User talk:Hersfold/Archive 54 (June 2011)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
← Previous archive - Archive 54 (June 2011) - Next archive →

This page contains discussions dated during the month of June 2011 from User talk:Hersfold. Please direct all current discussions there. Thank you.

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

SPI Cookie

Elizium23 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.


To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for your CheckUser work on the SPI case I opened. Sorry it was so messy! Elizium23 (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Mmmm, a warm cookie. Thanks much, and don't worry about it. In some ways it's better having one that appears messy up front as opposed to one that looks easy and turns out to be ugly. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

I respect your decision and thank you for your courtesy. I will run again someday. Just out of curiousity, how long have you been on Wikipedia? NASCARFAN1717 (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Wikiman1717

Four and a half years. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow I been doing this for 14 years. NASCARFAN1717 (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Wikiman1717

Cool NASCARFAN1717 (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2011


That's a neat trick, considering Wikipedia celebrated its tenth birthday a few months ago, and that your account was registered on the 7th of this month. So either you're a time traveler that is using sockpuppets, or you're lying for no apparent reason (which, by the way, does not improve my assessment of you that you're not here to contribute). Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
FYI. This is especially hilarious. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Totally called it. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


New to Wikipedia- Protocol & Process Request

I've added links to the Robina Suwol page and would like to know protocol or process for requesting some of the commentary at the top to be considered for removal. Thanks CentralAbe (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC) Central Abe

In general, those notes can be removed by any editor that feels as though the issues have been resolved to the satisfaction of relevant policies or guidelines, which are linked in the notices. I'm taking a look at it now, though, and while you have added a large number of links as references, it's not clear what these links are intended to be referencing. You may want to convert them into footnote-style citations to help with that. The notability also remains a large issue. The majority of the article talks not about Ms. Suwol but her program, and the large number of red links in the sections that are about her raise questions as to the importance of the awards she's earned. If the sources you've added talk mostly about her and not her program, then that may help matters, but then the article still needs cleanup to address the subject and not other topics. I hope this helps. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
P.S. - In future, remember that talk page messages should always go to the bottom of the screen. You can use the "New section" tab at the top of the page to help with this.

"not implausible"

Whilst the behavioral/communication similarities between Nutley and TLAM bring a big fat duck waddling into view, the technical findings appear sufficient only for a verdict that, in your own words, it's "not implausible" that these two accounts might be operated by Nutley alone or with a meatpuppet. Plausibility ("Superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious" -- Mirriam Webster) would seem, on the face of it, to set the bar for a sock block so low that it could trip an innocent editor. Is my understanding correct? Please clarify. Thank you. Writegeist (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It probably is unhelpful to provide many details about checkuser procedures. mark nutley has in the past gone to great lengths to conceal his identity, even paying to have access to WP:OP addresses. But checkuser would not have been performed had there not been behavioral evidence. And since the sockmaster has identified himself, it should be possible for any innocent suspected sock who lives in Wiltshire and edit-wars in the same articles with the same POV and writing style to show that he is someone else. While it may be inconvenient to them, mark nutley has created huge inconvenience to many other editors. TFD (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Replying at your talk. Writegeist (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
As I said on TLAM's talk page, he was not blocked solely because of the checkuser findings. He was blocked due to those similarities in combination with the behavioral evidence. As TFD is hinting at, providing much more detail than I've already have would be inadvisable due to WP:BEANS, and would quite possibly be in violation of the Checkuser or Privacy policy in any event. If TLAM is indeed someone else, it should be possible for him to prove that. Keep in mind also that if he is a different person and yet still engages in the same behavior Mark Nutley uses, he could well be blocked by his own merits anyway. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I do understand that the behavior was taken into account -- I referenced WP:QUACK. But the technical evidence presented in support of the block is so loose, and so very far short of conclusive, that TLAM's "flimsy" is putting it mildly (and the admitted avoidance of full disclosure only deepens the impression of flimflam, which would further infuriate an innocent user). Indeed you will only go so far as to say it is "not implausible" (again please see the Mirriam Webster def. above) that TLAM is MN. OK. So how exactly would it be "possible for him to prove" otherwise to your satisfaction? Or at least to the extent that you might think it "not implausible" that TLAM and MN are different people? Writegeist (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Remember that I am the one who has access to the technical evidence. I am not convinced that the technical evidence is as loose as you claim. If you believe that my refusal to provide more detail is weakening the case, then I apologize - that is something you'd have to take up with the Wikimedia Foundation, as I am bound by their policies to keep my mouth shut about any specific details regarding checkuser evidence. Technically speaking, it is not implausible. The behavioral evidence is more compelling. The combination of the two, again, is what led to TLAM's identification as Marknutley and the subsequent block. I will not state what will make it possible to prove his innocence because again, this is a sockpuppeteer who has been known to make efforts to hide his identify and I have no interest in giving him a road map to a get out of jail free card. Again, see WP:BEANS. If this weakens my case in your eyes, so be it; I am not concerned. This is TLAM/Mark's issue to deal with, not yours, and I will not accept third-party appeals. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
"I will not state what will make it possible to prove his innocence" -- is that a direct quote from something by Kafka? Your lack of concern for what I think doesn't surprise me. The only surprise is that you think it necessary to state it. I didn't ask for you to be concerned. And neither, contrary to your implication, is any of this an appeal on TLAM's behalf. However, it's reasonable for me to have an interest in the way others work in what is, after all, a collaborative project; also in its rules and procedures, and how they are enforced. I think the block is probably deserved. But thinking and knowing are two different things. Thanks for illuminating the workings of your mind. I appreciate you taking the time. Best wishes. Writegeist (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
My responsibility as a checkuser is to the security of this project. If that means publicly announcing a blow-by-blow checklist for how to evade blocks and run multiple accounts without being detected, then so be it. But if that is the case, I will have it come from the Arbitration Committee or the Wikimedia Foundation, not any random editor to come by who is unable to comprehend why I do what I do. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I did not realize that in asking how someone could prove their innocence I was asking for a blow-by-blow checklist of how to evade blocks. (And judging by MN's history he needs no instruction from you.) I am no more a "random editor" than you are. I am perfectly able to comprehend why you do what you do. That much is clear. Writegeist (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Griot is back

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/209.216.228.53
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SCFilm29#Blocked_indefinitely
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ralph_Nader&action=history

Reported privately already. Suggest another block. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.63.196.51 (talk • contribs)

Replied on IP's talk page. Report filed, IP blocked two weeks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I responded on my talk page also. If you have any additional questions or would like further information, I will respond privately. If you wish me to contact you, kindly provide your information on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.63.196.51 (talk • contribs)

User:Hersfold/Lockbox

Hi there. Would you please use Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items for this purpose instead? I cannot think of any reason to use your userspace to protect stuff and there are no other such "personal" lock boxes in use any more, to my knowledge. Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The pages I've added recently are there because they are likely targets in an ongoing attack by a serial sockpuppeteer. I will likely place them there soon, but for the time being I would prefer to keep a personal eye on them. It is much easier to do this when the cascaded page is in my userspace rather than project space. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay I have no problem with you protecting these templates, but why can't you use Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items for this? How is it easier to manage if the page is in your userspace? You can watch either page just as easily. Although you can do what you wish in your userspace, within reason, I don't think it is fair to demand that right when it affects a whole bunch of other pages throughout the encyclopedia. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
It is just a temporary thing, and the advantage of my userspace is that it directly implies "If you want this unprotected, please check with the checkuser first." I've only added a small handful of templates that aren't already on the more public list, so it isn't really a whole bunch of other pages. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Would you mind if we removed all the stuff which is covered by the other one, and just leave these temporary ones in your userspace? That would resolve one of the problems of these personal lockboxes, which is that often administrators are uncomfortable about changing stuff in other people's userspace (you may have noticed that I don't worry about this!) and there is no reason to expect them to ask your permission before unprotecting a template which has been deprecated or such. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Aye, I'll go do that. Belated apologies, by the way, for the original irate protection log entry. I realized after the fact that you had consulted with me about it at the time. That reluctance is part of the point of this, as I said, but it's not necessary for those other templates at this time. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, and no worries, and ... by the way, welcome back ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

What do I have to do?

Hello good sir, I just realised you just deleted a short biography of a young pianist, If I may, I would like to remake this page, with the nesecary requirements ofcourse, but you see, im new on this, would you please tell me what do I have to do in order for you to don't delete the page? Maximilian Zeth (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

In order for an article to remain on Wikipedia, it must establish that the subject is notable. The article I deleted did not include any references, which is also a necessity for any article. I suggest you read through this guide for suggestions as to how to resolve these and other issues. If you need, I can restore the article and place it on a page within your personal user page area, so that you can work on it at your own pace, and have it reviewed before moving it back to the main article space. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Griot, again

Thought you'd like to know, evading the block:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/209.216.228.208

Belated congrats and a thank you

Hey, just noticed that you'd returned to wikipedia, and that you have graduated - Welcome back and congratulations! Just thought I'd leave you a note say that I found your adoption centre and run with it, creating an adoption school of my own, which has already had 5 graduates and likely to have a few more. It's helped me significantly in mentoring and adopting, so I wanted to say a big thank you for the effort you put in to yours, allowing me to create mine. WormTT · (talk) 08:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You're quite welcome! Thanks for the congrats, and congrats to you for all those graduates of your own. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Ernie Jokawich

Just a minor point - as Jokawich was apparently born in the 1890s, I think it's unlikely that this was a BLP (unless he's 110 ish). The content didn't appear as an attack page either - however, it should have been deleted, but I'd have done it under A7 - as it doesn't say anything about who he was - it could be inferred that he was a composer from the YouTube video linked to, but I could find no mention of him at reliable sources. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if that image was supposed to be him or not; my eyes jumped to "driven to madness" and "sexual abuse" and I went with what the template said. I'll undelete one revision so I can fix the log entry. Thanks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

S S Miami sock

He's back: [1]. 86.133.53.184 (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

DellSupportServices

Just a quick note - I was contacted by this user, whom you declined to unblock. They seem quite well intentioned, so I went ahead and verified they are editing on behalf of Dell (which they are). I've asked them to refrain from making any edits to articles, and to only suggest changes on article talk pages. They were quite willing to do that, and so I've unblocked . I'm partial to letting them keep the current username so it is clear we know who they are, rather than having to remember User:JSmith is editing for a company. I don't expect any problems from them, but I thought I'd leave a message. Cheers, Prodego talk 03:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hersfold, is there more to the indef block of Exxolon besides the creation and use of the Hewwo account? --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

From what I've been told, this is not the first time Exxolon has attempted something like this. I don't know the exact details of that case, but in this particular one he was asked to publicly admit to the sockpuppetry and chose not to. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the info. If there's checkuser type stuff that needs to stay off wiki, or a longer history, I'll bow out. I was looking at this based only on what's available on-wiki, and thru the filter of Nabla's ability to do something vaguely similar and not only avoid a block but keep his admin bit, and thought it disproportionate. I'm still not really comfortable with the disparity, but I'll grudgingly defer to people who know more about what is actually going on than I do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Like I said, I don't know much about the prior cases, but if you're curious you may want to email Alison. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks, if I change my mind I'll pester Alison. But as long as there was more to things than met the eye, I'll likely not stick my nose in further. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hersfold/Archive_54_(June_2011)&oldid=1140534007"