User talk:Hersfold/Archive 33 (September 2009)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
← Previous archive - Archive 33 (September 2009) - Next archive →

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

September 1 - 15

Re: Um...

I have replied to your query at my talk page. CIreland (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


Transwiki bot

I've noticed it doesn't do the transwiki if the wiktionary already has an article.

I think that I would like to argue that that is the wrong behaviour- the problem is that even if the wiktionary already has an article, it may require information from the wikipedia's article. The license we use in the wikis means that we need to reference anything that's being copied, so any time we need to do any copying at all we really need to do the transwiki anyway, even if the article is already there in wiktionary.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

In that case the existing title here can be referenced in an edit summary there - from what I've seen, transwiki is mainly intended for when we have an article that needs to be copied in its entirety over to Wiktionary, so the history can remain intact. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Right, mainly, but if there's so much as a stub in wiktionary land, then your bot breaks. That makes the bot brittle in terms of its functionality; the wikipedia article could be 100x bigger, but your bot refuses to copy anything across. It seems to me that the check is unnecessary and in fact counter-productive. Otherwise it seems like a great bot!- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll take a look into it, I suppose. You do make a good point; when I talked to some other users while creating the bot, they recommended I not import such articles, but I'll see what they think about this. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Matter of interest, any idea why -land failed to transwiki? Is it OK if I whack the manual flag on this?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
That's another limitation that was requested; since Wiktionary entries are often considerably shorter than Wikipedia articles, and there's often a fair amount of work needed to convert the latter to the former, any article over a certain size limit needs confirmation from someone who's willing to put in the work. If you're up for taking care of the transwikied article and getting it ready to post, go ahead and set ignore=yes. Don't just remove it, or else the bot will just put it back up again. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I've tasked myself to do the Wikipedia's incoming Transwiki's to Wiktionary since 2007. In 2007, there were 5000 words in line. Most turned out to be duplicate definitions, when we allowed it (30% of 2007 were duplicate entries, in my rough estimate). That takes hours and hours of time for Wiktionarians to sort through, find the duplicates and merge or delete them for you Wikipedians. That said, there are times I decide to merge a Wikipedia definition into an existing Wicktionary entry, because it was a good one, and in those cases I'd like to see the groups make an exception so the history can be kept. Perhaps this can be Bot 2 with a new template. On the other hand, if that happens it may be just as easy for you to see the oversight on Wiktionary and transfer it using their edit keys, and mention in "edit summary" when you enter the word "I got this definition from Wikipedia". Goldenrowley (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
On second thought, I'd not do a Bot 2, as we already have a way to transport those few duplicates we really want, see [[1]]Goldenrowley (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you could just do the same manual override trick if an article already exists at wiktionary, rather than completely fail the copy?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
But why would we want to send duplicates, 30% of the time? Sorry not getting your train of thought here. Currently, the bot puts duplicates in a folder where someone (a real person) needs to review them and decide what to do. You want a second bot to come along and just send them over, anyway? Only a human that knows what they're doing. Goldenrowley (talk) 05:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I must admit though, I see this as just a way of transferring information across to the wiktionary to copy from, and I'm not sure I see the point of any of the optimisations; to me it fails the KISS principle.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Given the paranoia surrounding this feature, perhaps a bot isn't the best way to do this, a request page that some clerks look at and do the import may be preferable.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Ahh I see we've both come to this conclusion in different words. Only difference I suggested a folder (as it is done currently), not a new page. Goldenrowley (talk) 05:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Taking this oppurtunity to request help merging the "worthy" duplicates to date, the list I work off of is here: [[2]] and the ones still "blue links" are those I thought we might want to merge. Goldenrowley (talk) 04:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

A manual override for existing articles wouldn't be difficult to implement. I can start working on that if you two want. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
In my humble opinion go with the simplest KISS solution. The manual override already exists here: [[3]]. When wanting to move a word, it's just as easy to enter a word there as yourself, than to send it to a new Bot. One enhancement would be if that script could automatically log it on the Transwiki logs once it's done. Goldenrowley (talk) 04:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't have access to that. I just tried the manual version, and it's pretty bad.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The even more simple thing is have the bot, remove all the stupid restrictions.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
You can always deal with any backlog and tidying up over a period of time; the wikipedia's growth is levelling off anyway, and so there's only going to be a finite number of transwikis, not all that many, because of the 'not a dictionary' principle here. Adding appropriate categories and tags to wiktionary articles that need merging after their transwiki would help mark them and could attract other people to help.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I imported the history o -omics for Wolfkeeper. Perhaps I did not understand Herfold's comment "A manual override for existing articles wouldn't be difficult to implement." ->If an easy fix, can the simple override include putting a flag on those words automatically like so: {{merge|word}}? At Wiktionary that signals that an editor requests the words be merged.Goldenrowley (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I can do that, yes. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Your removal of my comment outside the collapse.

your edit

Hersfold, I'm a party to the arbitration. You collapsed a discussion with a non-neutral summary, Discussion started by someone who was asked above in the page header not to comment here collapsed by clerk. It seems to have been wandering off-topic anyway.

So I wanted to call attention to it, which should be my right, because I consider what was in there very important to the case. You removed that.

Please replace my comment, it was just a few words, and without it, thre is no clue that a party to the case considered the thread important, or even participated in it. Indeed, people who might be interested might not read it because of the collapse. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I now see that you collapsed it after a complaint by an adverse party. That was bad enough. But that you did not allow my comment, which makes the collapse acceptable, not okay. --Abd (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Had I been able to check the page more frequently, I'd have removed the topic in the first place since it was started by a previously uninvolved party. I collapsed it rather than removing it entirely here because parties had commented. If people wish to read discussions, they don't need additional prompting to do so (as you said yourself multiple times, people are not required to read things). Enric Naval is just as welcome as you to request my assistance with this case, so I don't see what the problem is with that. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
What you don't see means nothing to me. It's a biased judgment, reverting my note was improper, the note wasn't inflammatory, it was exceedingly brief, doing no harm. Your header implied the discussion was irrelevant, but what I wrote there was very relevant. I've said what I said and I doubt that I'll formally complain. Enric had the right to complain, sure. But what was the basis for his complaint? Exactly what was he requesting "assistance" with. What was his problem? Purely formal, that the person putting up the comment wasn't a party. Fine. That justified collapse, but not the removal of my note. I'd say more, but won't. --Abd (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Abd, I'm sorry you disagree. Shot info, please refrain from making unhelpful comments. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Another look please?

Greetings from Melbourne, FL. Could you please have a look at the IRI Co. article re-done in my sandbox and advise? Thanks! Jtree09 (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is still advertising. The article needs to focus on why the company itself is notable, not serve as a listing of all their products and their features. I don't see that there's much of a difference between the version you have now and the version that was deleted.
If you don't mind my asking, do you by chance work for this company? Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for replying! As you can see from the talk above with Helen of the Roads, I've been with the company for a long time and just want to see a neutral, encyclopedic article written by anyone. That's not likely anytime soon based on the list of what's been already requested (we're on it). Please compare my draft article to the live Syncsort posting and advise how my draft falls short. IRI is the first company to develop commercial Unix sort software off the mainframe, which has been in wide use worldwide for 30+ years. CoSort, as well as its newer spin-offs like RowGen, FieldShield and NextForm are all unique and notable in their own right and my draft endeavored to impart that under Wikipedia's reference and non-adjectival guidelines. Any specific help against this draft or any kind of re-write that would pass muster would be greatly appreciated! Jtree09 (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't do a great amount of article editing myself; you're probably better off asking for assistance from the new contributor's help page, where they receive a great number of questions like this. The main thing I am noticing is the large number of promotional phrases throughout the article, and (as I said before) the heavy focus on the products and their features rather than the company itself (we call this a "coat rack" article, one that appears to be about one main subject but really focuses on several hangers-on). Removing the buzzwords and significantly reducing the amount of text about the products would be a substantial step forward. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to deletion notice for three images: Orange blue cord.png, Yellow natural.png, Yellow orange cord.png

Hi. Thanks for your work. I have resent the permissions I sent for these images. See [Ticket#2009072710057708].

What I think may have occured is that these images appear in the permissions email as: 15 specific images include: "natura_cord,""yellow_natural,""yellow," "yellow_orange_cord," "orange_cord," "orange_blue," "blue_cord," "blue_green," "green_cord," "green_purple," "purple_cord,""purple_brown," "brown," "brown_red," "red_cord" [Ticket#2009080210002276] has permission for images: Red_white_cord.png and White_cord.png

The first set of 15 cord images was the first time I had uploaded images and I didn't know to be specific with the titles. I realized this half way through and decided to title them according to the color include the decription "cord" in the title. I hoped to avoid duplicate images problems. Titles should be="x-color_cord". I goofed and didn't label them all correctly.

I have asked that some of these misnamed files be deleted, like "orange_blue.png" and be replaced by "orange_blue_cord.pgn". The yellow natual image should be retitled "yellow_natural_cord" but it's fine as it is I guess. Anyhow, I do have permission and I have resent the permission to the permissions email address. If the permission I have provided does not suffice, please let me know as respecting the original sources if very important to me.

So much thanks for your work and sorry I didn't know what I was doing first time around (and I probably still don't). EDS4 (talk) 05:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm neither an OTRS volunteer nor a Commons admin, so you probably want to post this same notice on commons:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. Thanks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 14:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interests Parsecboy

Hi, you say Should have been someone else to block, but block was ok. What is right on the block? --Tomcha (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't look in detail, I was just summarizing the consensus formed at the discussion. You may want to ask the other users who commented. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Want to look at my big makeover?

I made a new userpage, and sig! You will have your eyes pop out! As I said, I would learn a lot of wiki markup and I learned it quick. RascalthePeaceful (t) 00:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That's nice, I'd be more interested in you working on articles. ;-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm about to give my talk a makeover now. Check on it in about 20 minutes, if you want to see it with the new look. RascalthePeaceful (t) 14:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Now I need help. I put the template on my talkpage, and it does this weird thing where it takes over the whole page and doesn't show the contents until later on the page. Is it alright if you help me? RascalthePeaceful (t) 14:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
It looks like it's working to me. Again, I'd prefer you spend more time working on something productive rather than your signature and userspace. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that's what we're all supposed to be focusing on. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 31 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 17:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

IP Block

I was wondering if I could be IP block exempt. I have edited at school for over a year (i've had nothing to do) and now that i'm at college, I have encountered some IPs that are blocked. I also tried the e-mail way, but it got bounced back twice. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, you obviously don't seem to be having any trouble right now. I prefer not to hand out an IPBE unless it is necessary; however, if you do find yourself unable to edit, please feel free to email me and I'll take another look. I'm also at college, so I can certainly sympathize. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Haha, thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Cognition socks

Are you quite sure about user:172? He's an old time user. Perhaps the account was compromised? OTOH, user:Throbbing Stallion is prety clearly a LaRouche follower. Is it possible that there's a public computer terminal involved?   Will Beback  talk  23:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It was an exact match for all of these accounts, and I had a few other checkusers take a look at it to make sure. 172 has been editing exclusively from the same IP address as all of the other accounts since July, and there's no indication that this is a public terminal. The only explanation we could come to without severely stretching the imagination or blatantly ignoring the CU data is that this is a very elaborate good hand/bad hand type thing. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm amazed and still think there must be some other explanation. But until one comes I guess that's that. Thanks for addressing Cognition and the sock issue.   Will Beback  talk  23:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Brett, I'm a bit concerned that 172 is being set up. It was odd that Cognition suddenly started posting again in July, after a gap of three years, to request an unblock, thereby ensuring there would be CU information in the log.
172 has been around a long time, and he knows about CU; if he were going to sock, especially with a highly controversial account that was requesting an unblock, he would know not to use the same IP address. That's ignoring the fact that he's a good editor, who's very unlikely to have done this even as a joke. I can't imagine how such a set-up would work, but there is something not right about this. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I know, but the checkuser information doesn't lie. If he is being set up, then his account has been compromised, which means we'd need to block him anyway. There's no question it's the same person operating these accounts right now. As I said, I had several others look into this when I noticed 172's editing history and past adminship, and they all came to the same conclusion I did. I did also email him yesterday afternoon asking for an explanation about things; I never received a response, and Cognition continued to deny the existence of other accounts despite several very clear hints I was onto something. I know you two were close, but I'm not seeing any other conclusions that can be drawn from this. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking either the account was compromised; or that someone worked out where 172 posted from, a university perhaps, and started posting from there too—though I realize that's a little elaborate. I've e-mailed 172, though I only have an old address for him, so I don't know whether he'll see it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The IP address is registered to a residential network, and the computer systems they were using were identical. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Very puzzling. I'll keep on trying to make contact with 172. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
If 172's account was compromised it must have occurred long enough ago that the edits have fallen out of the CU database. All these editors are sharing a residential IP address with either one computer, or multiple computers that are identically configured. And they did not respond to a non-public email request for clarification. Thatcher 03:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
If the e-mails were sent via Wikipedia, and the account is compromised, it would mean the real 172 would not have received them. However, Cognition offers a simpler explanation on his talk page, namely that he was using public computers. Is it possible to know for sure via CU that an IP is residential? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
WHOIS reports give very detailed information about who owns an IP address, especially when it's owned by any group that provides public access, such as public libraries or universities. Where an IP address is residential or private-use, it will simply resolve to the internet service provider. We WHOIS every IP we find as standard procedure, and none of the IP addresses Cognition was on match his story. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Let's not oversell the miracle of whois. However, every tool and authority I can query says that in this case, the primary IP is residential. There is also a non-residential IP with multiple editors, but we are not basing our conclusions on that. (However, it is also curious that the same group of editors also edits from the non-residential IP, in addition to other, unrelated editors.) Thatcher 04:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
172's account is most probably not compromised in that having returned from an extended wikibreak July this year he started with his typical edits. However, I'm not sure about those sock puppets. I remember User:172 claimed he is a scholar working at a university in Florida and being a resident of Saint Petersburg, Fl. Though my acquaintance with that particular user was not really pleasant, I am astonished at CU results. Though edits/edit summaries like this or that are similar to 172's contributions, I find it very hard to believe that those disputes between 172 on one hand and Cognition on the other are part of some nasty sock puppet circus (socks arguing with each other and demanding indef block!?). --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) As I've said elsewhere, this won't be the first instance of a good hand/bad hand type scenario. This one is considerably more elaborate than most, but it's the only explanation that logically fits the data. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Defense plea for User:172 re him and User:Cognition

The point of view was already discredited, and Cognition was never that prolific an editor; most of his edits were made in just one month, July 2005, [4] so his influence was minimal. I still think the most likely explanation, following Occam's razor, is public terminals. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
It's also hard to believe that anyone but a genuine follower of LaRouche could have written this. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Public terminals is ridiculously unlikely. As Thatcher explained above, the residential IP is considered a direct hit, but they also shared a more public access point. This would require not one, but two coincidences of sharing computers on two very distinct networks. Maybe 172's account was compromised and set up for a fall several months ago, but that would require Cognition effectively playing the role since then. That also strikes me as unlikely, but it fits with the IP evidence. Cool Hand Luke 16:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
172 started editing again in June after a nine-month break, then Cognition started again shortly afterwards, after being away for three years. That made me wonder whether the 172 account was compromised in June, and that perhaps he didn't really return after all. I've been trying to e-mail him using old addresses I have, and via other editors who were in contact with him, but no luck so far. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
@Anthony: the designation of sockpuppet/master isn't terribly important; I marked 172 as a sock of Cognition simply because Cognition was the person who got banned, so Cognition's ban now extends to 172. All that matters, in the long run, is that they're the same person.
The most logical explanation we can come up with that fits the CU data is that 172 created Cognition as an arch-enemy; it'd almost be like Sherlock Holmes acting as Prof. Moriarity just so he could have something to do. Cognition's explanation of multiple public terminals is easily refuted by the data, and there is nothing to indicate that the 172 account was compromised. Even if it was, however, a block is still the appropriate means of handling things. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps 172 and Cognition work in the same university department. For many years I was in charge of a roomful of public-access computers in a department of UMIST. All the computers were connected via one server to one computer line. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
As Thatcher and I have explained to Slimvirgin, this is not a University IP address. Universities are careful to list their information on whois reports in the event of abuse from their networks, and Thatcher has used other tools to verify that this is a residential address. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with Slim Virgin above. To say that I'm no friend of 172 is understating the situation, but I am familiar with his style. Considering that 172 wrote from an educated, Marxist/Leftist POV that was at times very sympathetic to Soviet Russia (as well as being arrogant & foul-mouther), there is no way he could have been a LaRouchie. And I doubt he would be so concerned about Wikipedia to think up any involved scheme to attack it: either 172 would bluntly state that he wanted nothing more to do with us -- or just leave & never look back. (As for the possibility the account was compromised at some point, well anyone's guess is as good as mine.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
(Er, considering that this discussion ended 2 days ago, feel free to delete the above. I lost track of which day of the month it was. -- llywrch (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC))
No, it's fine. The most likely scenario is that 172 was acting as a LaRouchie under the guide of Cognition, or that the accounts are compromised in some way. Although since we haven't heard anything from either account, this is becoming more certain by the day. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
At the risk of hijacking Hersfold's talk page, it's probably worth pointing out that Cognition apparently attended Wikipedia:Meetup/St. Petersburg2 in 2006, which was also attended by most of the Wikimedia board. Perhaps one of them remembers him. I don't know if anyone has similarly met 172 in person.   Will Beback  talk  22:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Hersfold, I just heard back from Snowspinner, who was at that meet-up. He confirms that Cognition was present, and has sent me a photograph of the person he recalls as Cognition. Cognition identified himself and was vocal in his support for LaRouche. I can't see 172 ever promoting LaRouche in a real-life situation. Running a strawman sock for a laugh is one thing, but turning up to a meeting as a vocal LaRouche supporter crosses a line, and I can't see 172 ever crossing it. I'll forward Phil's e-mail and the image with his permission. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
This still doesn't prove that they are different people. As unlikely as it seems, stranger things have happened on Wikipedia. And, as I've stated, if these are different people and one account or the other was compromised, we have yet to hear from either user that this was the case. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
It's true enough that it's rarely safe to rule anything out on Wikipedia. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Also please note 172's data on Wikimedia (born in 1947) is consistent with a number of comments here on Wikipedia, last time e.g. here. How old was that would-be-User:Cognition based on photograph? --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

re: unblock

Thanks for hheloing me wth he block situation. TBDevilRays2009 (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Abd-WMC evidence talk

Hi! Sorry to bother you with this, but I'm a tad uncomfortable with the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Evidence#More fun. The quotes being used against Abd are ones he made on an off-wiki email list, and while I understand that we've brought WR into the case, and that Abd hasn't complained, I'm not entirely comfortable with people using discussions from a mailing list which is in no way connected to WP. That said, I'm happy to defer to your judgment on this, and you would have a much better idea than me about the use of off-wiki examples in discussions. - Bilby (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree and disagree with Bilby. I agree that the jokey tone used in the heading and in the "let's make this a game, let's pick our favorite quotes!" approach was disrespectful and inappropriate for discussion on an arbitration case (although I can appreciate the frustration, maybe, that could motivate this kind of what-the-hell attitude, given how this case has been handled. But on the other hand, the information contained in the link is extremely important to the case and shouldn't be ignored just because it came from off-wiki, or because it was brought to the case with such an inappropriate manner. I can think of several cases where people have been banned when their conflict of interest has been divulged on websites not associated with WP. Throughout this case, and on the cold fusion talk page for months, Abd has been presenting himself as the one editor on cold fusion who understands the science (which of course is nonsense, but that's what he says) and who is completely neutral and objective. The announcement that he intends to start a company to market cold fusion kits, and the further information (not on that link, but on a subsequent post in the same thread) that he proposes that the first kit should be a kit whereby the purchaser can generate cold fusion from "biological transmuation," tells a volume about (1) his neutrality and (2) his understanding of science, and should be considered by the committee. Thank you. Woonpton (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
At this point, the mailing list post has been entered into formal evidence. I was careful from the beginning to make sure that the disrespectful tone present in the beginning of the discussion didn't carry through, and I don't believe it has. At this point, it's largely a discussion and analysis of the evidence, which is appropriate for that page. I am keeping an eye on things, though, and will step in if it appears to be getting out of hand. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
No hassles - as I mentioned, you have a lot more experince than I, and I'm very happy to defer to your judgement. :) - 23:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Abuse filter

Yeah, I couldn't even edit the false positives page to report that I was blocked from editing. It took several different pages before I finally got to edit again. I am not happy. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I completely understand - I thought I'd tested the filter well, but obviously I hadn't. I am working on improving the filter now, and when it is reenabled (if I'm confident it won't mess up again), it will not have any advanced actions enabled. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Has my autoconfirm been restored? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should have been - I reverted all the actions the filter took since I added the bad regex. If not, I can always give you the confirmed flag manually. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/241

I think that the edit filter might not be the best way to catch this vandal. In stead, I would recommend adding his/her username patterns to User:HBC NameWatcherBot/Blacklist in the sockpuppet section. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I might do that, thanks, I'd forgotten about that bot. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Jtree09

See User_talk:Jtree09#Re:_Another_look, I hope this is OK with you. Best,  Chzz  ►  16:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I trust you on this. I might take a look at it later, but if you figure it's ok, it's probably not speediable, and I'm not going to AfD anything that's been handled through the help channel. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Please reblock User:TBDevilRays2009

TBDevilRays2009 immediately began vandalizing wikipedia by renominating Ken Hoang for deletion (the second nomination from his sockpuppet was deemed bad faith see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Hoang (2nd nomination). Here are a few sockpuppets he maybe using:

and several ips.

Apperently he has an obsession with having Ken Hoang deleted from wikipedia. Clearly a bad faith nomination. Also please close afd as well. Thanks. Valoem talk 17:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Generally, accusations of sockpuppetry should be made at WP:SPI, particularly if you want administrative action on them. I'd also point out that TBDevilRays2009 has never been directly blocked; he was caught in a checkuser block for unrelated vandalism. That said, I'll take a look at it, but I'd very much prefer you file a formal SPI report. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Never mind, MuZemike has already filed one. I'll make further responses about this there. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah thanks for informing me I was unfamiliar with that process. Valoem talk 20:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
As it turns out, you were both right. I'm blocking him now. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Not getting it

I just stumbled upon the Abd-WMC case, and perhaps I'm the only one confused as hell here, but if I'm counting the votes correctly, between remedies 6 and 6.1, we have (1) one arb who thinks that neither is needed (and who, presumably, would rather pass 6.1 than 6) (Newyorkbrad); (2) 2 arbs who support 6.1 but not 6 (Coren, Casliber); (3) 3 arbs who support 6 but not 6.1 (Vassyana, bainer and Wizardman); (4) 2 arbs who prefer 6 to 6.1 (Rlevse, Roger Davis); and (5) 2 arbs who prefer 6.1 to 6 (Carcharoth, Risker). So unless I'm reading the votes incorrectly, the only reason it is clear that 6 passed instead of 6.1 is because Newyorkbrad thinks that both are too harsh and opposed in both cases. Kind of ironic that this caused a permanent instead of a temp desysop to pass, and it strikes me as quite arbitrary. Is there something that I missed? Tim Song (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough, if any of the following occurs, remedy 6 will no longer be 'preferred' to 6.1:
  • Either of the two 'second-choice' arbs (Carcharoth, Risker) withdraw their support for 6 and only support their first choice, 6.1;
  • Newyorkbrad (who supports neither) moves to support 6.1 as a lesser evil;
  • Vassyana, who was inactive in the case until less than two hours before the first vote to close, withdraws his last-minute vote;
  • FloNight, who had been active and engaged with the case but withdrew for personal reasons, is now able to return and restore her previously-withdrawn votes.
I sent an email to the ArbCom mailing list yesterday asking them to justify their position on last-minute changes to panels of case arbitrators, with specific reference to Vassyana's sudden near-closing activation in a couple of recent cases; I haven't heard back yet, but it's interesting that Vassyana's been the only arbitrator to comment on the PD talk page since my email was received. I was hoping to wait for some sort of formal statement from them on the issue, but since the matter seems to be coming up on-wiki anyway, I might as well participate.
I'm also quite disappointed by the present handling of these 'multiple-choice' remedies. The role of the ArbCom is to make clear and unambiguous decisions, and the process by which they reach those decisions needs to be transparent. As the case stands now, it is most certainly not clear that the remedy which is nominally passing is the one which is actually preferred by the majority of the active panel (even counting the last-minute addition to its membership). There needs to be a clear and explicit choice made by the majority of the Arbs — and I think that the poor clerks who have to implement this thing should demand exactly that. It doesn't need to be complicated; a straight up-or-down vote is all that's necessary: "The choices on the table are a) a temporary desysopping of WMC, per remedy 6.1; or b) a permanent desysopping of WMC, per remedy 6. Choose one, and only one." This case is now coming up on its two-month anniversary; I see no reason why we shouldn't take a couple of days to make sure that the remedy implemented is the one actually, clearly, openly, honestly preferred by the majority of the Committee. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Passage is based solely on which remedy has the greatest support. Remedy 6 has 7/3/0, 6.1 has 6/4/0. Conditional votes such as first/second choice are only taken into account when there is a tie in support, or when things are unclear (if, for example, 6.1 was 6/3/1 instead). Even in that situation, Remedy 6 still has greater support, because as you pointed out, Tim, five arbs prefer 6 to 6.1 in some way (be it outright opposing 6.1 or simply showing a preference for 6), whereas only four prefer 6.1 in the same manner.
I am only a clerk - my responsibility here is to count votes and announce which proposals are ahead and which ones are not. If you feel it doesn't make sense, I would encourage you to contact ArbCom about it. Complaining to me won't achieve much. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Further note: I have received no instruction from ArbCom about this matter, so I assume that they are OK with what is currently passing. If I receive any such notice from them, or votes change as TOAT mentions above, I will update the implementation notes accordingly. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm just following the instructions on that template up there on the talk page; that is, to contact you if I have a question. I understand, of course, that your hands are tied. Tim Song (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Hersfold, I should have been a bit clearer on the matter. I understand how you're evaluating which remedy goes into effect, I just think that the ArbCom has selected a method which is opaque and which may have unintended consequences. They need to make an explicit decision, rather than letting it fall out of a counterintuitive preferential voting system. (Under the current system, if Newyorkbrad chooses to support a more strict remedy, the remedy which goes into effect will be less strict. This isn't a sensible outcome.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Is this a necessary effect of Arrow's impossibility theorem or does it simply need more discssion? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's an 'Arrow' problem — at least, it doesn't have to be. Given that two mutually-contradictory remedies have passed, the way the decision page is structured the Arbitrators are not (now) given a clear choice between them. (The 'Arrow' problem arises only because we started out with three choices – permanent desysop, temporary desysop, or probation – and what amounts to an approval voting scheme.) At the moment, Coren has already grasped the game-theoretic approach he must take to his voting in order to get a 'correct' outcome from his standpoint; while opposed to desysopping as a remedy, he has voted for the temporary desysop in order to avoid the permanent desysop. Newyorkbrad's vote, meanwhile, is in line with his principles, but has the effect of imposing a substantially harsher penalty than would be the case if he supported the temporary desysopping remedy. It's a mess. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
It basically screams for a Ph.D. thesis: "Nash Equilibria and their Application to Conflict Resolution in Massive Online Collaborations" ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
If you guys are going to talk about this here, you're gonna need to talk in terms I understand. I don't have a Ph.D. in genius. ;-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Proper grammar requires sentences of that type to always end in "yet". Seriously, read the two articles - they represent fairly simple but surprisingmathematical results with a direct application to political and economic processes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
It was a joke. ;-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Can I assume, Hersfold, that this matter is already being handled in a manner consistent with other ArbCom decisions? --GoRight (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't see anything to indicate it's not. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I thought so, but given all the lobbying here I just wanted to make sure. --GoRight (talk) 01:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
My response here was quite clear, nor do I feel these users are lobbying for anything, just seeking clarification on the voting. Please assume good faith. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, if the requests being made here to change the existing decision process are not properly called lobbying then I stand corrected on that point. --GoRight (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I not only think it is appropriate for editors to express their opinions about our processes and resolutions, but I encourage them to share their concerns and thoughts in a cordial fashion. Even if I vigorously disagree with the opinions raised (though not saying I do or do not in this instance), I think it is positive and healthy for everyone involved to have those views expressed. The constructive feedback helps keep the Committee, as a group and as individuals, in some fresh ideas and from a complacent stagnancy of thought. I'm just generally a fan of talking out the issues. Even if one side or the other is not swayed, a bit of mutual understanding can be reached and reasonable adults should be able to agree to disagree on that basis. Also, even if neither group is swayed, some accommodation and/or gesture can often be achieved. (For an example of this, please note my discussion with Stephen Schulz on the proposed decision talk page. I still remain opposed to the finding for very particular reasons, but I was able to make a suggestion that relieved a significant source of stress, frustration and misunderstanding.) Of course, this purely my individual view. Vassyana (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration help

God I hope I am posting in the right place!

The page for which I seek arbitration is a battleground that has been in arbitration before - I refer to the page "Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University".

The has been general consensus between all editors on the site for quite a long time that it was a satisfactory compromise as it was. Senior management of the BKWSU had agreed with a group of exmembers of the organisation to leave it as it was. However, more recently a former editor (simonb), who the BKWSU management had agreed to not let back on the site, has been busy hacking at it again. Simon Blandford is an ardent adherent of the BKWSU, and a fundamentalist by nature, and will not leave the site alone until it is representative of his personal views.

I am requesting that the page be returned to a previous edit, probably around January 2009, when al the bickering had stopped, and just leave it there. We were all okay with it, except Simon it seems, at that point in time.

Is this possible?

Thanks and regards,

Peter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 019283and (talk • contribs)

I can't unilaterally declare that this should happen; you should probably seek out some sort of mediation with Simon before you try going to Arbitration again. If there is a strong consensus of editors of the page to revert it back to a prior revision, then you are free to do so. Just make sure everyone agrees on which revision you're going back to.
By the way, is this your first account? I notice you only have two edits logged to your account, but you obviously have knowledge of things that have been going on for years. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I just took a look through things, and the only discussion on the talk page or the most recent archive that I can find about reverting the page to a past version was proposed by Simon, and it faced very strong opposition. I'm not sure what agreement you're referring to. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoops

Sorry for the accidental revert. Fat fingers tonight. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 04:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

That did help, a lot. I've been here for like four years but I still don't know anything about formatting and stuff! Is there any kind of help index or something that I could reference if I need assistance again? I don't wanna spam that template. :3 Lychosis T/C 16:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, Help:Wikitext examples provides some general guidance, and also links to other pages that contain more specific information about various things such as tables. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ping

You've got mail. Vassyana (talk) 09:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Got it, I'll respond soon. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

note

thank you for caring re: my loss. DS (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What can I edit?

Hi Hersfold. I've been thinking about what articles I want to edit and I can't come up with any ideas. Are there any ideas you have for what articles I could edit and improve? RascalthePeaceful (t) 18:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What sort of thing interests you? That's usually the best guide - the articles I've worked the most on (with one exception) have all been about or are related to places I've been, for example. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Based on your userpage, you're interested in, for example, disasters and comics. You could browse through pages at Category:Disasters and Category:Comics, for example, and see if any interest you or seem in need of work, or if any of them give you ideas for new articles you could write. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Cold fusion talk page header

Hi, Hersfold. Re the template you added to Talk:Cold fusion: I think this part doesn't correspond to the arbitration remedy: "Whilst the user is not prohibited from discussing or proposing changes to the article, on this talk page, they may not edit the article itself." Also, I had changed the banner about the other editor to make it less conspicuous, based on Tznkai's general permission expressed at User talk:Tznkai/Archive 3#Talk page banner, and I would also request that you consider not displaying the name of the editor except in the hidden text; I think it's more dignified that way. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it when I finish with homework - although it may take a while until that happens. Thanks for the note, I was kinda rushed earlier getting everything done. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. No rush. I think you have 3 months to clarify re the remedy. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, the template erroneously states that Abd is allowed to edit the talk page. Pursuant to this remedy he is prohibited from any talk page discussion relating to cold fusion for the duration of his article ban. Skinwalker (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant in my first comment above. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah, my reading comprehension seems to be broken today. Apologies to you both. Skinwalker (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 Done. Thanks again (to you both) for pointing that out. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
And thank you, Hersfold. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC) ... and, Skinwalker, no problem, it wasn't my intention to criticize you; sorry about how it came across. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

HELP!!

Hi there HERSFOLD, VASCO from Portugal here,

I contact you my friend because you helped me block one more sock of Pararubbas, the umpteenth (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas/Archive#Report_date_August_30_2009.2C_20:34_.28UTC.29); you even did some more investigation on your own, and found some more...WOW! This "user" is indeed relentless!

Now, i need your help, because i tried to request checkuser at the proper place, but i was not allowed to, dunno why. I could not write anything after i opened proper box. So, before this new sock, User:Fgh089 ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fgh089) - note name similarity, edits in Portuguese soccer, etc, etc - has a chance to further "contribute", i would appreciate some actions if possible. I only requested investigation (in this case, with checkuser) because i wanted to follow the procedures, i KNOW it's User:Pararubbas!

Take care, ty very much in advance,

VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

So that everything is archived in one place, I really would prefer you open an WP:SPI case for this if possible - you should be able to file a new case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pararubbas. Whether you do or not, I'll try to take a look at it later this evening; I'm in the process of heading to class right now and won't be back around until this evening. Please note, however, that I'm only going to run a checkuser scan if I feel it's necessary - if there's enough behavioral evidence to confirm they're the same, that's all I'm going to look at. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Desiphral

I believe I have discovered a sockpuppet from searching the Elance site, I have listed it on the SPI page. Thank you for your time, Triplestop x3 22:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm still awaiting on input from other checkusers. Other accounts you can find from there would be helpful. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin rights

If they are so unimportant, why do you need them? DuncanHill (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

They directly impact the work I do on the project, which is largely administrative/background work. I think you misunderstand my point, which was essentially "adminship is no big deal." Admin tools are important to the operation of the project (I never said they aren't); without them we'd be overrun with vandalism and other abuse. The "no big deal" part comes from the fact that the damage that can be done by an abusive administrator is not terribly harmful in the long-term; any other admin can easily undo any action obviously made in bad faith, and the very nature of this project ensures that such abuse is noticed very quickly.
And incidentally, I was never beating my wife in the first place. ;-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The damage that can be (and is being) done by abusive admins is long term and hard to rectify - the disillusioned editors giving up on article contributions, the readers who tell their friends to ignore wp because it is run by a handful of egotists. Misuse of tools is one thing (and far from easy to rectify - there are many admins, and even some arbs, who will privately admit that a colleague was wrong, but then refuse to do or say anything about it on-wiki). The abuse of status is another thing that you do not address - claims that because x number of admins support or oppose something then they must be right. This is widespread, and is particularly common whenever a prole tries to suggest that admins should be more accountable to the community. DuncanHill (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Having people identify to the foundation isn't going to help any of that; unfortunately, I'm not sure what will. Those issues come from what really is only a small handful of admins who do shove their weight around a bit too much; in general, those in that handful also do good content work, which is what makes others reluctant to sanction them. I'm not certain the problem is quite as bad as you seem to be implying (mainly because I'm fairly certain it is limited to a small number of admins), but I would agree that there are problems in those areas. The fact is, though, no matter how many times we tell people that being an admin is no big deal, they're going to treat it like one. Especially new users who don't know better and assume admins are the ones running the servers. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

September 16 - 30

Thanks...

...for fixing this. Yintaɳ  00:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

NATO

Thanks for making the edit. Do I need to modify the talk page to show that it has been completed? Or is that something that I should let someone else do? (I had to create a new account as my old username was not compliant with policy.) --When in doubt, eat potatoes (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops. I think someone else has already done it. Sorry about that. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

And thanks again! --When in doubt, eat potatoes (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Be serious

I'm not alone amongst the admin corps. You know it, and I'm not prohibited from expressing this view. I'm also not subject to opposing ArbCom decision making, esspecially when it gives the appearance of a serious effort to avoid transparency. As an encyclopedia, we lack credibility, and when our ArbCom is busy acting in an insular and ignorant manner it undermines the rest of us. Do not ever ask me to stop expressing my views again. You are free to have your own views, and I mine. I find your views harmful to the project, but my views are only harmful to your ego. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I know you are not alone. I am uncertain if this was the proper course or not myself; certainly WMC needed to be sanctioned in some way; whether desysopping was right, I don't know. I do know he did some wildly stupid things (prime among them blocking Abd in the middle of the Arbitration case), but I do also know he does do good work. I have no opinion on the matter, and I know that you are entitled to yours. The problem I'm having with you right now is how you're expressing your opinion. A largely calm and reasoned post such as this I am perfectly fine with. However, starting petitions when you are quite aware that they're not going to achieve what you want, and baiting comments like this are not helpful in the least. You're an administrator, I know you know this. I am not asking you to stop expressing your views. What I am asking you is to stop being unnecessarily provocative with them. Please also remember I am not an Arbitrator, only a clerk. I did not make the decision to desysop WMC. Part of my work as a clerk is to keep the arbitration pages in good order. That's all I'm trying to do here. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I responded on my talk page and on the talk page in question. Restore my edit, now. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser needed

It seems that the trolls are coming out of the woodwork to harrass WMC by screwing about with his biography subsequent the arbitration case. As the case clerk and a checkuser, you're reasonably familiar with the issues involved.

It's painfully obvious that Summer's Eve (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of someone. His first edit (less than an hour ago) was to remove a source from a global-warming related biography by 'Undo'ing another editor [5]. Most of his subsequent edits have been to William Connolley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and its talk page. He seems remarkably well-versed in Wikipedia jargon for such a new user, talking about making a 'bold edit', and invoking WP:IAR explicitly to justify his sidestep of WP:BLP: [6].

Can you hit us with some pixie dust? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the pixie dust seems to be short on the magic today. Nothing's coming up, although something does smell rather socky about all that. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Odd. Nishkid64 nailed him immediately as Scibaby.User_talk:Nishkid64#Our_friend.3F Do you guys all see the same info? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
We do, but Nishkid64 has more experience than I do. Until now, I didn't know what Scibaby's data looked like. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. FWIW he just celebrated the three-year anniversary of his first sock account, and shows no sign of slowing down. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Google

I attempted to follow through with the WP:UNGOOGLE steps, but my attempts to fix the effects of recent vandalism to Yusuke Yamamoto was denied. I've never had any success with them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm just going off of what I was told on IRC. I've never actually done this myself. :-/ Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
They don't seem to like me. I had requested they remove some cached versions of my old website and they rejected them all.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

A small correction to this page User talk:J. Telmot

There was only one editor making those edits. User:Validbanks 34

Having said that, is there a quick way to check if these are more of User:Primetime's accounts? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If you think it's likely there are more, I can take a look, but this doesn't seem like the serial socker type to me. Most likely all I'd find would be the accounts we've already caught. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Validbanks 34

I'm almost certain this is the same guy who was making exactly the same argument, who initially edited anonymously and then registered an account as User:无名氏.

Also wondering if this is User:Primetime since he previously attempted to edited the as User:Knowhands enjoykeep, and various other sockpuppets (Talk:Mac_OS_X/Archive_9#User:Knowhands_enjoykeep).

Similar behaviour in both cases. Initially making arguments that "almost" seem reasonable but quickly devolve into edit warring, then sockpuppets, then picking an editor as a target and reverting a bunch of their previous edits. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Taking a look now, then. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Primetime (talk · contribs · block log) and Knowhands enjoykeep (talk · contribs · block log) are both  Stale, and I don't see any of their confirmed socks that aren't. I'll just see if the currently active accounts are related, and if there are any other accounts coming from them. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Validbanks 34 (talk · contribs · block log) is  Confirmed to be the following users:
无名氏 (talk · contribs) is Red X Unrelated to all of the above.
I also found another potentially confirmed sockfarm unrelated to the above group, so now I'm off to look into that. Hope this helps. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sleepers

They won't be on this wiki. Uncle G (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  • There were a bunch here, but I'll be sure to send a notice to the checkuser list so other wikis can take care of things. Thanks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I was going to carefully suggest that very thing. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 02:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you look into this

As an admin who is intimately familiar with the poking-each-other-with-POINTy-sticks behaviour of the Abd/WMC arbitration, would you be willing to have a look in at Talk:Lawrence Solomon? It appears that GoRight is refactoring WMC's remarks and deliberately goading him, and I don't think it's a helpful approach.

If you don't have the time to handle it, it can be kicked over to WP:AN/I, but I'm hoping to keep this from getting unnecessarily dramatic. A 'word to the wise' – not to mention a revert of the unhelpful refactoring – would be sufficient, methinks, without needing an escalation to blocks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I left a comment in general, there's conduct on both sides that could be improved. I didn't remove any of the refactoring; hopefully that'll get taken care of somehow. Let me know if things escalate; if needed, the old discretionary sanction hammer can get waved around. Hopefully that won't be needed. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
If you look back a bit - 3 editors edit warred to remove my comments last week. I tried to restore them, but I gave up when it was clear that the editors were intent on removing half the conversation and leaving WMC's attacking language unanswered. Rather than prolong the drama I decided to let him have the last word, until GoRight came upon it later and refactored WMC's comment. This is simply an FYI, to let you know context so you don't get the mistaken impression that GoRight was the instigator. I'm not asking you to do anything; I'm done with it. ATren (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
BTW, congratulations on your clerking promotion. Or perhaps it's condolences? :-) ATren (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Reality is not quite as ATren describes, but there's nothing to be gained by prolonging this. Let's all move on. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Um, yes, it is exactly as I described. You may check the diffs if you're interested. But agreed on the latter. ATren (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding cliche, I don't much care who started it - I just care that it ends. :-)
And thanks, ATren. TBH, trainee clerk vs. full clerk isn't too much of a difference, but it's fun to have the trainee prefix off. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi! About this one guy....

I found a user named Roux. Apparently, he is considering a secret page challenge for deletion and he says it is because the guy that created the challenge (see Roux's talk), Bionicle233, has edited it too much. Bionicle and me think it is absurd. What do you think? RascalthePeaceful (t) 23:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Where on earth did I say that? Hidden page challenges have nothing to do with Wikipedia, and they are routinely deleted. → ROUX ₪ 23:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
My personal opinion on secret page games is that they distract from the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to build an encyclopedia. However, I don't see what my opinion has to do with this. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
My opinion is that the challenges should be kept. Maybe someone wants to take a break from editing but still mess around on Wikipedia. Page finds are ideal for this, ya know? Everyone enjoys them, though some can be enjoyably frustrating.Why should we delete these? It gives a little more fun to Wikipedia! RascalthePeaceful (t) 20:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Rascal the Peaceful, the place to voice your opinion is on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rascal the Peaceful/Secret Page Challenge, not on individual user talk pages. -Optigan13 (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Oops. RascalthePeaceful (t) 21:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Motto of the Day

Hello I saw your name as a contributor to WP:MOTD. The project is currently slowing down, and it would be greatly appreciated if you would add or review a nomination. (Even one would be of great help) Thanks.--LAAFansign review 01:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Help me!

  1. I created User:Kubek15/Status, it's blank.
  2. I added the script to my monobook.js file (User:Kubek15/monobook.js)
  3. I cleared my firefox cache
  4. I added {{User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate}} to my userpage (User:Kubek15) and I saved the page
  5. I clicked on the 'On' word and... I was redirected to edit of my blank User:Kubek15/Status page! It redirected and that's all! It ends on redirecting to editing of blank page! What I have to fix?

Kubek15T CS 18:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied by email. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is something

Hi! I made something that can go on a custom template made by you. Its great for users for who you have checked for sockpuppeting and was confirmed.

240px

RascalthePeaceful (t/a/c) 23:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think {{checkuserblock}} will suffice. Thanks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and have you considered becoming a bureaucrat? You are at the expectations to become one, don't you think? RascalthePeaceful (t/a/c) 20:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't participate enough in RFA nor bot requests to run. Anyway, you need to be focusing on your future here, as I strongly implied in the email I sent to you. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

IRC ping

Your status says you're on IRC but you don't appear to be at the moment. :P Would you mind popping on and PMing me? I've got a couple questions for you. GlassCobra 22:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm bad about updating that. I can't get on IRC at the moment (I'm in class) but I might be able to get on once I get out (about 45 minutes). If it's urgent, I should be able to respond to emails. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Well, if you don't mind, could you take a look at the unblock request on User talk:Hi540? I'd like to know if this is just collateral damage, or a good hand/bad hand situation. For reference, please see Special:Undelete/User talk:Theantinawlin and Special:DeletedContributions/Theantinawlin. Thanks. :) GlassCobra 22:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Your closure

Hersfold, if you were involved as CU, you should probably not have closed the AfD yourself. I agree that it was improperly started and there were two sockpuppets actively involved on both sides. I can't quite work out why, but perhaps you'll be able to clarify that later. For a little while now I have been discussing the WP:COI edits by Webmaster6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with User:Dougweller. On the other hand in real life I have been busy for the last month guiding my Ph.D. student through the final stages of thesis preparation/submission. That is why my namespace edits have been put on hold - I simply don't have the time. I found out about this AfD only by accidentally checking Webmaster6's recent contributions, a large number of which have been deleted. This editor will probably be indef blocked at some time in the future, but that will require more patient watching. Just today Jeremy Dunning-Davies was deleted for the second time, following faulty additions by User:Headbomb who confused him with another physicist. I think ultimately Franco Selleri will be deleted; I would make the case myself in quite a different way.

Meanwhile please check Quotient group (talk · contribs), undoubtedly a sockpuppet of Mister Collins. I didn't particularly appreciate the SPI request. I already had a lot of trouble from socks on my talk page during the ArbCom case. My fixed IP 82.66.163.12 is known as is my University of Cambridge proxy IP (used for accessing journals). My RL identity and academic position were known to clerks and ArbCom because of communications during the ArbCom case. If you find that Quotient group is as I suspect a sockpuppet of Mister Collins (he's obviously a sockpuppet of somebody), it woud be nice if that could somehow be indicated in a slight modification of your closure statement, as the two sockpuppets transformed the AfD into a trainwreck. I still have no idea how Xxanthipe knew about the SPI - I only found out from her diff on the AfD. Mathsci (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I closed the AfD as a procedural matter - it was clearly started in bad faith, and you have to admit you were the only valid user in favor of deletion. I have no interest in the articles themselves, in all honesty.
We're still looking into the SPI case; I'll make sure to take a look at any user who we have a reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry from when I get a chance. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

David Tombe's behavior

It is an understatement to say that I have concerns about David Tombe's behavior. I have commented on his problematic behavior on the Speed of light arbitration pages. I am aware of the warnings he has been given, both during the arbitration and throughout his entire career on Wikipedia, without apparent effect. I am aware that, as a matter of common sense, Tombe's continuing misbehavior is self-defeating. And I have a pretty thick skin.

However, comparing people to Nazi war criminals is way beyond uncivil, tendentious, disruptive, aggressive, or even pugnacious and defiant. It is offensive, inhumane, and sick to a degree that makes Wikipedia's standards of conduct beside the point. Some of us have family members who died in the Holocaust or have friends who lost family members to it. To heap insult upon insult, when others (including me) pointed out the offensiveness of this remark, Tombe laughed it off and thumbed his nose at us. He implied by accusing us of using "Goebel's [sic] famous tactic"[7], he was complementing us by comparing us to "a wizard of propaganda".[8] His next "joke" was to switch to a Mussolini comparison to avoid violating Goodwin's law,[9] which isn't a law but rather an observation about offensive argumentation online.

Of course, I respect your judgment based you your extensive experience in arbitrations and the fact that, unlike me, you are disinterested. Nevertheless, in my opinion, something more formal than another comment in reply to Tombe is necessary this time. That is the reason for my motion, which I do not intend to withdraw. If the Arbitrators determine that my motion is disruptive or violates Wikipedia's behavioral standards, I will of course abide by their judgment. Finell (Talk) 05:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC) (To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply here on your Talk page.)

If he continues to be incivil, he will be blocked. That's all such a motion would achieve anyway; a final warning to behave, which I have given. Should be be blocked and continue to be problematic, I can use my authority as clerk to ban him from the case. I don't see your motion as disruptive, simply unnecessary, since I'm already taking action to prevent further disruption. That's all. Hersfold (t/a/c) 07:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification, and for your enforcement Wikipedia's behavioral policies and guidelines on the arbitration pages. Finell (Talk) 08:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hersfold/Archive_33_(September_2009)&oldid=1166522987"