myself with the more recent BLP situation that led to this recall RfA. I think it would be best if Herostratus resigned the tools (and I think he will do so at the conclusion of this RfA, if he has not already done so). Master&Expert (Talk) 02:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

    It appeara a consensus is developing in favour of Herostratus retaining the tools, which is fine with me. I think the supporters may be right, the BLP issue was a one-off incident as far as AfD activities go. However, I remain in the oppose section on balance. Master&Expert (Talk) 13:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

18. Oppose Unblocking one's self is in my opinion a sign of impatience. All admins who are blocked should be consulting on their own talk page, rather than using the unblock to give themselves an advantage. In summary, I totally agree with the Arbcom's decision on the desysop. Minimac (talk) 07:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

    Oppose (changing to neutral per discussion on talk page and some of the support counter-arguments): Libel and mis-stating policy in an attempt to defend his actions. I might have chosen to remain neutral or even support the RfA if he'd admitted fault and redacted the comments himself, but the AfD was eventually removed as a result of an BLP noticeboard discussion, and now he's filing for a change in policy to allow him to use libel in non-article space again in the future. This is not the sort of behaviour I would expect from a sysop. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

19. Oppose. For "sysops not wanted here". I admit there's a strong division between "editors" and "sysops", perhaps exaggerated, but it does not justify discrimination of any group here, regardless of intent. East of Borschov (talk) 08:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
20. Oppose This general statement regarding what editors must agree to if they want to object to any revision the candidate made any area of sexual content. Why? Also, advocacy has no place on the encyclopedia. Advocacy for or against any position. To remain neutral, it is best that we don't understand the subjects we edit. We use neutral, third party references. This is not a battle ground. There are ways to disagree about content without advocating a position. Having also reviewed a good sample of contributions, I find the candidate wavering in the BLP arena. NonvocalScream (talk) 09:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

    To remain neutral, it is best that we don't understand the subjects we edit. Can I just say that this is an astonishing view of WP:NPOV, which I doubt would be supported by many of our best editors (if any).--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

    I believe (s)he meant that to maintain neutrality is easiest if we don't have any interest in the subject (and interest is often somewhat linked to understanding), but I agree that lacking understanding of what you're editing can be a WP:COMPETENT nightmare. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

    You have to understand the complete context of my statement with regards to advocacy. You can be too invested in a subject, so much that your point of view seeps into the article. This is bad. There are some subjects that, rightly or wrongly, the editor is advocating positions. To edit without understanding, means you would have to go look at the sources, and work from there. Therein lies neutrality. I did not mean to be taken so literally, sorry for any misunderstanding. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

21. Oppose. Wow! I haven't had any contact with Herostratus before, but I just read through the relevant pages & diffs. Herostratus doesn't have a good enough understanding of the BLP policy. This is especially important in the topic where he edits. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
22. Oppose. I was going to say more (I usually do) but in this case I feel that Iridescent has already said it all.--Kudpung (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

    Oppose Has not answered my or other users legitimate questions, and per iridescent. Entirely underwhelming effort in this RfA from the candidate, minus the intro.  – Tommy [message] 12:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

    "I'm not consciously aware of them." Really? Do you even know what a sysop has and doesn't have? You can't think of that stuff beforehand? I was thinking about asking how old you are without sounding rude, but it's not worth the time. I need admins who have a clue about their actions and aware of all their actions.  – Tommy [message] 17:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, I answered the questions as soon as I was able, I do have to work and do many other things as well. As to "I'm not consciously aware of them" what I meant was: you accused me an ulterior motive. I don't think I had an ulterior motive, but who truly knows their own mind? Maybe I did and my own mind was disguising this from me (although it's not clear to me why what you accuse me of would even benefit me). This does happen to people. I am only human. As to my age, I have to be careful not to give out identifying information so I can't give you my exact age, but I am older than many admins, I'm sure. There's no need to be uncivil, Tommy. Herostratus (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

    You're right, I could have toned that down (and I did now). However, I did not accuse you of anything. There is deleted info that may be relevant to the RfA here, (to my understanding) and it's just very odd you'd ask admins to not vote here.. and then when I point out something so obvious, all of a sudden it's a switch. It was odd and for an admin who's been here for 5? years that should be like a no brainer. I really don't like the answer to Q5. I really do appreciate the honesty, but you didn't even answer the root of the question, which was to "elaborate more on that" (ie- any reason/impetus you felt that a sysop would want to protect their own?).  – Tommy [message] 20:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

    (Now supporting, see Support section) Switching to Oppose per comments and response at User_talk:Herostratus#RFA ... and this pains me, because I certainly don't have a sense that this is a bad guy or that he's deliberately causing drama, but I need for any editor, especially an admin, to realize that when Jimbo is weighing in on the talk page of their RFA whatever-this-is and threads are sprouting like hydra heads, that it's time to remove themselves from the center of the storm in order to reduce the drama, and I urge the candidate to withdraw this RFA so that we can get on with dealing with all the questions that have been raised in a clearer and more positive way. I know the candidate has asked that admins not vote, and I appreciate the sentiment, but if this is an RFA, then I can vote, and if it's not, he shouldn't be here. - Dank (push to talk) 13:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

    Oppose This is not the proper place for this. There are no guidelines/policies in place for a reconfirm RfA... an RfC would have been the proper forum. While, I would not generally oppose a person on this grounds (in fact I was going to remain silent in this RfA) the fact that it was closed (properly) by Nihonjoe, and reopened is just another incident of bad judgment on my part on the candidate. He had three striks already, this is number four IMHO. OH yeah, this is a flawed process to begin with.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

    It wasn't the candidate who reopened it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

    In that case I will strike my !vote. I do know that if he were a raw candidate, I would oppose an initial RfA, but I won't oppose here because I don't like the way this is being done.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

    (Now supporting, see above) Tentative and regretful oppose to continuing as admin. Herostratus has had the fortitude to follow through as best possible on his promise to be an admin open to recall. His behaviour around the recall process (which we all know is poorly defined, untested, and has some opposition), as shown by his comments and responses on his talk page, has been outstanding. I wish we had more admins like him. Unfortunately, the original AFD/BLP issue that precipitated all this did show that Herostratus is out of touch. That in itself is not worthy of a desysop. But since then, he's shown no sign that he accepts that he made an error in judgement, and that his personal standards may need to adapt more to community norms to continue to be an effective sysop and maintain trust as to his decisions and sysop actions. So I'd love as an outcome for Herostratus to say, "Wow! I genuinely didn't believe that what I said/did was such a big deal, but after seeing all these comments, I will behave differently going forward." In that case, I would move enthusiastically to support. But in the absence of that, I do have to oppose - he is in effect saying "Take me as I am; I won't change - but I will resign if you don't like that". (As an aside, since you feel you did nothing wrong, I certaintly don't think you should have to resign first and then seek readminship/reconfirmation. You're doing the right thing, though I don't care if someone decides this should be moved as a subpage of RFCU rather than RFA). Martinp (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

23. Oppose it should be easier to both get and lose the bit, as being an admin is no big deal. The BLP issue shows a lack of judgement, and as such I wouldn't trust this user with the bit for now. The joke is a non-issue for me, and ArbCom (and others) over-reacted, no one should have been officially sanctioned for that little caper. I would note that an admin offering themselves up like this earns my respect, and I would be inclined to support them. However, H really dropped the ball on BLP and still doesn't seem to have found it. We don't need this from any user. They can reapply in a year if they get more experience working on BLPs. Verbal chat 15:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
24. Oppose Based upon the issues, I must regretfully oppose this RfA. There are significant issues of trust and use of good judgement. Again, regretfully. Basket of Puppies 17:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
25. Oppose - I don't get the feeling, after looking over the copious amount of evidence provided by supporters and opposers above, that Herostratus would make a good admin, and should drop the tools at this point. I certainly wouldn't have supported were this an initial RfA. Skinny87 (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

    Oppose, with regrets (change from Neutral). As per Q6, Herostratus is still adamant that calling someone a "bigot" and a "homophobe" and accusing them of "noxious bigotry" in an AfD is not a violation of WP:BLP. I was really hoping that further responses would lead me to support, and I could happily overlook the actual AfD itself (the other issues mentioned are trivial and don't warrant any further comeback), but I'm afraid I cannot possibly trust an admin who is so intransigent and so out of line with such a key policy. Sorry. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC) (And in Q7 he now says we was violating BLP! That means I have to change again, to Support now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC))

    As an aside, if it ends up roughly 50/50, I wouldn't expect Herostratus to give up the bit - I think it should require a clear majority to desysop. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

    I'm not so sure about that; if it ends up 50-50, that suggests that about half the community has lost faith in him to adequately fulfil his responsibilities as a sysop. As usual though, these are !votes and the deciding factor should be strength of arguments, not numbers of !votes. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

    I don't expect Herostratus to give up the bit no matter how this ends up, do you? Seriously? Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

26. Oppose per Iridescent and reading the various linked pages. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
27. Oppose Per above. Swarm^Talk 03:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
28. Oppose - The concerns over wrong forum are a distraction (and dealt with elsewhere, whether or not this process is ideal--it's not) from the point that most of the aboves make, and which I agree largely with. Shadowjams (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
29. Oppose. I commend Herostratus for submitting to this process. We need some way to recall admins who have gone off the right track, and I hope a process like this may eventually evolve into such a general recall process. The question asked here is the same as at any RFA: does the community trust the candidate with the admin tools?

    At this moment, I don't believe Herostratus should retain his tools; as amply documented in the above comments, his judgment has been questionable on a number of occasions and he appears to be missing some basic understanding of policy. Ucucha 14:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

30. Oppose - The only thing I've seen to commend Herostratus' judgement to me is his submitting to this process. Were he coming at this afresh, without the tools, I'd oppose it anyway for poor judgement and obviously the wrong temprement/sense of humour to be an admin, we do hve quite a few admins so we can afford to be a little picky and insist the candidates are acctually up to par now rather than just having a pulse. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
31. Oppose This is more than the "one mistake" as touted by some of the Supps. The diffs and refs supplied show a pattern of poor judgment exacerbated by self-regard (and not helped by the Uncyclopedia-esque humour which Hero seems to think is such a treasurably idiosyncratic part of his contribution profile). Iridescent @4 has described the intensely unsatisfactory impasse we're now at and I doubt any of this will make any difference, either to Herostratus here or to adminship in general. Plutonium27 (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
32. Per Iridescent and Elen of the Roads. Nathan ^T 04:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
33. Oppose I commend Hero for going through with the recall proceeding, but I must oppose. I would be willing to look beyond Hero's recent BLP violations in the AfD if he came out, admitted his mistake, and apologized for it-- instead, he has tried to argue that it isn't a BLP issue at all. Calling the subject of an AfD a bigot shows a lack of neutrality in its proceedings. It's important that administrators be able to cast aside their political and moral spectrums during a deletion proceeding, but Hero made it personal. For that, I oppose. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 07:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
34. Oppose Herostratus, I'm sorry. But the temperament you use to address issues, at least my perception, is not what I would expect of somebody up here fighting for re-sysopping. And what is the temperament I expect in this situation?....... ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 13:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
35. Oppose per SilkTork. I've been keeping an eye on this recall since it began and I'm less than impressed with the situations Herostratus has gotten himself into. This, along with what I have read on the talk page of this recall pushes me to oppose, as I have some serious concerns over Herostratus's judgment as an editor, let alone an administrator. — ξ^xplicit 23:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
36. Oppose Herostratus is not a role model for the administrative community. Not only does he express poor judgment and a lack of understanding of BLP policy, but he should not have unblocked himself, whether or not the block should have been implemented in the first place. Instead, he should have requested an appeal just like everyone else does. I support ArbCom in their decision and I feel that handing the mop and bucket back to this user would be disastrous. Shannon! talk 00:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

    AC's decision wasn't to desysop him and the block was blatantly incorrect (both parties were reprimanded). So penalizing him solely for reversing an illegitimate block is an overreaction, IMO. 95.131.110.119 (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

37. Oppose - It's all been said, so I'll just give my judgment on each issue. I am a former admin who resigned the bit voluntarily after some minor conflict, by the way.
    On the ArbCom sanction, I feel that all's well that ends well. The candidate's actions in unblocking himself simply corrected a technical error and when viewed at the time rather than in hindsight, could be justified as an application of WP:IAR. ArbCom's reaction was more for the sake of demonstrating a point than a real attempt at repudiation. The candidate does not deserve desysopping for this (and ArbCom had jurisdiction to do that, and did not desysop him). On the joke on his website, the candidate acted in a way that was silly but does not deserve desysopping. Calling a man a 'mook' is undignified but does not deserve desysopping.
    The candidate asserted that a particular man, a politician from California, called himself a bigot and homophobe. If the candidate could find a source that demonstrates that the candidate described himself in those words, then the candidate's use of those words in relation to the man would be entirely justifiable. But he has no such source. I have examined the subject's website and it does not proclaim him as a bigot or homophobe. Google returns no statements of the type.
    The candidate relies on the contents of the subject's website, and states that it contains "code words" that are equivalent to the subject calling himself a bigot and homophobe. The candidate's drawing too long a bow. To describe the man as a bigot and homophobe, and to say that he himself described himself in those terms, is going too far.
    It is well documented that US law defends freedom of speech, especially in relation to politicians. The candidate's words are almost certainly not legally actionable. I agree that WP:BLP exists for reasons other than avoiding lawsuits. But the comments were not made in a biography and so I find that BLP does not apply.
    It is wrong, and against the interests of this project, to make incorrect and unfair statements of this type in an AfD discussion. For this reason the candidate deserves desysopping. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

    But if you look on the talk page, you'll see that his assessment of the man was correct. We've figured that out, and unless you want to buy Iridescent's argument (on said talk page) that defining people by the terms that exist in the English language is a "string of personal attacks", there's not much of an argument left. Besides, his rationale for deleting the article was that it was an attack on the subject, not because he didn't like the subject. Check out the talk page if you haven't already, and see what you make of that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

    I confirm that the subject of the article did not proclaim himself in public as a bigot nor homophobe. He might well be a bigot and a homophobe, but that is an opinion of Herostratus. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

38. Oppose based on BLP issues. BLGM5 (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
39. Can't fully trust your judgment as an administrator at the moment. Sorry. Jafeluv (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
40. Weak Oppose I don't think adminship is appropriate for this user at the present time, but I reserve judgement on their overall ability. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
41. Oppose I can only look at this as I would any other RfA. Balloonman wrote, "some might argue that we should use the same standards that we use when evaluating new candidates when assessing already existing candidates" - that'd be me then. This is an RfA, and I do not consider this person a good candidate for adminship at this time. Herostratus, I hope that you will understand my viewpoint, and if this RfA should fail, I hope that you will endeavour to demonstrate more collegiate behaviour, and will apply for adminship again after appropritate time. I believe that the best approach to 'recall' is for admins to demonstrate exemplary honour and common sense, and to resign where appropriate, and apply for adminship in the normal manner. I think that Herostratus' instigation of this RfA, acceptance of the recall, and behaviour in it has been great, and that this should be taken into account in any future application for adminship. With a nod to WP:NOBIGDEAL. I have taken into account the support reasonings about no great harm being done to Wikipedia in the actions leading up to this, however, we would not factor in a 'lack of harm' when evaluating a non-admins RfA; we'd look at their recent edit history and conclude based upon that. I'm prepared to hear and evaluate counter-arguments, but this is the way I understand this process at the present time.  Chzz  ►  19:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
42. Regretful Oppose In an ideal world I would have remained neutral. But for all the good things, there is one problem that casts a shadow over the entire project. Nothing good can happen without drama. I think it's a scandal that someone decent enough to hold their hands up can be desysopped, while someone "guilty" of similar or worse but not prepared to put their neck on the line for their principles can get away with their actions scot-free. Until this anomoly is dealt with, I feel it would be very difficult to support anyone any admin in this position. If you were to demonstrate understanding of BLP policy over the next few months, I'm absolutely certain that I would support a future RfA. WFCforLife (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
43. Oppose I'm not sure your stance on BLP, judgment, etc are for the best. Achromatic (talk) 06:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
44. Oppose, per spectacularly bad judgement and equally spectacular capacity to generate drama. The BLP episode (especially the idea that it is OK to violate BLP in projectspace) and unblocking himself are pretty bad but, in an of themselves, would probably not be enough for me to oppose. However, the candidate's behaviour in this "RfA" clinches the deal for me. It is clear that if someone with such bad judgement, stubbornness, the ability to generate drama and propensity to plunge into something without thinking it through run in a standard RfA now, they would not be approved for adminship. Nsk92 (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
45. Oppose: There certainly have been lapses in judgement and the statements made by the candidate here seem to indicate that such behavior is likely to continue. H should hand in the mop for awhile, methinks. Sunray (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
46. Oppose – I found this a difficult decision, but I'm just not confident in his judgment. A crucial quality in an admin (in my view) is the ability to reduce the drama-level of discussions. With Herostratus, drama seems to increase, as he wades into areas without quite knowing how his comments and actions will be seen by others. (I would say that even this very non-RfA RfA is an example.) His possibly-BLP-violating comments in the AfD are not something new for him: see also his completely unnecessary comments "the girl is just not that pretty" and "talentless mope" at MfDs. One can debate whether or not these project-space insults violate BLP policy, but either way this is not the sort of decorum one expects from admins. It doesn't help that he misunderstood BLP policy as being primarily about Wikimedia avoiding lawsuits. His close of deletion discussions suggest a lack of understanding of process as well, for example this close as "merge denied" is a lengthy and cogent explanation but in no way is it an attempt at determining the consensus of the discussion's participants (he seems to be using his status as admin as a "super-vote" though I don't doubt he was doing it in good faith, and yes I know it was upheld at DRV). So, contrary to some of the supporters here, I do see a pattern of problems with Herostratus, and think he should relinquish adminship until it is clear that he has the trust of the community again. He certainly can do plenty of good work (and has done plenty of good work) here without the tools. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
47. Oppose. Much as I respect Heros for actually putting himself up for recall, after close review of his entire administrative history I must oppose. Take a much needed break from admin hassles, Heros. Maybe even help build/improve mainspace a bit. Then, if and when you are ready again, I will seriously consider supporting you. Till then, be well.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 11:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
48. Oppose repeatedly demonstrated poor judgement.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral for now - I haven't seen any examples of the user abusing admin powers, but I have seen bad judgment shown on multiple fronts...and they seem to be making a joke of the whole issue. Not knowing that copyvio issues and WP:BLP apply outside articles. Calling the subject of a BLP a bigot and homophobe. (The words don't need to be redacted, just their use against a specific target without damn good sourcing.) I very much question the user's judgment and knowledge of current policy, but don't support removing the tools unless they've been abused. Vote subject to change if examples of poor tool use are provided. --Onorem♠Dil 15:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
2. Neutral for now. [Comment and subsequent thread removed per WP:NPA, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". Fences&Windows 21:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)] Keepscases (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   I'm pretty sure WP:IAR trumps WP:NPA in this case, especially since I made no accusation, but whatever. I really hope I never have to say "I told you so." Keepscases (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   Neutral: The admin in question says s/he is a supporter of BLP and seems open to understanding what went wrong. Admits errors and seems to know what s/he is good at, like any admin should and seems to display a general sense of maturity. Neutral for now, but I would like to see what happened, not any [redacted] stuff. Please comment below so I can see a clearer picture, or provide a deleted copy. Thank you Move to Oppose  – Tommy [message] 16:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   Where do you see the admission of error? Just like evidence of tool abuse might sway my vote one way, if I thought this user was admitting they'd done anything wrong, it might sway my vote the other. Instead, they seem to be proposing new policy to justify their actions. --Onorem♠Dil 16:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   At Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2/The Great Galoot Scare Of 2010, starting at "Now, here's what I say about this:" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   Not convincing...especially when the section ends with an explanation of why everyone else is wrong. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Is it okay to violate BLP policy in the talk space? still has the specific comments from the now deleted AfD if anyone is interested. The first, meh. The second and third concern me. --Onorem♠Dil 16:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   Oh, I'm not saying I'm convinced - hence my provisional Neutral !vote below, Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   Likewise. I was referring to when he says "I'm only human and try to be evenhanded"  – Tommy [message] 16:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   Waiting for A for Q5....  – Tommy [message] 00:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

   NeutralReluctantly have to switch to oppose, unfortunately. I think I have to stay neutral for now. I'd like to !vote Support, as the candidate does seem contrite about the mistakes made. However, I'm disturbed by the candidate not accepting that making derogatory comments about living people *in any Wikipedia space* contravenes WP:BLP. I'm also disappointed that the candidate has asked admins not to contribute here, as they are the only ones who can see the now-deleted comments and are best placed to judge on how defamatory they really are - it's kind of like gagging the only witness to the alleged crime. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC) (Struck that bit, after withdrawal and explanation - I'm sure it was in good faith. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC))

   Additional - have only just seen the "bigot" and "homophobe" comments - very definitely contrary to WP:BLP. Technically, abuse of admin tools might not have happened, but admins are expected to set much higher standards than that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   Maybe you can help me on this, because I feel like I might be missing something important. He claimed that the individual referred to himself as those things. Do we need to cite sources for that sort of claim on a discussion page? The only thing he seems to have called the individual himself was a "mook", and I can't even figure out what the insult is supposed to mean - was he calling him a graffiti artist?--~TPW 17:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   Mook [6]--Cube lurker (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   Mook is a very mild term, at best. Like Guido (slang), or maybe a "cad" if your early 20th century old school.--Milowent (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   No, I'm not suggesting he should have provided citations, I'm suggesting he should not have made those assertions at all. I really find it hard to believe that the BLP subject described himself as a "bigot" and a "homophobe" - at best I suspect it was interpretation/paraphrasing by Herostratus, and the admins who examined it here did conclude it was a WP:BLP violation. But anyway, the actual words he used aren't the key issue for me - my issue is that Herostratus doesn't accept that WP:BLP applies to all Wikipedia spaces, when it clearly does. If he insists that is the case, I will probably shift to Oppose - but if he acknowledges and accepts WP:BLP and pledges to abide by it in all Wikipedia spaces, I will probably shift to Support. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   Additional: It's actually possible to find the full text of Herostratus's bigot/homophobe comment and identify the subject, and I do not think it is remotely plausible that the subject described himself as a "bigot" and a "homophobe". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks for the feedback and mook definition. I find it hard to swallow that he believes (or believed) that he was participating in "collegial intercommunications" during that AfD, but if you would like me to actually read the full text, please just tell me directly where to find it rather than dancing around the subject. I really don't think I have enough information to move from support as it stands, so if there's any way for me to review that information I would appreciate having it stated clearly. --~TPW 21:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   I was unsure about linking in case it was considered defamatory, but I guess it's OK for the purposes of our discussion here. There's a chunk of the nomination discussion here. I'm not sure why that site has it, but I found it when searching for the subject's name plus "bigot" and "homophobe" to look for evidence that he had actually addressed himself by those terms - I found no evidence that he had. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks again, Boing etc. I also didn't find any such reference. Reconsidering.--~TPW 02:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

   Actually, I suspect he probably has said this. "I believe.....and if that makes me a bigot and a homophobe in the eyes of....." sounds like a classic lawyer's or politician's statement--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

   I don't think totally-unsupported guesswork is really very useful here - if the guy did say something like that, it's up to Herostratus to support it with evidence, or at least explain exactly what he meant. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

   If in a perfectly civil conversation on the article's talk page Hero had said, "I heard this guy admitted to being a bigot and a homophobe. Does anyone know about this?" would it have been a violation? I'm having a hard time holding a discussion page to this standard of being able to provide verifiable sources. If he had said, "this guy's a so-and-so" I would see the point, but he said, "the guy admitted to being a so-and-so," which is an assertion. In an article, an uncited assertion which is challenged is removed; aggressively so when it comes to living people. We don't necessarily block the person that introduced it, however, particularly if it appeared to be in good faith. I think it's reasonable to say that Hero believed, in good faith, that this was a fact. Removing it was reasonable, but I don't think it rises to the level of removing admin bits in and of itself. I may remove my support, but this fact probably isn't going to be the one that sways me.--~TPW 16:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

   ...and as they say, if my Aunt had a package she'd be my Uncle. Why would we waste time talikng about what if's when that's not what happened?--Cube lurker (talk)

   Oh yes, I do accept there may be mitigating circumstances behind the "bigot/homophobe" comments, but speculation isn't going to get us to them. Only clarification from Herostratus can do that, and I'm a bit disappointed he hasn't clarified things either way. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

3. Neutral Abused tools? No. Questionable views? Yes. Tools revoked? No. Blocked or admonished? Yes. —fetch·comms 17:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   Neutral for now (switching to "weak support"): I am disturbed by Herostratus's actions, though I'm still undecided as to whether I think desysopping is in order. Flippant comments are generally unwise in this (or any other) text medium, because other people might not realize they were made in jest and could take them seriously (with undesired results — I think we've seen numerous examples of that here). And this is even more true for admins, who (whether it was the original intention or not) are looked up to by many as examples and need to be especially careful to act responsibly. At the very least, Herostratus will hopefully realize that if this sort of thing had come up during his original RfA, he probably would not have been given the mop. Richwales (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

4. Neutral. I'm an editor who happens to be an administrator and it's in my capacity as an editor that I make this comment. I'm not in the oppose column because I feel the examples cited are a few isolated cases of bad judgement rather than an ongoing series of poor judgements and who among us can honestly say the haven't completely and utterly fucked something up in their time? I've made my share of bad calls as an editor and as an administrator, but this is a wiki- there are very, very few things that an editor (or even an administrator) can do that will cause irreparable damage. However, what stops me from placing this in the support section is that you don't seem willing to admit that you were in the wrong. If you came out and said, clear as day "OK, folks, I cocked up, I'm sorry", I would have no issue whatsoever with you continuing to serve as an admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   Switching to oppose. Regarding "I'll specify that admins recuse themselves", I'm hoping "neutral" is sufficiently recused. I'm only weighing in here because I think we have to deal sooner or later with the question of what to do about admins who have been out of the loop for a while who come across like "old-timers". Herostratus's understanding of BLP seems to me to be in line with the way things used to be on Wikipedia; he certainly doesn't seem wild-eyed, and he's here voluntarily. The community is totally within its right to talk about admin quality-control issues, but if that's what we're doing, I really wish we'd keep it focused on standards in general, rather than dumping our angst over the general issue on the particular target of the moment, because that's likely to push him away, and possibly others who might perceive that they won't measure up. Herostratus, BLP policy is now driven by the fact that Wikipedia is roughly tied with Facebook as the highest-traffic non-portal internet site, so things get crazy in a hurry when we're perceived as biased, even on a talk page, especially if "we" is an admin or anyone else perceived as being in authority (as if admins had any authority, but I tried and failed explaining that at a party on Saturday). That's why people want to take your mop away. You're not under any actual obligation to report to the stewards for hanging if this should fail, so whether it fails or not, Would you be willing to learn a bit about the various headaches our previous BLP policy caused? You've been getting an earful from a lot of people who can tell you a lot of stories, if you've got the time. - Dank (push to talk) 21:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   No, yes, that is very interesting. No I am familiar with the Siegenthaler case and a couple of others but, now that you mention it, not recent cases over the last couple of years. Yes I see your point -- there is an undercurrent of fear here that maybe wasn't there before. That is unfortunate. I am not fear-driven so yes, I see what you mean about not fitting in... but I'm very big on protecting the Wikipedia from harm and always have been, I certainly support flagged edits or even near-full protection for all BLPs and or whatever it takes... I would support a straight-out NO BLP policy if was necessary for the Wikipedia to survive. Hmmmm. But on the hand, I am getting a lot of "No, you don't get it, BLP is not to protect the Wikipedia from harm, it is to protect the interests of the subjects as an end in itself..." A quote from Jimbo to the effect of "Wikipedia is not here to make people feel bad..." I have heard. This I do not understand. What would Diderot say to that? I want the Wikipedia to make people feel bad -- kings, tyrants, fanatics, anti-intellectuals, commissars. I love to imagine Ahmadinajad or his like stomping their feet and yelling "Block that damn Wikipedia!" I don't care if Ahmadinajad feels bad. I also don't care if people who try to pervert the Wikipedia for their own nefarious ends -- spammers, that is -- feel bad; I don't. And I'm not inclined to pretend to, although I will if if I have to. Here's what gets me. Image a hypothetical situation -- this is a thought experiment -- where an edit is made where 1) It is absolutely impossible for the Wikipedia to get in any legal trouble or publicity trouble or any kind of trouble (this is a thought experiment remember), and 2) the edit is about a living person who has tried to damage Wikipedia by (say) inserting an article about himself that is full of false fulsome praise for himself, and 3) the edit would cause some harm to that person - hurt his feelings, maybe, or even his reputation. Would you sanction someone who made that edit?

   These people are not Brian Peppers. Some years ago, before BLP existed, I wrote WP:NOT EVIL, as a policy proposal (it failed badly), partly in response to the ludicrous Brian Peppers situation and also some other things. (Even then I had to hedge it round quite a bit.) So it's not like I'm heartless or amoral. My heart goes out to anyone who is unjustly hurt by Wikipedia. My scorn goes out to anyone who would unjustly hurt Wikipedia. Herostratus (talk) 05:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

5. Made himself open to recall, 7 editors in good standing take him up on it, and now it's coming back to bite him in the ass. You should feel very fortunate if you do walk away from this with your mop intact, as it's no small matter that several highly experienced editors say you should be de-sysoped. Of course, you do have the option of withdrawing from this RfA at any time.... -- œ^™ 22:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
6. Neutral for now. I have seen great admin work, but I don't like admins unblocking themselves after seeing what happened to Tan. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 22:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
7. Neutral Since I seem to be prevented from commenting on the merits of this RfA qua Admin, per the wishes of the nominee, I can only comment as an editor. That said, I support User:HJ Mitchell's comments above. A mess from start to finish, and should never have happened. Rodhullandemu 23:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
8. Neutral This one was hard. I could have supported, but I can't per the concerns raised in the oppose section. Sorry. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
9. Neutral but only for now, i cant support right now, maybe some other time. Dwayne was here! ♫ 21:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

   This is a reconfirmation/recall request... "other time" seems a bit odd to me. —fetch·comms 23:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

   Dont mind that. Thanks, Dwayne was here! ♫ 14:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

10. Neutral because his lapses of judgement IMO are almost exactly balanced by his attempts to do the right thing. BUT this messy incident does point to the need to improve/clarify the procedures for sysop review (e.g., automatic expiry after 2 years). HeartofaDog (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
11. Neutral. While I don't think that Herostratus' AfD nomination was a true BLP violation or at least not one that should lead to automatic desysoping, I am concerned about poor judgment both there and in other cases (as noted by ArbCom). Nor do I favour revoking the bit for old or inactive admins (though I may be biased by my own desire to retain adminship). Overall, while Herostratus has not done anything that would make be call for his bit in normal circumstances, I am, not prepared to endorse his retaining it either. Hence this neutral "vote". Eluchil404 (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
12. Neutral. I'm not seeing any abuse of the tools themselves, which prevents me from opposing. But his lapses in judgment prevent me from supporting. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 01:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
13. Neutral. Adminship's not the issue; adherence to/acceptance of policy and general civility are. Can't help but wonder about the subjects choice of pseudonym - see Herostratus if your classics are shaky. - TB (talk) 12:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
14. Weak Neutral Respect for going through the process (much respect actually). Arbcom thing has been dealt with in the past. BLP issues are a concern though. Jokes tend to be best in other wikis though... Not enough to oppose and go with de-opsing based on everything to be considered. But still concerns for the status quo. Quite the toss up i think here. (If consensus steers towards the status quo though, Id respect and support that, hence my weak neutral) Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
15. Neutral. Like The Thing, I see no abuse of admin tools. However, I cannot support as I feel this matter should be addressed at RfC/U, Tiderolls 05:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
16. Neutral: changing from oppose per discussion on talk page and other arguments. It seems pretty clear that while the statements made regarding the subject being a "bigot" and a "homophobe" were self-admissions of the subject and undeniably true; in light of that, it was simply that Herostratus failed to reference that which made it a BLP violation. While I'm concerned that Hero seems to have set out to change policy so that his own offence will no longer be an offence in future (which seems to indicate that he doesn't really believe he was in the wrong here, and is why I'm neutral rather than support), I don't think that this incident alone is enough to warrant removal of Hero's admin tools; I would like to see what consensus says though, as ultimately the community needs to have faith in his ability to be an admin. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
17. Neutral Is it worth keeping an admin who does hard work in murky areas, if they don't seem to get what the community view of BLP is? I'm geniunely not sure. Lack of actual evidence of abuse of tools is not wholly irrelevant, but the core issue is one of confidence and competence. MickMacNee (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
18. Neutral After reviewing the situation in Question- He sees admittance to wrongdoing, but he refuses to acknowledge his BLP Violation. Technically, he should not lose his admin rights because removal of his admin rights are reserved for abuses that also include admin tools- anyone could make a bad AFD nomination. I have no idea who the politician in question was- but an AFD should not attack the subject of the article- it appears his reasoning was his political views rather than the notability/lack of notability for the subject. I don't want to have my own political beliefs cloud my judgement, so rather than opposing this, I'm going to just comment on my thoughts about it. --Rockstonetalk to me! 23:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

    Just wanted point out that you said there "He sees admittance to wrongdoing, but he refuses to acknowledge his BLP Violation." But in his answer to question 7 Hero replied "Now, please note, that when I did call the person a redactophobe and a redact, I was violating BLP." That's him acknowledging it, surely? That's all. ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 01:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

    but this contradicts his answer then. It really should be changed! --Rockstonetalk to me! 01:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Addendum: he says "I don't think any of these are BLP violations, but I don't know. They could be." --Rockstonetalk to me! 01:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

    Well perhaps that's simply an indication that he's learning from this. Better that he admits he was wrong than stubbornly insist he was right, in my opinion. ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 01:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

    Probably, but it should be corrected then. I will give him kudos for not deleting the article upfront. --Rockstonetalk to me! 18:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

19. Neutral largely per The Thing and HJ. I don't really see "admin abuse" but you do seem to hade a few bad choices....--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 19:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
20. Neutral You have some good work but the concerns in the oppose section make me remain neutral. Décembër21st2012Freâk ^Talk at 21:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
21. Neutral lean oppose After reconsidering this, I've decided that I just can't support... to many issues that make you wonder... plus, it is always a bad thing when a person is as prone to drama as Herostratus is... and I just don't see that drama disappearing anytime soon. If this is closed as a keep, it will be decried as a sham. If it is closed as a removal of the bit, it will be decried as a farce. Too much drama based off of an ill conceived and ill planned move adding to other ill advised moves forces me to move to the neutral category. I do like the fact that you work in an area where most of do not want to go, but still, you have shown some significant lacks of judgement. I fear that the best thing, although not necessarily the right thing, would be to relinquish the bit.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)