User talk:Hersfold/Archive 37 (January 2010)

← Previous archive - Archive 37 (January 2010) - Next archive →

This page contains discussions dated during the month of January 2010 from User talk:Hersfold. Please direct all current discussions there. Thank you.

---

January 1 - 18

Happy New Year

Best Wishes for 2010, FloNight♥♥♥♥ 12:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the notability of Rodney Shelton Foss

I just posted a note in the discussion page for this article. I'd like to get your view on removing the notability tag in light of my comments. Thanks!

Geeman (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks good, except for the total absence of references, which is still a very significant problem. I wouldn't recommend removing it until a reference can be provided showing the ship was named after him; after that, though, feel free to remove it if you feel it's ok. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Newpages, Speedy Deletes, and All That

Hey Hers, haven't been around for a while, but I've come back and realized there's an issue with the newpage speedy system. I've placed my share of csd tags, but I'm seeing a trend of new users coming in and writing poorly formatted articles, getting slapped with a speedy and having the article blip away even though the subject might be wiki-worthy. I've seen two articles like this in 12 hours. Since we've both worked on AFC, I was wondering if you had any ideas about how to better inform new editors how to format a wiki article before they post one. Maybe we could propose an update to the editing template that explains the need to study other pages before new users write their own. It just seems like a waste. Ideas? --Torchwood Who? (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

There has been some recent work into this, actually - Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion. I think WereSpielChequers was looking into some sort of work on this, you might want to get in touch with them. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Just in case you missed it, I figured I'd point this out here [1]. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Antony1103

Hi there. The above user was blocked in conjunction with your recent block of User:HavocBot. Afterward, my talk page comments @Antony1103 were refactored pretty ridiculously. I'm wondering if a block on the talk page might be appropriate, especially given that he has at least one more account where he can go to protest the block. — Bdb484 (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked that account directly. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dalejenkins#Report_date_January_6_2010.2C_19:50_.28UTC.29

As you were the checkuser in an earlier related report, the above discussion may be of relevance to you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

• News and notes: Fundraiser ends, content contests, image donation, and more

• In the news: Financial Times, death rumors, Google maps and more

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI: I fixed ...

... your vote change: [2] Paul August ☎ 18:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Catch and release trouting

I was under the impression that edits introducing words such as "terrorist", particularly after the editor had been warned not to, could be reverted as vandalism w/o violating 3RR or being considered edit warring. Am I incorrect? Thanks. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you're probably not; I mentioned edit warring because Rockpocket already had. The trout waving was actually because your edit removed my decline, although it looks like it was a edit-conflict-induced accident. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

• From the editor: Call for writers

• 2009 in review: 2009 in Review

• Books: New Book namespace created

• News and notes: Wikimania 2011, Flaggedrevs, Global sysops and more

• In the news: Wikipedia in British schools, Hitler's Downfall meme, and more

• Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

How does unblock work?

{{helpme}} Can you unblock Phuntsok Kongtsa? --68.197.16.37 (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a helpme request, please let user respond. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 00:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The answer is no. Stop evading your blocks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Autoblock/rangeblock question

Longitudo (talk · contribs) seems to have got caught in an autoblock caused by your rangeblock on 114.183.0.0/17, a checkuser block against Sheynhertz-Unbayg. I'm not familiar with that case; could you perhaps have a look to see if this is genuine collateral damage, and what best to do about it? Thanks, --Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

See User talk:Longitudo. He's been caught by one of your range blocks. Could you look over his contribs to see if he's safe? I have no idea if he is or is not the person you were trying to get, but I am inclined to grant him IPBE as I don't see any problems with his editing record. Thanks for looking into this.--Jayron32 03:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not terribly familiar with Sheynhertz-Unbayg's contribution history, although Wikipedia:SU appears to detail some of his typical "tells". Checkuser evidence shows that it is quite  Possible that Longitudo is S-U, but I'm not able to confirm any connection. I've got no opinion on the unblock, but I would recommend if a IPBE is given, that one of both of you keep a close eye on the account just in case. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I've done the IPBE now. Having checked up a bit on S.-U.'s editing pattern and this account in the meantime, I'm not seeing any suspicious similarity, so I'm assuming he's clean. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:hAl and 86.83.239.142?

Hi. I'm concerned that User:hAl, who was indef blocked by you last November may be back in action from this IP address. I was concerned by a number of aggressive edits from that IP address on Microsoft Silverlight. When I checked Special:Contributions/86.83.239.142, it appears that this has been a very Microsoft-oriented IP editor since December. My suspicion is based on this edit, where that IP 'cleaned up' hAl's talk page for him. It might be worth further investigation. --Nigelj (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You're exactly correct. I've blocked the IP and made a note on hAl's talk page. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Nigelj (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Request administrator help. The sockpuppet of user:HAl has returned to the Windows Mobile article. Thanks, Lester 02:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Here are some of the IP addresses being used by user:HAl to avoid multiple blocks:

86.93.243.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

62.58.36.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

84.83.61.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thanks, --Lester 22:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

There's not much I can do here other than play whack-a-mole. These addresses are too spread apart to do a rangeblock, if they all even are hAl (I can tell without looking that third IP is almost certainly not, as it edits the wrong articles and hasn't edited at all since October). If you do have concerns of continued sockpuppetry, please open a formal WP:SPI case, or report them to WP:AIV for faster action. Posting addresses for me to check and/or block here is not entirely appropriate. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, for your advice, Hersfold. I'll take it to SPI.--Lester 00:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Done: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HAl. Thanks again.--Lester 01:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

• News and notes: Statistics, disasters, Wikipedia's birthday and more

• In the news: Wikipedia on the road, and more

• WikiProject report: Where are they now?

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

January 19 - 31

Trulyequal

I noticed you delete my message over at User:Trulyequal1 - I've since posted a reply - but I also got a bit curious about User:Trulyequal - in fact, it seems to me quite likely that this was you too? It was a bit naughty to 'sock' a couple of years ago, if so, but look - if that's the case, I reckon a healthy 'oops, yup, busted, and I'm sorry' is all that's really required (from my perspective anywhoo) - but better to be proactive, I reckon. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Trulyequal is entirely unrelated to this situation and, as far as I'm aware, any currently sitting arbitrator. Stop making accusations with no evidence. Your soapboxing in this matter is becoming highly disruptive. The Committee is discussing the situation with TE1 and may or may not make an announcement soon. Some patience would be wonderfully appreciated. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

replied at my talk - please try to avoid uncivil terms such as 'trolling' in edit summaries. Privatemusings (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

oops, I owe you an apology, I didn't in fact explain my thinking very well at all above! Blame too much caffeine, or my general idiocy. User:Trulyequal's contributions do seem to me to bear the hallmarks of a 'sock' - and it was your presence in this discussion which led to think that it was you. No biggie, but that's all that I'm basing my thoughts on. Privatemusings (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)now I'm going to amend the mildly ascerbic post I made at my talk.... munch..munch.. humble pie.....

StatusTemplate

Just a note, your User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate is seemingly not working for me. If I click any of the status links, it just goes to the editing page for User:Samwb123/Status (Special:MyPage/Status) and doesn't change it to whatever text it is supposed to be. Do I need to install a script or something to fix this? Cheers —Samwb123^{Please read} 05:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you need to install a script as specified in the installation instructions on the template's page - if that continues to not work, you're not the first; a similar issue is described here: User talk:Hersfold/StatusTemplate Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you clarify?

I found this:

Abuse of processes

Statements of principle

• Requests for comment and requests for arbitration should be used appropriately within the guidelines on that page. They should not be used for frivolous or pointless disputes and should not be used as a forum for personal attacks, harassment, and abuse.
• Removing evidence from any Arbitration page is unacceptable. Modification of other users' edits of Arbitration pages, inserting peripheral material, and especially deleting them or portions of them will not be tolerated.

Previous penalties relating to principle

Users that abuse measures of introducing new cases may be declared vexatious litigants, prohibiting them from filing new requests under such categories. If the user feels they have valid grounds for a new case they may be directed to contact one or more Arbitrators (named on a case-by-case basis).

No user has yet been found to have deliberately removed evidence from an underway arbitration case; as such, no penalties have been devised for this circumstance.

Cases involving this principle

• Libertas

on this page. I have added emphasis. Can you explain this in cases of correcting typos et al? Hamtechperson 21:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, sorry for the long delay in getting back to you. Because the Arbitration process depends heavily on getting everyone's point of view in the situation at hand, it is very disruptive for users to refactor others' posts - the only users who are authorized to edit or remove another's post are Arbitrators and ArbCom Clerks, and even then only for the purposes of removing blatant attacks or irrelevant evidence (the "peripheral material" mentioned), or to shorten excessively long statements or evidence postings per the established guidelines. Anyone who is found repeatedly messing around with the statements of other users may find themselves blocked or banned from further public participation in a case, at the discretion of the Committee and Clerks. I hope this helps, but please let me know if that's still unclear at all. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

• BLP madness: BLP deletions cause uproar

• Births and deaths: Wikipedia biographies in the 20th century

• News and notes: Biographies galore, Wikinews competition, and more

• In the news: Wikipedia the disruptor?

• WikiProject report: Writers wanted! The Wikiproject Novels interviews

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)