User talk:Hersfold/Archive 59 (November 2011)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
← Previous archive - Archive 59 (November 2011) - Next archive →

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


Your bot seems to be "shaving" people of one word

See [1]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I'll have to double check, but I think it does word counts by trimming out extra whitespace and wikimarkup and then counting the spaces; so it's not implausible that an empty section would show as containing one word. I'm not entirely sure if this is happening in sections with actual content, though. I'll get back to you. There seem to be some other issues anyway, as it doesn't look like it's length reports page in ages. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Another bug?

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence#Evidence presented by SarekOfVulcan seems to use more than 4 words. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

In that case your bot seems to be counting anything between brackets as one word. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The diff count is also wrong there. There are two diffs. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It may be that the {{diff}} template is confusing it. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hm. The bot's word count is not intended to be 100% accurate (hence the tolerances built into it), however I had rather expected the diff and link counts to be. Here's how the bot calculates the word count:
  1. All list formatting is stripped out (:, #, spaces, and * at the beginning of a line)
  2. All newline characters are stripped out
  3. All header content is stripped out (everything between matching == signs (at any level down to five))
  4. All HTML style formatting is stripped out
  5. All content within collapsible tags is removed, regardless of length
  6. All template code (including the template itself and all of its arguments) is removed
  7. All links are removed, but any text that is displayed from them remains (i.e., [http://www.example.com displayed text] becomes "displayed text")
  8. Timestamps matching the format produced by ~~~~~ are removed
  9. All extraneous whitespace is removed, leaving a single space between words
  10. Finally, the string of text is split apart at every space. The number of substrings resulting from this is assumed to be the word count.
The diff and link counters are very similar - they run steps 2, 5, 4, and 6 (in that order) then split the string at every occurrence of the phrase "diff" (for the diff counter) or "http" (for the link counter). The number of substrings for the former is one more than the diff count; this value is subtracted from the number generated by the link counter to get the number of non-diff links. Using a diff within a template such as {{diff}} would throw this off, as template code is removed.
Anyway, I will take a look at this tomorrow - I suppose I need to now, especially since you've gone and shut the bot down. I'll post reports on the bot's user page about the problems I identify and whether or not they'll be fixed. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
When running the bot in a no-edit debug state, I did notice a few errors that needed to be fixed as well as one that I'm going to leave as-is for now. They're documented here. I have set the bot to running again, however if you notice any other problems, please let me know prior to shutting the bot down. Unless it's causing actual problems (i.e. destroying the evidence page), I'd prefer to leave it running despite minor errors as the clerks do somewhat depend on it. Thank you. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Changing my username

Hey Hersfold, I've been thinking about changing my username to my actual first name and I made sure to read through this page, but there's still a few things I'd like to be sure of before I proceed. These are my questions:

1) I have never given away my last name or any personally identifying information on Wikipedia. As far as I'm aware, there is no IP address publicly associated with my account. Could I still be jeopardizing my anonymity if I change my username to my first name?

2) If I wind up missing my old username, is it possible for me to change back?

Thanks in advance. Master&Expert (Talk) 08:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

  1. Even if you've never associated an IP with your account, this is still the internet; a skilled and/or determined individual could still likely find information about you. Without going into too much detail, your pattern of editing could be used to determine your time zone, and any articles you regularly edit could pinpoint a location. Also, if you go on IRC, it's particularly bad about blabbing your IP or hostname to anyone who asks for it unless you diligently use a cloak (and even that isn't perfect if the server is slow about identifying you). With a few educated guesses and a bit of digging around the internet, it's not implausible that someone could narrow down your identity to one of a handful of people with just a first name and what's publicly available on Wikipedia.
  2. If you think it's a distinct possibility, I wouldn't recommend changing in the first place. It is possible (provided someone else hasn't registered the name in the meantime), and not terribly much of a big deal, however if the crats notice that you're flip-flopping you'll get more questions asked of you and it'll take a bit longer. There's also the consideration that every time we rename you, your edits have to be re-attributed in what is actually a fairly resource-intensive process. Again, it won't be a huge deal for less than 3,000 edits, but it is still in part why we don't like changing names multiple times.
Hope this helps. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Although I can't see why anyone would really want to know my identity that badly, given the fact that I'm not an overly public figure, nor am I controversial (to the best of my knowledge...). I've never used IRC, and I don't really intend to. I also keep odd hours, but I'm pretty sure I've mentioned my country of origin somewhere. In any case, I still haven't 100% decided on anything yet. But I appreciate your points. Master&Expert (Talk) 08:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Award

DeltaQuad's Sectional Dedication Award
Given to members of the community who take on huge backlogs several times, or maintaining a large part of a project. -- DQ (t) (e) 00:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
You almost hit my level of responses last month for unblock-en-l, that's reason enough. :P -- DQ (t) (e) 17:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Indefinite blocking of account

Hello Hersfold. As the reviewing of administrator you upheld the indefinite block of my account [here] on the basis that I was guilty of sockpuppetry. As I have tried to make clear, although I have operated a number of accounts, and freely admitted to so doing, there has been no intentional overlap in the edits made by these accounts, and so I do not see how sockpuppetry has taken place. The policy, which I have again re-read, does not seem to make it clear that holding multiple accounts is in itself evidence of sockpuppetry, I wonder could you possibly advise on how long I should wait before I could make a fresh appeal to be unblocked? Many thanks. 194.150.177.10 (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, as the edit notice to this talk page should have told you, evading your block will certainly not help your case. Any further edits or appeals must be made through one of your existing accounts, not from a new one or while logged out. The IP address you posted from above will be blocked shortly. However, in response...
The simple act of maintaining multiple accounts is not against policy. I have quite a lot myself - this account, my "public area" non-admin account, a couple test accounts, my bots, etc. - however these are all legitimate, publicly declared, accounts. The distinction between a legitimate alternate account and a illegitimate sockpuppet is generally twofold: transparency and separation.
Legitimate alternate accounts should be clearly advertized as such, with an obvious link to their owner, unless doing so would defeat the purpose of having the account (for example, an editor that supports gay marriage may wish to have a separate, undisclosed account if their family is largely against it, and the family knows about the editor's main account). Even in the case of a private account, it is strongly recommended that the identity of the account's owner be disclosed to a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee via email to avoid problems should the two somehow be linked.
The inviolate principle of using multiple accounts is that the accounts must remain entirely distinct from one another. For example, a bot account is an account that exists to perform edits of a particular purpose. My alternate account User:Hersfold non-admin is to be used when I am at a public terminal and do not wish to log into my main account for security reasons. Undisclosed accounts should exist almost as though they are a completely separate person with completely distinct interests. In the case I gave in the previous paragraph, the editor's alternate account should focus exclusively on articles relating to homosexuality, and should not interact in any way with the editor's main account. The two should never be seen editing the same page (or even the same general subject area), with the sole exception of major project-space pages such as ANI; in this case, if one account has commented in a discussion, the other account should not get involved at all.
Now, in your particular case, there was no disclosure that you were operating these accounts, neither privately nor publicly. In fact, some of your comments after the block ("It is possible for multiple users to make multiple accounts from a single ip address isn't?") seemed to be a denial that all of these were your accounts. Secondly, there is no apparent need for having all of these accounts, nor is there a clear distinction amongst where they edit. While it does seem, at a glance, the accounts do manage to avoid editing the same pages, they are still focused on the same general subject areas. While I cannot speak to TNXman's exact reasons for the block, had I noticed your accounts on checkuser in passing, I likely would have blocked them as well; if nothing else, an explanation was in order as to why you were using eight accounts to edit. That explanation is still not forthcoming, and your comments and block evasion to not lead me to believe that you fully understand the purpose behind this policy as yet. Until that is demonstrated, your accounts will remain blocked. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to add a comment here. Although I don't "know" Martinevans123 at all, we have edited in overlapping subject areas - he seems to live quite close to me. I don't think anyone disputes that he should not have used multiple accounts, but I think a reasonable amount of good faith needs to be assumed. WP has many (though a declining number of) good faith content editors who, as it were, rustle around in the undergrowth, creating and improving quite obscure articles, without ever getting into controversial areas, or needing to trouble administrators, and - critically in this case, I think - never concerning themselves about "rules" that they would never consider apply to them. Although they may be vaguely aware that those rules exist to prevent malpractice, they may simply never think about why they exist in the form they do, or that they particularly affect them. It's not a question of getting round the rules, it's simply that they are unaware that they would prevent them doing something that to them, seems uncontentious. Obviously, admins who deal with serious sockpuppetry on a day-by-day basis have a completely different perspective on things. I have no idea why Martinevans123 chose to use alternate accounts, but all the evidence I've seen (not as much as you, I'm sure) make it seem very unlikely to me that any malice was intended. I'd like this block to be reconsidered - I think it is down to an editor's naivety (which I'm sure won't be repeated) rather than any nefarious intent. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Welcome back Hersfold. Although your aeroplane is still in flight at the top of your page, it looks like you're back. I hope you had a good vacation. As you can see, I am now also back from my surprise wiki-vacation. I have asked advice from the admin who unblocked me as to how I could delete my unwanted accounts and he is kindly looking into it. He asked me to leave it with him. But I'd be very happy to take any advice also from you. Should I log into those accounts again to request an unblock on each, and then make a separte request for them to be closed? Or should I direct this enquiry to the admin who originally blocked me? Many thanks for your help. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Accounts cannot be deleted - there is no means to do so, aside from the legal issues - however if you intend to stop using them, the best way to go is to simply stop using them. If you want, you can log in, remove the email address (if any) and scramble the passwords, thus making the accounts inaccessible, but there's no reason to have them unblocked either. Hope this helps. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the very prompt reply. As I said, I was interested in having these accouts permanently CLOSED, not deleted. I have read the notes on closing accounts, which seems to suggest that a template is available for just this purpose. As you know, I don't intend to use any of them again. But I'm more concerned that they now display a permanent indication that they are (or were) "sockpuppets" of another account. If this main account of mine has been shown to be not a sockpuppet of that account, how can those others be? That's the only reason behind "unblocking" them. I think all the edits performed by those accounts are perfecty valid and provide no evidence whatsoever of conventional "sockpuppetry". Please feel free to continue any discussion at my Talk Page if you'd prefer. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Userpage help

I borrowed most of the format of my new user page from your page, but am having a little trouble with it. Could you please take a look at the page and help me figure out how to center my "Iowa legislators" banner and the userboxes in the center column? Thanks! --Philosopher Let us reason together. 14:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I figured out how to center my banner, but the userboxes are still baffling me. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 14:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Everything looks fine to me... what's the problem? Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out how to center the Babel-boxes in the central column. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
There, that should do it. They are incredibly stubborn little things - I tried at least four other ways to make them center, but putting them in a hidden three-cell table was the only one I could find that would work at any screen resolution. Hope that works for you. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
That is awesome, thanks! --Philosopher Let us reason together. 02:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the elections!

Hullo, Hersfold. I'll spare you the full harangue because it looks like you have all your ducks in a row, but I would like to welcome you to the fray on behalf of the co-ordinators, and encourage you to get in touch if you run into any problems with behaviour around your candidate pages or technical/paperwork issues. Good luck! Skomorokh 13:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom nomination statement

In compliance with the nomination requirements, in the section about candidate statements, you need to reduce your word length by 4 words.
(ii) not exceed a limit of 400 words (although candidates are free to link to a longer statement if they wish);
For the Arbitration Committee Elections 2011 Coordination Team, -- DQ (t) (e) 19:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

A trip down memory lane

Hi Hersfold--I ran into this block of yours, and I don't think this was an incarnation of RolfyGolfy (talk · contribs), RolfGolf (talk · contribs), or GolfingRolfing (talk · contribs). If you're interested, I think it's this person. Do you know if there's some documentation somewhere on this guy? He's been socking and VOAing since 2006. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. With only one edit, I have to assume that I picked him up on checkuser evidence. It's too late for me to recheck the data, unfortunately, and I don't think I kept any notes. Sorry. :-( Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Interesting either way. I've been chatting with Zzuuzz, and filed a related SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ravens1985. Feel free to weigh in, or take care of business. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hersfold/Archive_59_(November_2011)&oldid=1139659165"