Jump to content

User talk:Hersfold: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 264: Line 264:
:Kindly take a look at my suggestions concerning this IP (who is [[User:Kumioko]]) on the talk page. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 03:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
:Kindly take a look at my suggestions concerning this IP (who is [[User:Kumioko]]) on the talk page. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 03:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
::Eh. If they refuse to abide by policy, then I'll likely just block the IP. If they do intend to do a clean start, they're more than welcome to do so, but editing as an IP isn't really the way to do it. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 03:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
::Eh. If they refuse to abide by policy, then I'll likely just block the IP. If they do intend to do a clean start, they're more than welcome to do so, but editing as an IP isn't really the way to do it. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 03:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
:::Do whatever you feel like Hersfold. I didn't do anything wrong so I have nothing to apologize for. I made good edits including those in discussions and made it intentionally obvious who I was. In the end my passion for the project was largely extinguished so if you feel that my edits are not wanted then feel free to show that. [[Special:Contributions/108.28.162.125|108.28.162.125]] ([[User talk:108.28.162.125|talk]]) 04:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
:::Do whatever you feel like Hersfold. I didn't do anything wrong so I have nothing to apologize for. I made good edits including those in discussions and made it intentionally obvious who I was. In the end my passion for the project was largely extinguished so if you feel that my edits are not wanted then feel free to show that. I wanted to be a benefit to the project and a useful editor because I believe in the project but the majority of editors jsut think I am a troll and a vandal and can't be trusted so I no longer see a reason to prove them wrong. Its just part of the toxic culture of the pedia. Partly my fault for giving in but after 6 years I am tired of the BS and being told I can't be trusted by a bunch of kids. [[Special:Contributions/108.28.162.125|108.28.162.125]] ([[User talk:108.28.162.125|talk]]) 04:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:32, 20 February 2013

ATTENTION: One or more IPBE flags are up for review at this time. Please confirm that all flags listed on this page are still necessary. Thank you!
Welcome to my Talk Page!

Thank you for coming by, however please note that I have largely retired from Wikipedia. Messages left here will not receive a prompt response, if ever. Please also note that I no longer hold any access rights; if you are contacting me in relation to a block, deletion, or any other administrative action I have taken, I am unable to assist you. Please contact another administrator for help.

If you do have an urgent need to contact me specifically, such as for one of my bots, please send me an email via Special:Emailuser/Hersfold.

User:Hersfold/Talk Header - v • e


Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acoma Magic/Archive

{{You've got mail}} Hi, Hersfold, and thanks for your help with the Butterbumps (talk · contribs) problem. This user has now moved on to a new account, Shagwells (talk · contribs) (account creation date) and I am receiving the same type of homophobic emails. Since I'm a heterosexual who works on countercultural articles that often have LGBT articles as part of their scope, I'm not personally offended by the emails, but I am concerned that this same person might be targeting Wikipedians who self-identify as LGBT and have not spoken up about the harassment. Please look at your email inbox in the next few minutes (or days as you get a chance) as I'm forwarding all emails, including full headers. Thanks for helping to deal with the problem. Viriditas (talk) 05:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks. Gotta love those disposable email addresses. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Unfortunately the email headers aren't of any use - since they're sent through Mediawiki (and on top of that with a throwaway email) I can't get any useful technical information from them. Do please keep reporting any accounts sending these emails to SPI, but I don't think it'll be necessary to send the emails themselves. Fortunately, you seem to be the only person they've emailed (through wiki). Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Does it look like this person is using a Kindle on the Sprint network? Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't answer that. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 16:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'm assuming, based on the original SPI, that Amazon proxy users are on a Kindle via a Sprint connection. I don't know, however, if that is true. Viriditas (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't provide specific information about what sort of device someone is using, and in some cases I'm not even able to tell all that well. In the case of the Amazon proxy, I can't tell how they're connecting to the proxy; I got that information from the IP WHOIS data. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail: another minor self-identifying

Hello, Hersfold. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see it - are you sure it was sent to me? Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel on ANI

What was the reason for deleting several ANI diffs on 1/1/13? Just curious  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone had reported a minor's self-disclosure of identifying information, and in the process posted some of that information themselves. I had to nuke a rather large set of revisions to make sure it was completely removed. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

Crat statement draft

Hi Following the drama at BN, I'm trying to come up with a statement all Crats could agree to. Please take a look, below. I am quite content to do this onwiki -we have always worked transparently, except where secrecy is essential (ie RTV). I think we should be able to wordsmith a statement acceptable to all, and I think it's an important thing to do.

  1. In my opinion, this issue has come about through an unfortunate proliferation of documentation: policy, guideline, how-to etc
  2. I am not convinced that there is community consensus on all of the points encapsulated in those various pages
  3. I am unhappy at what may be described as some or all of: inconsistencies, inaccuracies or lack of clarity in that documentation
  4. I do not believe that any of the issues we have faced have been caused by Crats trying to widen their powers
  5. I would like to see the issues clarified, based on consensus, and for the documentation to be updated accordingly
  6. I'd like to thank Griot-de for generously withdrawing the rename request

Signed [crat sig] Lmk what you think. Many thanks, --Dweller (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been offline for most of the past few days, so I've honestly no idea what this is about. I'm coming down with a bit of a cold now unfortunately, so I don't anticipate that I'll be much more active in the coming days either, so I'd rather abstain from all this. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you better! --Dweller (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

I hope you're feeling better

Hi, Hersfold. No big emergency. I just wanted you to know that I'm considering an unblock here based on the user accepting your unblock conditions. I'm in no rush so just post a note there or on my user talk if you need me to wait for any reason. Thanks Tiderolls 14:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the well wishes - fire away when you're ready, everything looks good to me. Glad we got this worked out. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

You've got mail

Hello, Hersfold. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- McMasterdonia (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied, awaiting your response. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

QQ about RFCU

You said at A/R/C that "if the RFCU determines a user is disruptive, and the user continues that same behavior, an uninvolved administrator would be well within their authority to block said user for disruptive editing". However, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing says "all participants must agree at the RfC/U talk page on which summary to use", so as far as I can tell RFCUs can not "determine" anything about a user without that user's agreement. For this reason, my (fortunately for me) very limited experience with RFC/U is that it is not useful for dealing with an editor who is, in the end, unwilling to change some behavior voluntarily. Does RFC/U ever play out in some other way? HaugenErik (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that an RFCU can serve to illustrate what the main concerns with a user's conduct are, and what the community's thoughts about those concerns are. Yes, an RFCU does require mutual consent to be officially closed in a certain way. However, if there is a clear consensus amongst others that there is a problem, especially if the only real dissent is the user themselves, that's still something that can be used a proof of misconduct, making it easier for an admin to say "The community finds this disruptive and asked you nicely to stop. You didn't, so now my block button is asking you not-so-nicely to knock it off." You are correct, though, in that it is not binding, and so it is not useful in bringing an immediate stop to the misconduct unless the user in question is willing to listen. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk bot not running?

Check into that when you get home. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 19:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request suppression

Hi, would you consider suppressing this speculation at the entertainment ref desk? The section was created here and after hatting the subject's name redacted here. Thanks. (PS I am addressing you here since I don't use IRC.) μηδείς (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) The best place to request oversight is by emailing the oversight list. You can see how to do that here. The reason for this is because everybody watching this page can see the edit before it is suppressed if they see it (including me). Vacation9 23:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Revdelled. — foxj 23:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS question

Hi Hersfold. I seem to recall reading somehwere that you were involved in the development of the UTRS system, so I though asking you might provide a quick and easy answer to my question. I've run across a request which makes what seems to be valid case for their block being invalid - however, having reviewed the case, I'm convinced that the blocking admin's actions were entirely correct, given the information they had available. In the case of a regular unblock appeal, I'd simply discuss it with the blocking admin per the usual process, but with UTRS I'm really not sure to what extent - if any - I can do that. Obviously I'd avoid revealing any of the data covered in the privacy policy, but do you know if there's a precedent for holding discussions with a (non-UTRS) blocking admin in such circumstances? Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 10:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's private data, the user should be contacting Arbcom. However, in most cases, if you place the ticket on hold and contact the blocking admin with "This user has revealed something to me that makes me thing your block was invalid, though correct at the time given the information available, and I'd like to unblock them" that you would get a favorable response.--v/r - TP 16:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If absolutely necessary, the blocking admin can request an UTRS account and then they'd be able to see whatever it is you've seen. But yes, TParis's approach is likely the best one to follow. Unfortunately, due to the UTRS Privacy Policy, we are restricted from discussing most of the information in appeals on-wiki. It's based on European privacy laws (which have to be followed on the Toolserver), which are much stricter than those in the US (which we follow on Wikipedia). Isn't internet jurisdiction fun? Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 17:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the responses. In the event, a wiser admin than I got to the request whilst I was dithering and dealt with it. Useful pointers for the future, though; much obliged. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did?--v/r - TP 13:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

Request for assistance

Hello, I was wondering if you could review a discussion re: the exclusion of the National Women's Soccer League on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues and provide your feedback? Discussion is available here. I'm seeking some impartial feedback from an administrator. There is a little bit of additional discussion on my Talk page. Thank you for your consideration. Hmlarson (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bug 32234

Has there been any discussions onwiki about bugzilla:32234 - it appears to have languished a very long time. We probably need to nudge the shell group. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this on my watchlist, I replied at my talk just so you know, Hersfold. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm aware of. I know there's been a push lately to throttle emails, especially for new accounts, but I don't recall anything recent about accounts themselves. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

Thanks for helping with socks and COI/BLPs

Hersfold, Thanks for your help with Maxwell_C._Hall, Maxwell_C_Hall, User:ILoveWiki955, User:AlexTJ86, and User:MaxHall1994. I really appreciate your willingness to hear my explanations of the issues and to help. I also would like to thank you for the advice you gave this user. I totally agree with you that not using a bunch of templates for this circumstance was the right thing to do and I was happily amazed that you spent the time to craft all of that language for this specific circumstance. Perhaps I'll see you around WP again sometime. Thanks again. - ʈucoxn\talk 09:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite welcome. I'll see you around. :-) Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 17:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

Content deleted for copyright concerns

Hi, Hersfold. Speaking purely and solely as Moonriddengirl, I hope that the committee will consider the temporary restoration of this content under appropriate blanking template. We currently have dozens of articles blanked (some for months) at WP:CP. While there may be some additional legal jeopardy for the editor who restores that content (who may then become guilty of contributory infringement), I feel confident enough that (a) the lack of actual publication and (b) the clearly transformative intent of the investigation would provide protection that I would comfortably restore them so myself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I think we've worked out a way to handle this to minimize the impact as much as possible. I actually just sent a summary of the plan to the arbcom list for a "final review, speak now or forever hold your peace." I'll send you a copy as well so we've got some more experienced eyes on it, but I'm fairly sure it should work. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 21:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony77600

Since you looked at the unblocks, could I get you to take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations#Quick CheckUser requests? The hardblock didn't stop the socking, yet, he is still obviously using that IP address based on his unblock request. I'm confused.—Kww(talk) 17:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I dropped by with an explanation for you. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like DQ's handling it. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RAN

I'm off to work pretty quick here, will get back to you with the list of RAN pieces with histories wiped at the time of restarting.

I've bumped into a wiped history for the Copyright Problems board WP:CP. The edit history only goes back to 2005, but the board archive lists a few things as early as 2002. If that 2002-2005 history could be located, that would be of interest, I'm trying to untangle the institutional history of WP's copyvio rules and practices for addressing copyvio. Thanks very much! — Tim /// Carrite (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) FWIW, the earliest coding I see of copyvio rules are here. I haven't checked to see when it first entered, but a spot-check of 2004 ([1]) shows that issues have been listed at CP for some time, although at its earlier title. The oldest edit I find there is 2003: [2]. At least then, the rules seemed similar - remove unless you can verify license; block people who won't stop. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I doubt you'll find anything more historical than this. :)
The practice in the U.S. Wikipedia when one of us discovers an article (or part of one) that has been copied from a webpage (or printed source, for that matter, although that's rare) is to remove that material immediately, post a notice in its place that it has been removed for suspicion of copyright infringement (and include the URL for the website), and let the contributor show either proof it is not copyrighted or proof of permission from the copyright holder to include it in the 'pedia -- and that does not apply only to webpages in English or originating in the U.S. If the contributor does not do so, the material stays out; if a contributor keeps posting suspicious material without proving it's not infringing a copyright, that contributor is blocked. This is an issue on which there is no room for negotiation: When in doubt, leave it out.
[3] --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you two. The history of how copyright has been handled on Wikipedia will definitely be central to this case, and I was planning on doing one of those crowd-sourced evidence sections on it if nobody posted it on their own. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh! Just think what skeletons might come tumbling out of the cupboard! :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)\\[reply]

Wiped histories

Here are the pulled-blanked-and-restarted pages for which I need to read the original histories so as to assess what was done and when in terms of copyvio:

I may be missing one, I see 9 at the moment... Thanks. Carrite (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh goodie, I was hoping the pages were still deleted, this'll be fun. Thanks, I'll start working on getting these loaded up. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done all of them except for Infanticide, as that page has never been deleted and you only mentioned eight in the CCI mentioned above anyway. If you do have any more that you'd like restored, please link to them in the section on the Evidence page. The remaining four articles will be selected from the ones the parties request. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram evidence question

I note there are a couple of sections of Doncram's evidence that don't have any supporting diffs -- will those be removed, as you suggested might happen on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Evidence#Question for clerks or arbs? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check with the Committee on it, but taking a quick glance at it it's likely some of them will be. Some of the evidence sections seem to be more commentary than actual evidence - which I personally don't think is appropriate for an Evidence page, but historically those tend to be permitted - but others (looking at Orlady has egged on several combative-type editors against me right now) make actual assertions with no evidence, and that's almost certainly inadmissible. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was one of the sections I was thinking of, along with "Consequences of longterm attacking undermine Wikipedia in several ways that really do matter". Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed out those two sections along with two others in my email. I'm honestly not quite sure what he's getting at in the one you mention, though. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 18:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

Talkback

Hello, Hersfold. You have new messages at 108.28.162.125's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

108.28.162.125 (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly take a look at my suggestions concerning this IP (who is User:Kumioko) on the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eh. If they refuse to abide by policy, then I'll likely just block the IP. If they do intend to do a clean start, they're more than welcome to do so, but editing as an IP isn't really the way to do it. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do whatever you feel like Hersfold. I didn't do anything wrong so I have nothing to apologize for. I made good edits including those in discussions and made it intentionally obvious who I was. In the end my passion for the project was largely extinguished so if you feel that my edits are not wanted then feel free to show that. I wanted to be a benefit to the project and a useful editor because I believe in the project but the majority of editors jsut think I am a troll and a vandal and can't be trusted so I no longer see a reason to prove them wrong. Its just part of the toxic culture of the pedia. Partly my fault for giving in but after 6 years I am tired of the BS and being told I can't be trusted by a bunch of kids. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hersfold&oldid=539172764"