User talk:Hersfold/Archive 56 (August 2011)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
← Previous archive - Archive 56 (August 2011) - Next archive →

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

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry Mister Hersfold, urm...I had to change his edits back! Thanks for the advice, I'm sorry. ;-'( --Onewhohelps (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Requesting Your Assistance

Hello Hersfold. You've helped me in the past with an issue pertaining to banned Wikipedia contributor User:Griot. I'd like to create a new sockpuppet report, but would require your assistance. The sock/meat is User:Mystylplx. Once opened, I can supply the data, some of which has already been sent to the Wikimedia. Thank you, 99.25.219.28 (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that's extremely unlikely. Mystylplx has been on Wikipedia longer than I have; if they were socking, I'm sure someone would have picked up on it long before now. Could you send me an email with the information you've gathered? If you don't have an account, you can use the form here (I need someone to test it anyway). Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello Hersfold. I've collected the data, and unfortunately it is more than highly likely. I attempted to use the form you've supplied, but the Captcha isn't working properly. If you'd like to start the report, I can supply the data. Thank you, 99.25.219.28 (talk) 23:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
No, trust me, it worked - six times. :-/ I sent a reply to your email address. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Still awaiting your reply email - I just took a look at Mystylplx's last 500 article contributions, going back to 2006, and they've never edited any of the articles Griot favors. I see nothing to indicate a relation between the two users. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I've been away with personal matters. Interesting, the Captcha indicated it didn't go through each time. Ah, you're missing the biggest commonality with User:Griot, edit warring/same stance on Ralph Nader article. But, there are other facts, too. 99.59.98.144 (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
P.S.: I replied to your email. Have you started the report yet? Thank you again for your assistance, 99.59.98.144 (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I replied to your latest email. I admit, I am not entirely comfortable handling the matter this way. I've received some rather rude and accusatory messages from Richwales. Perhaps you will prefer to address the matter privately, because there is quite damning information on this individual. Since he is thought by certain individuals and agencies to be unstable and possibly dangerous, I recommend proceeding with caution. 99.88.145.8 (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I've replied, after determining that your supposed "evidence" is (to put it succinctly) utter crap. Stop edit warring against consensus, stop trying to get editors who disagree with you blocked, and stop harassing those same editors. You will be blocked if any of these activities continue. Hersfold (t/a/c) 14:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
As I've replied, I completely disagree with your assessment. I've forwarded the data to the legal department at Wikimedia, which you will note in a Cc to you. The very fact that this individual claimed not to know of Griot, but visits and posts harassment to the "Wikipedia Idiots" article and other related web sites is more than sufficient. And I've provided additional evidence that is overwhelming. I am unclear as to why you fail or refuse to recognize these violations. The matter extends far beyond Wikipedia, articles and edit wars. It is also illegal activity in the real world. And if you believe that I would spend my precious time on this merely because of an edit war, then, sir, you insult my intelligence, nay my life and my humanity. Good day, sir, 99.12.180.203 (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The legal department has nothing to do with this, but do carry on. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
You are grossly mistaken. They have already contacted involved parties. Good day, sir, 99.12.180.203 (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

On 12 July you blocked User:BridgitMendler 1 for sockpuppetry noting that the user was a sock of User:BrendanJohn but there's no no SPI report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BrendanJohn. User:BridgitMendler 2 was subsequently blocked as a sock and User:BridgitMendler 3 has now appeared, carrying out similar edits on a similar range of pages, although there are some differences, making evidence for an SPI case a bit thin. Before I open an SPI case for BrendanJohn, I was wondering if BridgitMendler 1 had been blocked because the user was mentioned elsewhere. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Let me take a look. Often when we block obvious sockpuppets, or when they're blocked on checkuser evidence, we won't file a case since there's little point in drawing more attention to them. If things continue, though, it may be necessary - go ahead and start the paperwork while I figure out what's going on. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I've blocked that account; I don't see any others on that range, but I've had another admin block the range for a bit to keep any more from cropping up for a while. Thanks! Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Cool. That's a bit less work to do. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Jenniferhealey

Hi there. I was curious regarding the block on this user. Possible deleted pages notwithstanding, she hasn't made any edits since June. She's also received no specific warnings for abusive behavior (only my advice on her addition of promotional text). Thanks, Steamroller Assault (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a checkuser confirmed sock of a very long-term and very nasty vandal. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

"Others" case scope

What gives? I was specifically told to present evidence on at least one other editor in the Cirt/Jayen case. I'm getting mixed messages here. Cla68 (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That's odd; that doesn't seem to be in keeping with the motion that was passed. I've gotten in touch with an arbitrator (Cavalry) about this, and he and I agree that CHL probably meant the related BLP case. The scope statement the Committee passed was fairly clear that the Cirt/Jayen case was only to focus on the actions of those two users, and that anything else should go in the BLP case. Sorry for the confusion, I didn't realize that you'd been told otherwise before. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

standard timetable

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466

The standard timetable is two weeks for evidence (ending August 7), an additional one week for workshop (ending August 14), and one week for the Committee to vote on the Proposed Decision (case closing August 21)

Hi. With only a little over one day remaiming and User:Cirt not editing and not contributing to the case as yet are there to be any known deviations from the standard procedure? Off2riorob (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I will ask about this. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, there is an associated comment here - User_talk:Newyorkbrad#User:Cirt - Off2riorob (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Hersfold, this Q is resolved as its been answered on the case talkpage and by NYB, so, I appreciate you looking, thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
No problem; sorry, I was out the last couple days. Hersfold (t/a/c) 14:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Thomas_Müller/archive1

Looks like User:Taro-Gabunia is back (this time as an IP), but as I've only a passing familiarity with the background I thought I'd better double-check with someone more clued-up, rather than just blocking on sight. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. As a checkuser, I can't confirm or deny if the IP is in fact Taro, but it does look rather suspicious. I'll go ahead and block based on duck evidence, and we'll see what pops up. Good spotting. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment

When clerks are unavailable, please do not complain when ordinary editors point out fairly straightforward guidelines. It does come across very well. Thanks. Mathsci (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I can always be contacted by email, and there is a second clerk on this case. While I appreciate the assistance, it seemed clear to me that Cla did not; that's the reason for my request. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for this reply. I made my concerns clear on the discussion page of the evidence page, so I cannot see any need to have contacted you or the other clerk by email. I contacted Cla68 on his talk page because careless edits on ArbCom pages can have unexpected consequences. That he responded to me aggressively is beyond my control and quite surprising. Mathsci (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, I noticed you contributing to the username change requests, and saw you were online. I requested to change my username, but I was just wondering if I'm able to still be logged on to that account or not. Currently on an old account I made and abandoned for a new one. Thanks, Zacharee (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If you are logged in at the time of the name change, I believe Mediawiki forces you to log out. I'm not totally sure on that, though, you may want to ask a more experienced bureaucrat (I've been one for maybe two weeks now). You shouldn't be using more than one account at the same time, though; please stick with your current account. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, alright, thanks. Didn't know if I should just stay logged out until its changed or not. ℥nding·start 22:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback|Nathan2055|Problems with status indictatior|ts=23:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)}} Nathan2055talk 23:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Willminator

Hi. I was looking at Willminator's editing history and was considering unblocking him, but I refrained upon reading your discussion on User talk:Willminator.

I feel compelled to ask, is it really such a big deal to make minor edits to your own words on archived pages to correct spelling or grammar errors, especially when the edits don't change the meaning, but rather serve to clarify the meaning for anyone who comes across the archive in the future?

I have done this myself on occasion. In one non-minor case I recall, I inquired on the Science reference desk about the subject of funding bias for which Wikipedia didn't have an article. I eventually created the article myself. When I tried to note this fact in the section I started on the reference desk, it had become archived by then, so for the sake of closure I noted it in the archive for anyone who might have an interest. I saw no harm in this, and I still don't.

I can understand maintaining a block due to perception of dishonesty on Willminator's part, but given his explanation, this seems like a tempest in a teapot to me. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not a big deal, and I certainly wouldn't maintain a block for that reason. The problem, though, and the reason why Willminator was blocked, is that he claims he didn't make those edits at all, which would indicate someone else (presumably his cousin) was using the account. Until that gets clarified, we really can't unblock the account as it may have been compromised. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

User:TheTakeover Sockpuppet blocking

The user behind TheTakeover (user2005) appealed to another administrator that he is familiar with and had this block overturned, both on his main account and on the two sockpuppets. This is what the administrator said as evidence for overturning the block "There may be MEAT, there may be tag-team behaviour, but abuse of multiple accounts it is not. –xenotalk 04:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)"

It is my understanding that whether it was a meat or sock puppet isn't relevant and this admin seems to agree with the fact that it was at minimum a meetpuppet but alludes to some 'technical evidence' as a reason for the unblocking. You can read more about this at the ANI here or at the sockpuppet investigation. DegenFarang (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

They appealed to me as well, citing claims of harassment on your part. Given you've been blocked for that, I assume that they've been found to have merit. Good day. Hersfold (t/a/c) 14:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Lockbox

Does Template:Infobox IPA really need to be in User:Hersfold/Lockbox? It's only transcluded ~200 times, but perhaps there is some history of disruption that I'm missing. Ucucha (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It will probably be coming out soonish. It was being targeted by a serial sockpuppeteer for a while along with the other templates in the Lockbox. Hersfold (t/a/c) 14:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Ucucha (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Hello Hersfold! I hope you enjoy this tasty treat as a friendly greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Mmm, yummy. Thanks! Hersfold (t/a/c) 13:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

The Guidance Barnstar
For twice now coming to my rescue when I have gotten over my head in page design. It is very much appreciated. Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
You're quite welcome! Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of UserPage WebVisible Article

Good day Señor. I wrote this article and I would like to publish it. I wrote to ADMIN Drangonfly that I would like help editing it to be more legit, aka not G11 status, but it was quickly re-blocked. Any way you have time to help and could unblock it so I can work on it? I would like to know how the article was specifically over-promotional, because several partner companies also have similar Wikipages. This is a worthy addition I'm prepared to revise, and which I've already spent a good amount of time on. Please let me know how to revise the article, or at least unblock it so I can revise/rewrite. I would really appreciate even if you could just highlight the parts you feel are explicitly too promotional, as any successful company will list their successes in a Wiki article (AT&T, British Telecom, Intuit, etc.). Let me know as soon as possible - Thanks Hersfold - nice cat pic lol! (Andrewsglaser (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC))

Before I respond to your question, would I be correct in assuming that you work for this company? Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Hersfold - no I work for clickworker.com as a German-English translator/PR/Marketing associate. I wrote these articles because it is a friend's company. He's paying me in wine - but so far has only paid in whine, hence my push to get this done! I also use the Geneva software, which was my original fascination with it. Thanks for following-up, looking forward to your help/comments (Andrewsglaser (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC))
Ok, that's a new one. Just a moment, I'll go take a look at the deleted articles. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, here are the problems I notice with User:Andrewsglaser/Geneva Technology Platform. In order for the article to be allowed to remain on Wikipedia, all of the ones in bold will need to be addressed. The other issues could use help as well, but aren't as critical.
  • Promotional tone: This is what you asked specifically about, so I'll try to be as detailed as possible. In a nutshell, you do not want the article to read like a sales brochure. Sentences of the form "<subject> <active present-tense verb> <buzzword-filled predicate>" are mostly what I'm talking about. For example, some quotes from your article:
    • Geneva Technology Platform coordinates online advertising tasks into one central control.
    • Geneva software employs a rules-based management algorithm that constantly learns and hones the placement and the results of client's advertisements.
Phrases like this need to go, and the majority of your article fits this format in some way. You could perhaps reword the first into "The Geneva platform is a advertising management program for large businesses" - this conveys the same information without promoting the software.
  • Copy/pasted stuff: Your article contains a couple lines like "Table of Contents Aggregation and Scalability Awards See Also References External Links" that's obviously been copied and pasted from another article or website. This is not acceptable, especially if you're copying from other websites. All text should be posted in your own words. You can add section headers by surrounding text with == equals signs == (the number of equals on each side denotes the level of the header; main sections should be a == level two header ==, with === subsections === and ==== subsubsections ==== as needed. Sections must be on their own separate line.). Once you have enough headers, the article will automatically include a table of contents.
  • References: You need them. Badly. All articles must include sufficient reliable third-party sources to demonstrate that they are notable. In general, this can be news articles (not press releases) about the software, unsolicited reviews from well-known companies, etc. Articles that do not demonstrate the subject's notability can be deleted under another speedy deletion criteria. [{WP:CITE|This page]] provides more information about how to properly cite sources.
  • Formatting: I mentioned headers above, but you can also add (relevant) links to other articles by surrounding words in [[double brackets]]. If the text you want displayed doesn't quite match with the title of the article you want to link to, separate the title from the displayed text with a pipe, like this: [[Elephant|example]] becomes example. You should also do away with the TM symbol at the beginning of the article. The awards list can be made into a bulleted list by moving each award to a separate line and starting each line with an asterisk (*). For example,

*Entry 1
*Entry 2
*Entry 3

...becomes...
  • Entry 1
  • Entry 2
  • Entry 3
If you take care of all of those issues, the article should be mostly ok. What I would recommend, however, is creating the article through the articles for creation process. This will allow experienced editors to review your article before it is moved to our main article namespace, and help you resolve any remaining problems. If you need any more help, please let me know. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much Hersfold for the help/suggestions. As for the copying, just to be clear, I tried to copy formatting because I'm not a normal Wiki writer/editor (obviously), however the titles of the table of contents were original. I don't want to be known as a copier, but I won't do it again. I guess I didn't understand that would happen automatically. Finally, I'm going to work on all this but is there anyway you can please unlock the article so I can edit it instead of creating a new one? Even just a 24 hours unblock would allow me to copy/paste the edit page to my word doc, and then work from there until I repost to an admin/editor for help. It's mostly format, but also some of the linking I wanted to keep - that would be much appreciated because it would save me some time. Again, I appreciate the lengthy & thorough response! (Andrewsglaser (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC))
I've restored the article. I would strongly recommend working on it on here (not in Word), though, as that way it's easier for other editors to help out if you need it. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

What do I do?

Since you are the person who left me a welcome message, I'll ask you. Where can I find stuff that needs to be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpert1 (talk • contribs)

Well, Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia provides a general overview of pages we have, and places people request pages we need. There's also cleanup tasks that always need doing, which is usually a good way for a new user to start out. If you want someone to help show you the ropes, there's also our adopt-a-user program which pairs you with an experienced editor who will help you get better acquainted with how things work around here. Seem like a good start so far? Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpert1 (talk • contribs)

Sure. If you ever need any help, feel free to stop by! I'm also frequently around in our online help chat channel as well. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Bot

Sorry! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. A better solution would be to leave the header as is and instead fix the bot, but I'm not feeling too well today so meh. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Here's a thought: would it make sense to make a level 1 header called "Evidence" just below it? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
That should be fine, I'll go add that. The bot looks for level two headers, anything else it ignores. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Word count

Your bot said that my word count at an Arbitration page was too long. I've reduced it and removed the tag placed on the bot. Was that the correct thing to do, or should I have left the tag? Will the bot automatically check my word count again? HuskyHuskie (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The tag should stay there, but the bot will just add it back, so it's not a huge deal. Thanks for shortening things. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

the evidence section in arbitration Cirt/Jayen466

Hi - the fifteenth of august has arrived - the User:Cirt's deadline request for extension of the evidence section is upon us. Clearly this case requires the standard time limits to be enforced - can I request that we have closure of the evidence sector in due course or a Arbcom statement as to any known new alterations to the standard format - thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing formal to be done. If ArbCom feels a statement is needed, they'll issue one. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
So - is the evidence section closed today? Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
We don't really close anything. The timeline is more for the benefit of parties to work out how long they have to submit evidence, and to give arbitrators time to review it. I'm somewhat concerned about your persistence about this. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
What are you concerned about? The case has clearly defined time limits and they have been extended and I am requesting closure as per those guidelines. And - what part of asking a simple polite question to a clerk in the case do you see as worrying persistence? Off2riorob (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
You know, it makes it very difficult to respond when you don't use the preview button. As I've said, there's no closure to be done. Parties are expected to focus primarily on the workshop now, that's all. In a few days to a week the proposed decision should be posted. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

User talk:66.87.4.239

I can't see any evidence that this IP is or was directly blocked as you indicated here. I was about to tell them they were autoblocked when I noticed your decline in the page history. Is this a range block maybe? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a rangeblock, I'll take a look again in a second. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of UserPage WebVisible Article

Hi Hersfold, it's me again. I still can't get into either the WebVisible or Geneva Platform User Pages that I am trying to edit. You said you unlocked them, but either it didn't work or another admin locked them up again immediately. Could you please unlock them? Is there a way to let admins know I'm re-working the page and not going to publish the rubbish that's already there, so that they don't lock/delete the pages? Once again, I'd appreciate it! You've been quite helpful so far, so hopefully I can get this done asap. Dank u vel Hersfold!! (Andrewsglaser (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC))

It looks like I forgot to remove the speedy deletion template the last time I restored the Geneva page, and so it got re-deleted. I've restored it again. To avoid any other problems, I'd rather only have one of these pages up at a time, so let me know when you're done with the Geneva page and then I'll restore the other one. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


Sounds good thanks! (Andrewsglaser (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC))

Hanged, drawn and quartered/Parrot of Doom

Not that I have any great love for the way Parrot of Doom conducts himself around here, but his defence of the article is justified. Please see my comments at 3RR, and take a close look at the IP's edits. Radiopathy •talk• 23:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok; even so, his actions (incivility, ownership, yada yada) are inappropriate. I've no intention of blocking, but he's not exactly being a saint. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Agreed. The IP, BTW, has now started a thread at WP:WQA. Radiopathy •talk• 00:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you a saint? Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I never said I was. What are you getting at? Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
You criticise PoD for not being a saint, but by your own admission you're not one yourself. Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't aware I was on trial here. The point I was making, which I thought was obvious, was that PoD's actions and evident unwillingness to listen to good-faith concerns about his conduct border on disruptive, and aren't exactly conducive to a collaborative project. I've got no intention of getting further involved here; I only dropped by in the first place because PoD's edit summary on his talk page set off the vandalism alarm on IRC due to the profanity. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Protection

Hersfold, I am not going to argue one way or another--but I have to say that at Montessori the kids aren't supposed to say "stupid". It's a bad word! Careful, or I'll have Miss Danielle reprimand you! Best, Drmies (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

:-P There's no semi-protection template for edit warring... Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Proiryman's evidence

Hi it appears much of User:Prioryman's evidence is about User:Delicious carbuncle who is not a named person in the Cirt/Jayen case. Is this correct? Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I will ask Prioryman about his intentions in posting that. On one hand, the evidence could have been posted as background information - as I said earlier in the case, providing evidence about the actions of other editors may be permissible if is to provide information about extenuating circumstances - however that doesn't seem to be his intention here. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, please ask - I have a large post here waiting to refute user prioryman's comments but I won't post them until you assert his evidence is specific to this case. Off2riorob (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, but if it is ruled as within scope, please note that you are currently at the evidence length limit; anything further you wish to add should be done at the expense of something else. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hersfold, thanks for your note; I've refactored the evidence to refocus it on Jayen466. Please advise whether you now consider it in scope. It should be, since it's primarily about Jayen466's actions. Prioryman (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll be the one to make that determination. Give me a chance to review it, please. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Minor note, Hersfold, but my word/diff count needs to be updated - your bot doesn't seem to have caught my revisions. Prioryman (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Aye, it's set to run every two hours, although apparently there was a problem that's been causing it to shut down unexpectedly for the past few runs. I'm working on it now. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
No problem, I thought I'd let you know in case the bot was faulty. Prioryman (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if, in your clerking capacity, you could ask Off2riorob to tone it down a bit. His attitude on the talk page has been vituperative and baiting throughout. It's not helping anyone and it's not conducive to having a calm discussion. I'd ask him myself but I don't think he would listen to me. Prioryman (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of it and will keep an eye on things. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Range block

Hi Hersfold--can you have a look at User talk:24.84.140.184? I'm not smart enough to really help them. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

They've since emailed the unblock mailing list, but thanks for the heads up. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Not asking you

I did not mean to "go over your head." I say that earnestly. I simply went to the two arbs who made fuss about Cla68's evidence in the related case because I figured they were concerned with exactly this. I apologize for any offense or for going outside the normal process. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, it's just that I was clearly working in the area at the time, and could have been contacted if you felt it was a concern. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Admittedly I contacted them because I wanted to give them a chance to apply their principles regarding what type of evidence is OK evenly. Perhaps that with flirts trying to prove a WP:POINT in my choice of who to go to, and for that I am also sorry. I will try to be more focused on the correct process and less on such things as they are not productive. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
It's fine, I was a bit snarky about it. My apologies, but thanks for stopping by. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Question SPI

May I question this? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

What exactly are you questioning? The checkuser data showed that these users were editing from the same computer over the same timeframe. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The AfC reviewer reviewing his own submission

It looks like I lost track of the conversation somewhere... the first article he reviewed was the violin producer that seems to have no connection with him... I only noticed later that he did indeed then go ahead to review the article on himself. All's well that ends well, though, I suppose. (Watch out for chaos at the AfD!) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser

Hi Hersfold, hope you're well. When you have time, and if it's not too much trouble, could you look into User_talk:Fastily#Request? It seems we need a checkuser :P Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 18:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

ping re Dewan357

Another sock found, and a question. —Kww(talk) 11:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

my proposal

Hi I removed all others comments and replaced it. User Zeno has removed that version as well - please ask the committee if I am able to post this proposal, it is imo important that it is requested the removal of his OTRS permissions - even if it is not supported. Off2riorob (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Note for the record, I've self-reverted: I misread the history and thought that Off2riorob was making a direct revert of a clerk action. My self-revert should not be taken as an endorsement of the proposal (or its propriety) or constrain further clerk action. –xenotalk 15:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Hersfold, please see User talk:Xeno#Cirt-Jayen Workshop and advise. (Specifically, you reference "[a] copy available on [the workshop talk] page", but I think you may have forgotten to reproduce it there) –xenotalk 15:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
    Now I see it (collapsed section). Need more caffiene. –xenotalk 16:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
    All good :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
    The further irony is that I was the one who put the collapsed proposals there ;> –xenotalk 16:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Wnt, and inappropriate baiting on the workshop talk page

Can you please speak to Wnt about this type of thing? It can't be appropriate to leave snarky barnstars for people you disagree with on that page. If I ask him to remove it he probably wont listen.Griswaldo (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I've given a warning. For future reference, though, you may want to contact the clerks for that case, User:NuclearWarfare and User:AGK. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I get completely confused between the two cases. I meant to contact the correct clerk! Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Belated by a month and a half, but...

I totally missed your endowment with the wrenches! In any case, a long-overdue congratulations. I'm fairly sure I've interacted with you at some point in the past, and I've always been impressed by your even-handed approach to things. Good job. Master&Expert (Talk) 08:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocking a confirmed sockmaster

Hi - any chance we could finally block this editor? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bokan995. Wasn't blocked the first time (only the socks were), this is the second set of confirmed socks. Don't particularly want to do it myself as I've been reverting on the article (though only per this report, I have no interest in the article personally). Black Kite (t) (c) 17:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like he's been blocked. Sorry, I was away from the computer for a bit. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

For fixing my mistake. You did good! Regards Buster40004 Talk 01:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ElPilotoDi

Hersfold, I would like your further opinion on this. Looks like a sockfarm has been created, or is it meatfarm? Thing is, as soon as you block the reported socks, the other ones spring up immediately into editing. I don't know how to stop this, is a rangeblock the answer? — Legolas (talk2me) 07:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, a rangeblock was out of the question for this case. I can't really tell between sockpuppets and meatpuppets, but they appeared to be editing from the same computer. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Locking my user and talk page

I would like if you semi-protect those pages. As because of recent vandal redirecting, as preventive reasons. TIA and regards Alex discussion ★ 15:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I have semi-protected your userpage as per your request, however will not protect your user talk page. User talk pages are the primary means for other editors to contact you - if this page is protected, that prevents good-faith anonymous editors from getting in touch with you. In cases of severe vandalism, you can request temporary protection at WP:RFPP, however in looking at the history I don't see that this is the case right now. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Truthfinderdude

Hi Hersfold. Would you take a look at Truthfinderdude (talk · contribs). I believe this is related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Universe Daily and Runningbackwards36 (talk · contribs), a user whom you blocked.

Please add Truthfinderdude (talk · contribs) to the SPI if he is a Universe Daily sock so that there is a record.

Please also semi-protect Universe Today for six months due to the long-term disruptive sockpuppetry. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I can probably do so, but for the sake of keeping all this in one place, would you mind filing a new request under UniverseDaily's name? This way there's a more consistent record of all the requests based on this user. There also seems to be some dispute as to the identification of Runningbackwards anyway, so this may help with that. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I have filed a sockpuppet investigations report. Thank you for looking into this. Cunard (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Sure, thanks for the report. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hersfold/Archive_56_(August_2011)&oldid=1146528168"