Wikipedia

User talk:Hersfold/Archive 62 (February 2012)

< User talk:Hersfold
Latest comment: 12 years ago by EdwardsBot in topic The Signpost: 27 February 2012


← Previous archive - Archive 62 (February 2012) - Next archive →

This page contains discussions dated during the month of February 2012 from User talk:Hersfold. Please direct all current discussions there. Thank you.

Removal of bot status on testwiki

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Yout bot HersfoldBot's last action is Sept, 2010. If you have any comment to remove bot status of HersfoldBot, please notify to here. Your bot status will be removed on 1 Feb, 2012 (UTC). --Devunt (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Carry on. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 
Hello, Hersfold. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Uh... don't see it. Was this something sent to me specifically? Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Proposed decision

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Cross posting to all five of the names at the top of the page (except Risker, who's talk page is locked)

Sorry to bother you, but in case you haven't seen it there's a lot of complaints here that it's now well past the Proposed Decision date and nobody has made any kind of announcement, even to say "there will be a delay, the new expected date is...". This isn't fair on anyone involved, as nobody can start work on anything until they know what the likely decision will be since nobody knows who's likely to end up blocked or under some kind of sanction. I appreciate that you don't want to rush the decision, but is there any chance someone involved in the case can post an update as to when a decision is likely to be made? At the moment, the closest thing there is to any kind of response from the Arbitration Committee is a sarcastic comment ("since when is a target a promise?").78.146.193.88 (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately we've all been delayed a bit due to other issues facing the Committee and (in my case at least) personal health issues. We should have something posted soon. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Just to follow up, a proposed decision is forthcoming, and we hope to have something posted for voting within a few days. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Evidence#Evidence presented by SMcCandlish

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi there. Could you please take a look at the following section and figure out why the bot is counting the content between the collapse tags? Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

My initial instinct is that the bot should count stuff in collapsed sections, given that in the evidence section they are basically used as 'extended evidence' (i.e. used to circumvent the limits). --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
The clerks sometimes hat evidence though using {{hat}} and {{hab}}, which the bot ignores. I thought it would do the same for the other collapse tags. Should we just make sure that we differentiate between {{cot}}/{{cob}} and {{hat}}/{{hab}}, and make {{hat}}/{{hab}} a clerk-only tag on the evidence page? NW (Talk) 18:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I'll take a look later tonight if I get a chance; IIRC, it's supposed to ignore collapsed text. It could be that it doesn't recognize the particular templates being used. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

SPI for User:Fortheloveofbacon

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Since you were involved in the conclusion of the previous SPI, I am letting you know an active SPI. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to request an interaction ban between myself, this user User:Neutralhomer, and his friend Doc. Their repeatedly disruptive, and frequently rude, behavior is very distracting, and exemplifies my prior concerns about the way my original SPI concluded. Thank you. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh please, Bacon here (or whoever he is) is no angel. His previous talk page edits will show that. If he gets a interaction ban, I request Fortheloveofbacon be forced to name all of his "alternative accounts". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Absurd - no interaction ban is necessary. He can do whatever he wants and not be bothered by me. See: WP:ROPE. There has been no dispute resolution attempted, assuming it was necessary, so calling for an interaction ban is quite premature. I've known this account since yesterday: and he's asking for an IBAN? There's a first time for everything, I guess. Doc talk 07:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Quit arguing on my talk page - this sort of discussion belongs on ANI or some other public noticeboard. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Homer's already been smacked down enough for acting in good faith (but being decidedly a little off the mark). I don't see any "arguing" going on here, really. The issue has already been resolved, and I guess you were a little late to the party. Doc talk 04:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Seems I was; sorry for the tone, my comments weren't really directed towards you. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
No problem at all, and I'm sorry if I came off harsh myself - I just feel bad seeing Homer getting kicked around over this (not by you) when he was really acting in good faith to protect the project from possible harm. I think he may have overreacted a little bit, and I'm sure he'll leave this account alone after all this. Cheers :> Doc talk 05:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Need Your Input Please

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey Hersfold. Don't know if you're still familiar with Nangparbat (talk · contribs)'s case, but if you are, I would appreciate if you commented on MarcusMaximus0's talk page regarding a possible unblock/unban. Thanks. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 23:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Future of MOTD

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've decided to start a project discussion on this. Please see WT:MOTD. Simply south...... having large explosions for 5 years 17:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Your block of Mbz1

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

How can you justify the block of Mbz1? Blocks are meant to be preventative. So what on earth are you preventing? No one at meta seems to be taking the RFC seriously, except for Tarc who has his own little dispute with Mbz1, so it will just peter out anyway. (Fyi information I get on reasonably okay with each of GG, Mbz1 and Tarc and my reaction to the text of the RFC was tl;dr.)--Peter cohen (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It is within the remit of the Arbitration Committee to take action against harassment of editors, both on- and off-site. Mbz1 has been persistently attacking Gwen Gale on multiple WMF projects and elsewhere, despite a number of directives from the Committee to stop. The Committee came to a general consensus that a block was appropriate in this matter in an effort to stop the harassment. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. Did the "number of directives" consist of more than the two emails which Mbz1 posted on her talk page?--Peter cohen (talk) 10:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Far more than that from the Committee, yes, in addition to a number of emails from individual arbitrators. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thank you for helping lift my block.

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you for your help. I'm not sure exactly what happened. I think I was collateral damage or something. Believe me, I tried to find the auto block template and post it, but couldn't. I'm sorry. Sprinkler21 (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Sprinkler21

No problem, glad you're back to editing again. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
If you have a moment, might you explain what I did wrong with the first request. I swear I couldn't find any auto block template. Sprinkler21 (talk) 01:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Sprinkler21
When your IP address, and not your account, is blocked, there should be a {{unblock-auto}} template somewhere in the block message that you can copy and paste onto your talk page; it includes your IP address, the reason for the block, and the name of the administrator who placed the block. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
There wasn't. (At least I don't think there was.) That's what was so confusing. Regardless, this is just all for my learning purposes. I'll let you get on with your wiki duties. Thank you again.Sprinkler21 (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Sprinkler21
That's strange. Oh well, at least we got you sorted out. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Dear Hersfold,


My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added my name to the on-wiki list. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom case: Article Titles

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I would just like to make a point of order about the respect for deadlines in the above Arbcom case. I note that evidence from Born2cycle has only just been submitted. It seems to me that his submission is hours late. Whilst he may argue that he may have been busy preparing the evidence, most other parties and bystanders submitted theirs in good time, and where necessary have revised their evidence in plain view of all other parties. I feel that admission of his rather voluminous evidence may be prejudicial to others involved in this case given the lack of scrutiny of his arguments and the lack of time for other parties to respond (given the deadline has now decisively passed and the tendency of most others to be "law-abiding"). Also, as B2C has in the past always endeavoured to have the last word, I would submit that such late evidence is an attempt to gain the upper hand with a last-minute "ambush". --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually inactive on that case, but I'll point the drafters and case clerks to your post. Generally the case clerks should be the first point of contact for situations like this. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Civility proposed decision

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please forgive me if I'm being persnickety or not reading straight but proposed finding of fact #3 reads funny. To be totally nit-picky it would read better: "Malleus Fatuorum is the most prolific participant at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship ([9]), and has having edited the page more than 1500 times, and over 500 times more often than the next highest most prolific contributor. At a minimum the second "and" seems superfluous. Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No, that does read better. I'll go make those edits, thanks! Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  The Surreal Barnstar
For the bans-and-desysops-all-around approach to Arbitration. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Please don't take offense

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I gave a similar barnstar to SilkTork as encouragement for him speaking his mind in a case where his proposals were unanimous rejected by the other Arbs. Proposing tough measures all around is not necessarily bad for a first-time drafter. I'm aware that in other wiki-cultures there's less tolerance for the stuff that only results in admonishments on enwiki. If I may adapt your edit-notice lolcat imprint: "Arbitration iz serius biznis". Cheers. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I misunderstood and assumed the worst. Thanks for taking the time to explain; I've been reading through the comments on the PD talk page while waiting for code to compile and had gotten the impression you weren't exactly thrilled with the decision so far, and I guess I assumed this was more displeasure. I'll restore your star, and do accept it with apologies. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Reminder

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello Hersfold. This is just a friendly reminder to email me back your responses to the interview questions for my research study on bots and bot operators. If you have any questions or concerns, or would like me to send you the questions again, please don't hesitate to contact me. Thank you again for your participation, and I look forward to hearing from you. UOJComm (talk) 23:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A thought

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

When commenting on a case surrounding civility, where one editor has been sanctioned and another desysopped as a result of remedies you drafted, I would think it would be a good idea to maintain a higher level of decorum than that for which you voted to sanction others. Comments like this are precisely the sort of thing for which ArbCom just topic-banned Malleus from RfA. I'm sure it's frustrating watching everybody bitch about the decision you drafted, and I don't envy you, but please try to keep those sorts of comments to yourself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware my comment there was inappropriate, hence my later comment shortly afterward. I have no plans to comment further there, as it doesn't seem to be productive for anyone. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You block of Mbz1 is being discussed on VPP

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In this thread. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it, but I don't think I have much to add that hasn't already been said. The proposal directly contradicts existing policy, and does indeed read like forumshopping. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hersfold/Archive_62_(February_2012)&oldid=1078388383"