User talk:Hersfold/Archive 32 (August 2009)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
← Previous archive - Archive 32 (August 2009) - Next archive →

This page contains discussions dated during the month of August 2009 from User talk:Hersfold. Please direct all current discussions there. Thank you.

August 1-15

User Nangparbat?

Hi Hersfold, could you look into this to see if it's Nangparbat since you seem to have dealt with this? The IP's you have listed on your page are similar, the target articles seem similar (subject wise) and Geolocate to the UK (something that seems to have been a pattern).

  • 86.162.67.210
  • 86.156.212.62
  • 86.163.153.145
  • 86.158.232.173
  • 86.156.215.203
  • 86.156.211.9
  • 86.162.67.210

Thanks. Elockid (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it, yes. The MO and IPs both seem familiar. I can semi protect the articles if needed, but blocking this user is akin to playing whack-a-mole; as you can see in your list there, they're able to jump IP ranges easily, so even large rangeblocks don't have much effect. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Yup. I noticed that their IP changes frequently when they started editing the second article, War on Terrorism. I'll try to keep an eye out. Elockid (talk) 02:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify your meaning

Here. I have no problem with you exercising control to avoid having things spin out of control. Indeed, I would consider striking that entire comment as being an off-topic digression or something similar as long as it is clear that you are likewise asking Mathsci to rein in his behavior. If not then I feel obligated to stand by my comment as being a direct response to Mathsci's statements. This is why I want to know who you are directing your comment towards. --GoRight (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Both of you. You'd both made attacking/provocative comments in that particular discussion, and my comment was intended to tell both of you to remain civil. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this, but I've been out of the country for most of the past week and a half. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

TD again

There was no explicit resolution of the TD case. Can you please press the arbs to break their monastic silence. Meantime, the otherwise inactive account is showing up in an odd place [1] William M. Connolley (talk) 09:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Emailed you about this previously. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Adoptee

Hey I was looking at the adoptee thingee. Wondering if I could be yours......Mhera (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm already involved in mentoring another user, and I'm not open to new adoptees at this time. If you're having trouble finding one, though, let me know and I'll try to help you out. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Could you look at User_talk:MBisanz#Edit_throttle? Thanks. MBisanz talk 04:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Ongoing Regarding DC Meetup #8

DC 8 (talk)

--NBahn (talk) 07:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look when I get the chance. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Permanent links or is collapse box good enough?

On the Abd-William M Connolley case evidence page I have a rather large table. I was first thinking that I was going to delete it from my section and just provide a link to it, but then it occurred to me that a simple collapse box might be more usable. Please take a look at what I have done with the collapse box and let me know if this is acceptable to keep my section content within guidelines, or if you need to to switch to the permanent links instead. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It would probably be better to just move the table to a subpage and link to it there - I don't think that a collapsed table is necessarily out-of-bounds, but anything on the /Evidence page still counts toward your diff/word limit, which is probably pretty close if not over (I haven't checked lately). Hope this helps. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

User Ratel warring? vandalizing? bad faith?

User Ratel is trying to archive an active discussion in Aktion T4. This User Ratel is clearly involved in the discussion. 190.25.101.144 (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it's been handled. In future, you should contact someone who isn't marked as being on vacation, or leave a note at WP:ANI. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Length of workshop page

Welcome back. As far as I know, Crohnie is still having browser difficulties due to the length of the workshop page; see message from Crohnie here and previous discussion at "Away". Previously the problem seemed to be fixed after MBisanz and I shortened it from 683,475 bytes to 548,442 bytes, but it's now about 960,000 bytes. I'm thinking of moving my own proposals (and all related discussion) to a subpage; let me know if there's any reason I shouldn't do that. I suggest moving all proposals to subpages, e.g. the first subpage might be "Proposals by Abd, Raul654 and William M. Connolley". I suggested a few discussions that could be moved to the talk page at User talk:MBisanz#Clerk help needed, but they wouldn't make much difference. I've also suggested that Crohnie can post comments elsewhere which I or someone else can move onto the workshop page but shortening the page somehow would be preferable. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

We tried having proposals on subpages in the Ryulong case a few months ago, and it was widely disliked as it hindered navigation, made it difficult to compare proposals, and broke up discussion, among other complaints. If you don't mind moving in Crohnie's comments, that would be fine; just make sure to say something like "comment from Crohnie <original diff>" in your edit summary each time. The only other thing I can recommend is that Crohnie try to work on improving his browser, memory capacity, and/or bandwidth; there isn't much I can do. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 14:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit war on Talk:Maximilien Robespierre

Hersfold: Yesterday, 11 August, I wrote to Administrator Toddst1 (talk), who had left a msg on my talk page, giving him/her my explanation of the Question/Answer affair begun when, last April, I answered - on Robespierre discussion page - a student, Laura, who had asked a question. The facts are:

(1) I did not give Laura the answer to her question, but directed her to the section of the article she should read;
(2) in jest, I gave her a paragraph in French taken from fr:wiki, which I am pretty sure she was not be capable of reading.

In consideration of this, I believe that my answer to student Laura was not giving her information on the subject, and promoting laziness; on the contrary, I was directing her to the article, telling her: Laura, you could read the article... at least the section *Early politics* & find your answer, to which I added (the jest part): As a gift, here is the exact answer found in French wikipedia. Hope you can read French!, which obviously she could not. In addition, to the best of my knowledge, the equivalent of this French paragraph is nowhere in en:wiki article on Robespierre.

My point is, I do not feel that I was violating Wikipedia:Forum#FORUM.

Best regards, Frania W. (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

What? Where did I say you were violating anything? Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hersfold, You did not say anything. I wrote you because I noticed that you are among the administrators handling this case & I wanted to point out to you the innocent original discussion with student Laura in which I see no violation of any of Wikipedia rules & regulations on my part. Just clarifying things. Regards, Frania W. (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia Review

Per your note here, I was under the impression that behavior on WR was being scrutinized, per this proposal by Stephen Bain. Their thread on WR is a secret open to pretty much all editors participating in the arbitration. I may repost a redacted version of my comment without the link, unless you indicate not to. Skinwalker (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can propose such a finding, but you'll notice two other Arbitrators have commented against the proposal you point out. As Abd himself said, WR is held to a considerably different standard. Unless real-life harassment is taking place, or the problems on WR are severe enough to have spilled over onto Wikipedia, historically non-Foundation sites have been outside the remit of ArbCom and administrators. If you feel as though the conduct there is coloring your perception of the case, you are free to comment as such as objectively as possible, but please don't link to the site. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Hersfold. I just read your comment above. I placed a link to the thread in question on WR in my updated evidence. Would you like it to be removed? The whole section can be removed if you think fit. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
(Double-checked with an arb just to make sure). Again, unless you feel it's really relevant to the issues the case is mainly about, it probably doesn't belong in the case. I don't see that this is the case, so it's probably best to remove it. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for this speedy reply and for double-checking. It has no relevance to this case at all, so I'll remove it. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ikip's evidence about A.K.Nole

Hi again.

I noticed that Ikip has added a series of comments from an ANI thread on A.K.Nole's block by WMC in his evidence. This seems to be irrelevant material lying outside this case and which Ikip has distorted.

Details of A.K.Nole ANI report which you are encouraged not to read

It was already determined on AP;ANI that, having engaged in the successful AfD for Jeremy Dunning-Davies initiated by me, A.K.Nole quizzed my username, edited the article Mathsci not quite accurately, and then for about a week planted himself on the talk page of Butcher group, a long article that I was in the process of creating. His prolonged comments, which had almost nothing to do with the main article, were described as faux naif, unhelpful and irrelevant by several senior mathematics administrators including User:Charles Matthews; his attempt to copy-paste some of the article into a physics stub minimal renomalization scheme was described as a bad edit by User:YellowMonkey in an independent review. A suggestion to disengage from another editor of the article, identified by User:David Eppstein as a Fields medallist, was ignored. The charge of wikihounding was upheld on ANI by several administrators, including User:Shell Kinney. Many other people commented on ANI with no apparent awareness that I single-handedly creating the first draft of the article, which on completion I stopped watching.

These details are also completely irrelevant to the case, but since Ikip has cherry-picked comments and ignored the careful reviews by ex-arbs in his evidence, something seems very badly wrong. As I already mentioned on the evidence talk page, this part of Ikip's evidence should probably be modified or possibly even removed because as written, it is irrelevant, inaccurate and possibly inflammatory. This continues to be one of tne most bizarre ArbCom cases I've contributed to (the others were Dbachmann, PHG, Fringe science and Abd&JzG). Preparing a youtube video (my first!) for an external link to WP is far more restful and constructive. Thanks in advance. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There are several findings/principles/remedies/etc. that have been proposed that deal with possible admin abuse by WMC. From what I can tell, Ikip's evidence is at least relevant to that particular topic, and he's certainly asserting as such. Evidence, by its very nature, is very likely to be slanted to the provider's point of view. There's not much I can do about that. If you feel it's distorting the truth, you might want to offer an analysis in the workshop to that effect, or include some additional evidence with comments from the other side of that discussion. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 14:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I've added this as evidence now with quotes in the collapse box. (These could be accompanied by diffs, although that would take a lot more time.) Mathsci (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Help

You said you know of an adopter. Who is it? --Mhera (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You might want to ask User:Steve Crossin. His userpage says he's looking for adoptees, and his lessons are based largely on my own. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you back?

Are you fully back now? I've been watching over the ArbCom case you were clerking. hmwitht 04:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've been back since Tuesday. Thanks for keeping an eye on things. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sock!

Hi Hersfod. I was looking at new user's contribs. I found this person named Orion3hor and he had vandalised a page. I suspect now he has a sock even after 1 edit because the sock did the exact same thing Orion3hor did and he has the username OrionAryan. What should we do? Rascal the Peaceful (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Make a report at WP:SPI for further review. I'll take a look at it now anyway. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks. :-) Rascal the Peaceful (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't bother with the report, I've just blocked both indefinitely. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I was just about to post if you mean't to file an investigation. Rascal the Peaceful (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

August 16-31

Checkuser

May I be the first of many to congratulate you on your new checkuser status. May I also be the first to present you with the follow userbox:

This user has checkuser rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

Again, congrats! Now I know you to bug when I need a checkuser :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


Congratulations on being appointed as a checkuser. I remember how scary those first few checks can be, so I wanted to assure you that it does get easier, and that I'll try to keep myself available on IRC at #wikipedia-en-admins and #wikipedia-en-checkuser so I can help you out with those crucial first few checks. Don't be afraid to ask me any and all questions you might have. Have fun! --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 10:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, all! I probably won't get the buttons until the WMF office opens again on Monday, but Deskana, I'll be sure to let you know if I need anything. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Congratz. on this. Gosh, I remember the days when you were just a lowly editors. Those were the days. :D KTC (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Just want to bring this to attention..

Hi Hersfold, I thought maybe others may be having the same problems, maybe not. I have a real problem downloading the workshop page of the Abd/Connelley case due I to the massive length now. I don't know if there is anyway to scale it down but I thought I would ask since I have been name by Abd in the supposed cabal. I haven't really been online due to injury in RL but I would really like to catch up on things but can't. What happens is my browser freezes. I did mention having this problem on the talk page and Vsmith came to my talk page about it. But I am coming to you because it is the case you are assigned to. I do not have dial up and I have done what I can from home to clear out my browser, rebooting and so forth which had helped. I did get back on there but for the most part I can't respond at all now. I've never had this problem before since I have been an editor here. I know this case has become different than most, at least that's what I've read. Anyway, is there anything that can be done? If not, don't worry, I just don't want anyone to think I am ignoring them if they have made a comment to me or if there is something I should really respond to. I can so far see the other pages of the case. Basically I want to bring this problem to your attentions so that you can bring it to others attentions if needed. I really doubt there is much you can do at this point in time about this but I'd appreciate it if you notice any place that I should respond to or something if you would leave a polite note that I cannot download the page or something. I feel silly bringing this to you at all but I feel it might be important because others may also have this same problem and have not said so. Anyways, thanks for your time on this. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC) {{User:Rascal the Peaceful/UBX/Talk Page Stalker}} RtP (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Rascal, while I appreciate your desire to help, there are some topics I'd rather handle myself; things dealing with the Arbitration Committee are among them. Thank you.
Crohnie, I know you're having trouble with this; I will try talking to the other Arbitrators to see if there is anything that can be done to the workshop, but so far you're the only one unable to access the page, and we don't want to hinder accessibility for them either. I will try to keep an eye out for things dealing with you specifically, as hopefully some others will do as well. I'll let you know what we come up with, if anything. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Hersfold, I totally understand. I find it strange that I'm the only one having this problem so I will see if there is something needed to be done on my end too. My husband may have changed something as he tends to my computer for me. I thought it was a good idea to bring this to your attentions because I thought you were away and may have missed my comments earlier. It's not a big deal me not being able to access it. Thanks again for your time with this. Good luck with the rest of this case, I know it's got to be a hard case to clerk. --CrohnieGalTalk 17:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
No problem. One other thing you might try is switching browsers, if you haven't already; I know back when Grawp was doing his thing, IE would totally crash on some of the pages he'd attacked, but Firefox would manage to slog through it after five minutes. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd-WMC arbitration - Request for injunction re:Raul654

I have filed a motion requesting an injunction to keep the Arbitration on target. The sudden last-minute appearance and proliferation of new proposals surrounding the very-tangentially related conduct of Raul654 is generating a large amount of extra, unnecessary, confusing, and disruptive discussion. A formal statement from ArbCom is requested to confirm that these proposals are far beyond the scope of this Arbitration.

Proposed: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Workshop#Raul654 is not a party to this case. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I just saw it, and I'm emailing the arbs about it now. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. (Before I saw your reply here, I also sent an email to FloNight, as she had commented recently on this topic on the talk page.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

HersfoldOTRSBot

The bot says "it's permission status", but it should be "its permission status". Panda Says No. Stifle (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow. Usually I'm careful about that. Thanks, I'll fix it. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


Re Aedas files detected by your bot

I have seen the messages left on my talk page regarding a number of Aedas files. Aedas were happy with the licensing as it stood prior to the creation of the commons, however, they are now not happy and would like the images removed. So please go ahead and delete all of the pages marked by the bot, the sooner the better as far as I am concerned. I would have requested a deletion my self but am unsure of the procedure. An email was sent with an alternative form of wording bus as I expected it was returned with a request that they use the workding prescribed by wikimedia commons. This is still being debated at Aedas but I feel the best thing is to remove the pages and I will start again when they can provide me with some images that we can use or I am able to go and take some photographs.

Deevincentday (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't delete the images myself, as I'm not an admin on Commons, but they should be deleted fairly soon. If it is really urgent, you can contact an administrator there (list) and refer them to the messages my bot left. Thanks. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 14:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Clerk attention required

While I don't disagree with any acknowledgement that clerking is a difficult (and largely thankless) volunteer posting, using a putative endorsement of the clerks' conduct as an opportunity for snide innuendo is entirely inappropriate. As clerk for the case, would you consider one or all of the following:

  • Remove the offensive statement;
  • Ask GoRight to refactor his innuendo, and do it for him if he does not;
  • Sanction GoRight for his breach of civility and the assumption of bad faith.

Thanks, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, he's getting yelled at for that. If he doesn't refactor it, then I'll do it and block him as well. Thanks for the note. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for looking in on that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Your message.

I have no objection to you removing the comment in question. You did just what I would have done after receiving your first message. I don't believe that I have given you any trouble in this regard previously when you have made such requests.

I suppose we can quibble about the propriety of that statement, but the validity thereof should be obvious to all. There is no deadline except that which is intended to hasten the close to avoid additional scrutiny. That is actually a neutral statement if you think about it which could be applied to myself as well as everyone else. The fact that certain individuals spring to mind in this regard (such as those creating and supporting the section in which I made the comment) should be illuminating.

Why given his own posts on the case pages of late, one might think that TOAT believed himself to be the clerk in absentia. A self-appointed extension of the ArbCom to make rulings and injunctions about who may be mentioned in proposals, and who may not. It all is an obvious attempt to cover up that which they do not wish to have exposed. --GoRight (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I would have abstained from blocking you for trolling, but with your response here I've decided I was assuming too much good faith. It is one thing for Abd to make allegations of cabalism and conspiracy when he is able to provide some evidence to that effect. It is quite another for you to make similar accusations in a purely vindictive nature against those who ask for assistance dealing with your trolling within the case without any sort of basis at all. You are hereby blocked for 48 hours, and may appeal through the normal means. I ask any administrator reviewing the block to contact me or a member of the Arbitration Committee prior to unblocking, and that no admin who has participated in the Abd/WMC case review the block. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to bother you

Hey there Hersfold, I am sorry to bother you but would you please take a look at at Abd short and long response to my comments and have him redact/remove the comments that are assuming bad faith in me. If you read my comment, then Abd's short and long comments, and my last response to him you will see what I am talking about when I ask him to remove his uncivil comments. I was told on my talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Crohnie#Clerk_attention that you had requested to comment on your talk page with things that have to do with the case. So, here I am, though I really hate to bother you again. Sorry for taking up your time but I really consider the comments made to me bad faith and rude. I appreciate your helping me in this matter at your convenience. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 20:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hersfold, this is quite frustrating. I can't for the life of me see any of what I wrote as involving any assumption of bad faith, and Crohnie hasn't been explicit. On the other hand, the comment to which I was responding does apparently contain such an assumption about me. Note that above, she repeats an accusation of bad faith, she considers my comments "bad faith and rude." The apparent ABF or incivility in her prior comment:
  • Abd boldly made comments like this to me and others as ways to itimate [presumably "intimidate"] and it worked with me. assumes a motive of intimidation when my response shows that such an intention is inconsistent with common sense, that there is a reasonable explanation for what I wrote that involves no intimidation at all. As well, it could hardly be said that it "worked" if she proceeded to proclaim it and my misbehavior all through the RfAr, as she did. She probably means that she was actually frightened. It would be completely stupid for me to intentionally frighten her, and I never suggested that she should not express her opinions.
  • Abd's screaming cabals like he has through this case and apparently now for years (seen through difs provided and doing my own reading to try to understand.) is totally WP:UNCIVIL I don't believed I ever "screamed" cabal, and I only came to the realization that it was appropriate to call a "cabal" the grouping of editors that I'd seen, after filing this case. I did, in fact. recognize a tag-team that I now have called the "cabal," when I compiled evidence for RfC/GoRight over a year ago, as mentioned in my evidence, (Not "years") Yes, I was aware of the effective coordination, but I have made it clear that this is not conscious "collusion," and is not even necessarily reprehensible, it is simply an organizational problem which I consider important to become aware of, otherwise we misunderstand events, such as an apparent "community consensus" when it is really that of a biased group, with prejudgment. I did, however, when I read a newspaper column that referred to the WMC "cabal," know what the author was talking about. While the comunist might be biased, it was not a stupid mistake to use the term, and the same term has been used for the same group of editors, on Wikipedia Review. I didn't make it up.
  • Please, put this cabal to bed, make it a civility problem using it or something but please don't give this ugly accusation any teeth. The "ugly accusation" is a very simple observation: people have a tendency to run in packs or tribes, to instinctively back each other up against "outsiders," based on some perceived commonality with other members of the "tribe," and a perceived difference from non-members. While some manifestations of this can get very "ugly" indeed, such as racism, others may seem much more innocuous, but, especially, association of editors based on general content position and mutual trust among those who promote that position, and mistrust of those seen as being opposed to it, is a serious problem for the wiki, that has afflicted it in many ways long before I was involved. No "teeth" are involved in simply recognizing the existence or appearance of cabals (there is more than one, in fact, though the global warming cabal, if we call it that, is the one that I've seen most clearly. In spite of repeated assurances, Crohnie seems to be convinced that I'm trying to get her sanctioned, which is absolutely not the case. An attempt to obtain sanctions exists, to a small degree, for at most a small handful of cabal editors, and for actions that are not simply "cabal membership," rather for specific offenses: edit warring, use of tools while involved -- and more involved than the diffuse "cabal membership." None of that applies to Crohnie, and I've been explicit about that, over and over.
Having said this, you may remove my comment. It was made as an attempt to explain to Crohnie what had happened, but also as a defense against the charges she was repeating. I would suggest that if my comment is to be removed, so too should hers. Otherwise I'd be faced with a necessity to replace the defense part, and I really don't know at the moment how I would do that. I did develop a little evidence in that response, and would probably want to place it in the cabal evidence page to support my reasons for including her in the list (and, as well, to point out, as I did in the comment she is complaining about, that her association was the weakest of all of them). For efficiency, if you think it best, you may remove my comment without notice to me. I'll see it. Thanks, and sorry for the flap. --Abd (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hersfold, I don't know how to respond to this anymore so I'm not. I couldn't read what Abd wrote here and have no desire to do so. I know he also posted this to the PD talk page, for what purpose, I do not know. I don't understand the response given to me there in the end either. I feel like I am being played or something so I am done with all of this. I always have assumed good faith which is why I am so upset now and I am upset. I am leaving for now, please do what you feel is appropriate, thank you, --CrohnieGalTalk 22:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I respectfully request that you disallow unfounded accusations of intimidation on the Proposed Decision talk page. I consider them inflammatory and therefore disruptive and inappropriate. Abd has made his definition of "Cabal" quite clear and has described the criteria by which individuals were included. None of that is intimidating in the slightest and these continued accusations are disruptive. CrohnieGal previously complained about the same topic on the workshop page, [2], where the situation was clarified for her, [3] and [4] where I make it clear that the term is NOT being used as a pejorative. I'll also note that she has previously made unfounded accusations against me which appear to be of a similar nature as what you blocked me for, [5] (i.e. unsubstantiated accusations of conspiracy). I am not seeking to have her blocked here but her inflammatory remarks towards Abd should be removed from or refactored on the Proposed Decision page, IMHO, or she should be required to substantiate them as being "intimidating". --GoRight (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Dropped at the request of Abd, but only because he is the one being maligned and if he prefers to minimize the fuss so be it. I stand by the fact that this was a legitimate request to make. --GoRight (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Cronhie, I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing anything here that Abd hasn't been doing the entire case. A good portion of this case has been based on Abd's allegations that a cabal exists, and he has continued to propound on these assertions throughout. I don't believe that Abd is intending to intimidate anyone, he's just (for lack of a better term) being himself. From what I've seen, if you dispute Abd's claims, he does what he can to convince you that his claims are valid. This hasn't happened terribly much in the past few weeks, because most everyone has given up trying to argue with him at this point. If you feel as though he's intimidating you, it could just be that you've been removed from this for some time as a result of your technical problems. I don't see that any action is needed here. If you are feeling harassed, I'd recommend dropping the issue for now. It looks as though you've made your points fairly well, and continuing to attempt to discuss the issue clearly isn't proving very productive.

Abd, if you could, please make an effort to be less assertive. I know you may be somewhat in favor of Principle 6, however it goes both ways. Your actions here are clearly being interpreted in a way you don't intend. Back off a bit, and let the case finish as we've been waiting for some time. Thank you. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Hersfold. Perhaps I'm a little too .... involved here. I'm going to go play at Wikipedia Review for a while. It's much more fun. I get to put on a completely different hat, at least part of the time. Some WR'ers hate walls of text too, others, though, have been known to actually read them. I know, shocking, but that shows just how kooky that place is.
By the way, I've been known to support principles that would condemn me. I'd probably help the hangman tie the noose if he forgot how to do it. Principle 6 is advice, not command, as to the appearance thingie. Damn good advice. Following good advice is not always as easy as people might think. --Abd (talk) 06:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry to have brought this drama to you. I have apologized to Abd also for my behavior. The only excuse I have is stress related to not feeling well and seeing a surgeon today. I don't usually behave like this as my contributions will show, I usually back away and/or log off till I am thinking and not reacting. I hope you understand and again my apologies to all. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I hope you feel better soon. (Honestly.) --GoRight (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to introduce something...

Hello Hersfold. I noticed you have made a few barnstars. Is it alright if you make a look for a Balance to the Wiki Barnstar? I want it tobe for people who work tirelessly to revert vandalism, bring up sock puppets, make edits that contribute well to Wikipedia, and basically keep balance here at this wiki. I know there is other barnstars that say they revert vandalism or remove redlinks, but this one is for all good topics on the wiki.I fell there should be a barnstar to give to those who help bring lots of balance. Will you please make a look for one Hersfold? RtP (talk) 00:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Rascal, I have seen this, but I don't have the time or energy to put a through response in just now. I'll reply to this soon. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Raul's comments on the PD page

Re [6]: "When confronted with his misbehavior, Abd cites IAR to claim that rules don't apply to him because he doesn't think they should. It goes a long way towards explaining those 100+ ignored warnings and why he still doesn't think he did anything wrong."

Is this an acceptable statement to be making without evidence? He's implying that Abd does this all the time. --GoRight (talk) 04:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Re [7]: "So much for improving your behavior."

Violates WP:NPA and WP:AGF. --GoRight (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

As to the first link, I thought he had provided evidence to that effect at some point, although I can't seem to locate it just now. Raul has made similar statements throughout the case, though, and I don't recall anyone, least of all you, complaining about it before.
The second link is not an attack and I don't see how it could be read as such. It may fail to assume good faith, but Raul's comments throughout the case make it clear that he feels Abd's conduct has gone beyond the point where good faith can be assumed. It's obvious the two have a long history.
I can speak with Raul if you wish, although I don't expect to take any action against him for these comments alone. I do find it interesting, however, that after your block, you've taken a very sudden interest in the conduct of others (referencing this section and the one about Cronhie above). You seemed to have an issue with Cronhie making "unfounded accusations of intimidation" above, and yet here you're claiming attacks where there are none. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I won't ask you to pursue this further. The second link is a personal attack because it is basically calling Abd a liar. That is also why it fails to WP:AGF.
"you've taken a very sudden interest in the conduct of others" - Sure, why not? Doesn't that seem like a natural reaction to having one's behavior called into question? I assume that your intent was for me to be more cognizant of such things, or am I wrong on that point? --GoRight (talk) 05:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
"As to the first link, I thought he had provided evidence to that effect at some point, although I can't seem to locate it just now." - This is an interesting response. So on the comment you blocked me for, if I had simply appended "(see evidence presented by Abd of Cabal activity)" you would then have been fine with it? --GoRight (talk) 05:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought he had provided evidence to that effect at some point, although I can't seem to locate it just now. - see this and this. Raul654 (talk) 04:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Raul, that's what I was thinking of. I was looking on the evidence page for things and didn't see anything about it in your section. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
While you're here, though, if you wouldn't mind toning things down a bit just so we can finally put the drama levels on a downhill (or at least level) slope from here out, that could be helpful. As I said, I don't intend to take any action for these comments (as I mentioned above about Abd, you've been saying as such throughout the case and it hasn't seemed to be an issue until now), but as you can see, concerns have been raised. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The evidence provided by Raul above does not address my primary complaint. Raul asserts "when confronted with his misbehavior" that Abd invokes WP:IAR "to claim that rules don't apply to him." I don't seem to recall Abd doing this all the time so it seems that he should be providing some sort of substantiation for it. Thus far he hasn't, on the PD page or here now. Sorry if my point was unclear. --GoRight (talk) 05:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, Hersfold, I guess what I am doing here and above with the CrohnieGal complaint is that I am actually trying to understand why you seem to feel my comment was any more objectionable than some of the things that these others have done. I assume you think so because you blocked me over it. So, in the case of CrohnieGal she clearly made accusations of being intimidated, a serious charge, and provided no real substantiation thereof. She simply made the charge. So by observing your response I would get feedback on what you actually thought the difference was. To some lesser extent the same would be true with my points regarding Raul here.

So help me understand better why you considered my making a vague reference to people in the shadows that literally named no one, to be so horrendous whereas these examples which are clearly very pointed at a identifiable target, namely Abd, seem to be of little or no concern. I am not alleging anything here, I am honestly trying to understand how you are looking at things such that a vague reference that targets no one is arguably worse than specific charges aimed at an explicit individual and where none of them are substantiated as far as I can see? --GoRight (talk) 05:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Now see, that's what I thought you were doing. ;-) Thank you for the honesty, although in the future it's generally a lot easier to just ask me outright rather than making me guess your intentions. The former will get you a much quicker and clearer response, when the latter could be seen as pointy.
The main problems I had with your comments were these: a) The comment was in no way constructive, implying that some people had agendas they were trying to hide and were doing so in bad faith; b) the comment was not supported by any sort of reasoning at all; c) the comment entirely assumed bad faith of a large number of users in general; d) the comment was tacked on behind a comment of support directed at the clerks, as though you realized your comment was inappropriate and were trying to either take the edge off it or appease those patrolling the case pages. All of these together would lead me to ask you to remove your comment as I did; what led me to block you was the fact that after I explicitly told you the comment was inappropriate, you continued to expound upon it on my talk page, adding more assumptions of bad faith and this time explicitly pointing out who you were talking about in the first place. Blatantly ignoring my warning like that was what led to your block. Your comment certainly contributed to it, but it wasn't the catalyst that set it off.
In Cronhie's case, there's a bit of backstory I need to explain first. She has been unable to view the workshop page for some time, because the size of the page was causing her browser to crash. She was only able to begin to read what had been going on the past month(?) a couple days ago, when I emailed her the contents of the workshop at her request. What I assume happened, is she noticed that the cabal assertions had continued with some force for a while, and that ArbCom now appeared to be giving some actual consideration to the claims with Principle 6. All of that, plus the comments Crohnie was referring to in her original post, seems to have put her into a mild panic where she felt something needed to be done about it. At least, that's how I saw things, and I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt in that case. Additionally, her assertions did appear to be based on something potentially valid; while I didn't see anything actionable in her request, it did at least merit some looking into. This differed from yours in a couple ways; first, I had no reason to assume that your comment was made in good faith, as it was totally out of the blue and had no grounding in anything that had occurred previously; secondly, you didn't provide anything with your assertions to make it appear to be a valid complaint, simply the assertion itself.
In Raul's case, his comments had been going on for some time and comprised the major foundation for his participation in the case. Nobody's had an issue with them until you brought them up to me just now. He has attempted to support his statements with evidence, as well; not all of them are as well referenced as you pointed out above, however as with Cronhie, I'm willing to extend the faith that if asked, he would provide such evidence. This faith is also supported by Raul's involvement in this thread; when I said I couldn't find his evidence, he provided some of it almost immediately. Again, your comment differs from this in that you made no effort to provide any evidence, despite saying the same thing twice, and as I said before your comment was totally out of the blue and not something that's been going on regularly without concern.
I do appreciate your asking for clarification on this matter. Handling this case is not something I'm taking lightly, and I do put a lot of thought into a course of action before I carry through with it. I do realize, though, that my actions may seem somewhat arbitrary at times, particularly when you're on the receiving end of them. Should you feel that way again, please do ask me about it. As I told Abd, I do have reasons why I do what I do when I do them. If I need to, I can certainly try to explain them as I have here. And if this explanation doesn't quite answer things for you, let me know that as well. I do at least hope that it helps. Again, thank you for taking the time to ask me directly about this; now that you've done so, I feel as though an explanation like this will be better received, and I'm in a much better mood to give said explanation in the first place. Let's try to move on now, though, and put all this behind us as a learning experience for us both, ok? :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
"Thank you for the honesty, although in the future it's generally a lot easier to just ask me outright rather than making me guess your intentions." - To be honest, my initial reactions were not so carefully thought out as it might appear. They were sort of an automatic reaction of my subconscious. When you asked my why I was suddenly paying attention to the behavior of others where I had not previously I actually had to stop and think about how to answer that. That's when this became a conscious query on my part and at that point I realized that I should just ask you straight away, so I did. For the record, I never really expected you to take action against CrohnieGal (I said I wasn't looking for a block). Raul? Well, what can anyone say about Raul? That's just how he is, same as with Abd.
"Again, thank you for taking the time to ask me directly about this; now that you've done so, I feel as though an explanation like this will be better received, and I'm in a much better mood to give said explanation in the first place. Let's try to move on now, though, and put all this behind us as a learning experience for us both, ok? :-)" - We're good. I never really complained about the block, did I? I haven't faulted you for making it, other than 48 hours seemed a bit stiff. No hard feelings. Moving on ... --GoRight (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and thanks for the explanation. --GoRight (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I love happy endings. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

GoRight (talk) has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!


And I love COOKIES! --GoRight (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hersfold, would you please check whether this post conforms to expected standards of behaviour for such pages. Congratulations on checkuser, by the way! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll speak to him about it, thanks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser access

Hello. You now have CheckUser access on en.wikipedia. Please subscribe to checkuser-l; I also gave you access to the private channel on IRC. Cheers, guillom 13:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks, Guillom. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Posting of edit statistics on the PD talk page

Could you perhaps ask that people not single out any specific users if they feel obligated to post editing statistics on the PD talk page? I made the effort to include all users in my table as of the time I took the stats. Singling out individual users gives the appearance of a personal attack on that user, IMHO. --GoRight (talk) 02:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that's the intent - it looks as though Thatcher is providing evidence to support some of his proposals. I can ask him to move it to the Evidence page, though, and will do so now. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I was talking about TOAT and Phil, but since I posted some as well I can't make too big of a fuss. I just don't want this to get out of hand is all, so if everyone leaves it where it is now I'm OK with it. --GoRight (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


Why did you

delete Save Me From Myself (Vertical Horizon song)? Ricky 3374 (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't, as far as I can tell - there is no deletion log for Save Me from Myself (Vertical Horizon song). Was the page in question at another title? Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

put a capital F on the title Save Me From Myself. And yes it was. Ricky 3374 (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Save Me From Myself (Vertical Horizon song) was deleted because it did not contain any actual content - the only text on the page was an infobox and a "future single" tag. This falls under Speedy Deletion Criterion A3, which you can check for more information. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Another Nangparbat socki?

See [8]. Dougweller (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC).

Probably. The IP address seems a little unusual, I don't immediately remember him being on a 110.x.x.x before. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Blocked by Nishkid64 as a sock. Dougweller (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Numbering problem on the Abd/WMC ArbCom case

Since you are clerking the case, I thought I'd draw your attention to the voting in this crucial section of the proposed decision.

Since FloNight has removed herself from the case, I assume she (or someone else) set apart her original "support" vote from the numbering of that section, however the reply by Stephen Bain and further reply by FloNight were apparently not set apart, with the result being that Stephen Bain now both supports and opposes remedy 6.1 (make up your mind dude!). Obviously the latter is his real view, as his comment in the support area was just in reply to Flo's support of the proposed remedy. It's an easy fix and I'd do it myself, but editing proposed decision pages ain't within the purview of my bailiwick, and as it's right there in the wheelhouse of your bailiwick, I figured I'd drop you a quick note. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll fix it when I go through to update things and count votes. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

More on Abd-WMC case

Please see this diff. [9] For reasons not quite clear to me, editors not involved in the current ArbCom case have been making comments about this page. One user was blocked last night by Jeske after posting on my talk page about this. At the moment I plan to have this page blanked or deleted at my request after the ArbCom case is over. If you or ArbCom members have any requests or suggestions about this page or the other temporary evidence pages in my user space (listed in the above diff and created while you were on holiday), I will be happy to comply. Best regards, Mathsci (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The nominator of this MfD is Ladnavfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has been exactly 2 days on wikipedia (under this username). So many newly created accounts around this case ... 13:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Toddst1 has expressed a suspicion (based on some of the other activity by the account) that this is a sock of Fachette.expert (talk · contribs). Of course, that account is only a few days old as well. Perhaps a bit of the ol' magic wiki pixie dust might be in order? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ladnavfan ‎ Toddst1 (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I've commented at the MfD (I can't unilaterally shut it down, but hopefully people will be ok with it staying a few days more). I'll look at the SPI in just a moment, and may be using some pixie dust. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

OTRS pending

HersfoldOTRSBot is supposed to tag old OTRS pending pictures, however, commons:Category:OTRS pending still shows some really old pending dates... Is there a bug or something? Maybe old entries need some manual handling?

Looks like template OTRS received needs some timeout too...

Regards,

Gonioul (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This is intentional. Images marked with "OTRS received" are in the hands of the OTRS volunteers - my bot notifies the person who left the template and asks them to take a look at it again to see if it can be cleared. I don't have OTRS access, so I'm not able to review these myself. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Cla68

Hello. I wonder whether you could have a word with Cla68 (talk · contribs)? He seems to be misusing the talk page of the PD. His comments are off-topic, but perhaps he doesn't intend to be taken seriously. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm commenting there. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey! And Other Stuff

Hey Brett! How's everything? ANyway, I heard that Wikipedia would be adding another layer of security. Supposedly, new and inexperienced users are not going to be allowed to freely contribute (they'll have to have their contributions vetted by more experienced members). How can I avoid getting trapped as a 'new user'? I only have a few contributions, but I've been here awhile and the pages I want to work on are not high-traffic. I am concerned that my future contributions will be put into an indefinite 'hold' list.

Good luck this year!

(M. M.) Murphy2010 (talk) 00:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. The thing you probably heard about is called Wikipedia:Flagged revisions - it's an extension to the mediawiki software that requires new revisions to a page be approved by an experienced user before it will appear to non-logged-in users. It's not turned on yet here because there's been a lot (and I mean a LOT) of debate about it, but what is soon to be implemented is a two-month-long trial of a less-restrictive version of FR, called Flagged protection and patrolled revisions. What this does is two things: it allows articles to be "flagged for patrol" meaning any edit to those articles gets added to a patrol log for review by editors with the "reviewer" userright, granted by admins. This works somewhat similarly to the new page and recent changes logs we already have, except it is restricted to only the flagged articles. The second thing is does is it allows administrators to apply new levels of protection to articles. The lowest new level is called "Semi-flagged protection", which means any edit made by someone not logged in or very new (you passed that mark a long while ago, so don't worry) has to have their edit approved by a reviewer before it will be seen by random passerby. "Intermediary flagged protection" means any edit made by a non-reviewer has to be approved by a reviewer. You would be affected by this until someone gave you the reviewer flag. "Full flagged protection" steps it up one more notch, in that an administrator has to approve all edits, even those made by reviewers.
So, long answer short, you should be fine for most issues because you're already "autoconfirmed" and considered by the software to know what you're doing. The only things that will put you on the hold list you mention are the latter two protection levels I mentioned; the first can be fixed by granting you a reviewer flag (it doesn't exist yet and I don't know the criteria for granting it if there are any yet, so don't ask), and the second is basically what full protection already is, except you still have the ability to edit, however delayed it may be. I highly doubt that this will be used at all on any of the articles you frequent though; it's intended mainly to be used on biographies of living people and other very highly targeted pages.
See you around! Best of luck this year. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

WMC's question

Could you please answer WMC's question here? Offliner (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

contentn disputes in Abd-WMC case

this section has devolved into one of the content disputes that regularly happen at the cold fusion's talk page. Maybe it would be good to collapse the last comments and ask people to stop it. Also, a new uninvolved editor (the IP) is making new arguments, which goes against the notice at the top of the page. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I've collapsed the whole thing for both reasons. Thanks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hersfold/Archive_32_(August_2009)&oldid=1181785374"