User talk:Hersfold/Archive 66 (June 2012)

← Previous archive - Archive 66 (June 2012) - Next archive →

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

---

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

• Special report: WikiWomenCamp: From women, for women

• News and notes: Editors want most funding for technical areas, while widespread ignorance of WMF board elections and chapters persists; voting still live on Commons best picture

• Discussion report: Watching Wikipedia change

• WikiProject report: Views of WikiProject Visual Arts

• Featured content: On the lochs

• Arbitration report: Two motions for procedural reform, three open cases, Rich Farmbrough risks block and ban

• Technology report: Report from the Berlin Hackathon

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 09:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi! I recently requested the rollback feature but because i had little reverted edits on my count, the rejected my request. I've been on the CVUA and i've worked on identifying and reverting vandalism. I would ask you to evaluate my performance and see if i'm now ready, could you? Thanks. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 02:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Your request was declined just a few days ago. I find it hard to believe that you've gathered sufficient experience over five days. Just from looking at your talk page, it also looks like there have been a few issues with your reverting since then; at least one edit mis-identified as vandalism, and another correct but overzealous revert. Keep working on vandalism reversion manually, and try requesting again in a few weeks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay banned remedy

Hi Hersfold. At the GoodDay RFAR you noted you were open to being convinced either way regarding the banning remedy. This is my opinion on the matter, if you could read and consider that'd be most appreciated. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 04:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

• Special report: Springer's misappropriation of Wikimedia content "the tip of the iceberg"

• News and notes: Foundation finance reformers wrestle with CoI

• WikiProject report: Counter-Vandalism Unit

• Featured content: The cake is a pi

• Arbitration report: Procedural reform enacted, Rich Farmbrough blocked, three open cases

• Technology report: To support or not to support IPv6, and why knowing when this report was last updated might be getting easier

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

New message! Heads up!

I have posted a new message in User_talk:TonyTheTiger#Blocked_48h, since Edwardbot has posted a message right after me in that page I thought there are chances that you do not notice it (no mention in watchlist etc) --Tito Dutta ✉ 18:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger

I strongly urge you to remove the block immediately per WP:INVOLVED. — you engaged in discussion with Tony and then proceeded to block him. Nyttend (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this as I'm not logged into my main account. However, I don't really feel as though this crosses the involved line. From the beginning, my involvement was as an administrator, encouraging Tony to retract or support his accusations. He never did so, so after increasingly firm warnings, I blocked him. I'm not really clear where you feel I became involved in this matter to the point it was inappropriate for me to act. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 19:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

See Tony's talk, where I link your edits and quote one of your comments. I became involved because I commented in the unban request discussion and thus wanted to talk with Tony, which caused me to see your unblock template at the bottom of his talk. Nyttend (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Nyttend, I don't like disagreeing with you, but I do here. If I had blocked Tony you would have been absolutely right with a charge of involvedness, but I don't think Hersfold has had a substantive involvement with Tony, unlike me. For the record, I agree with the block, a difficult one to make given Tony's many contributions and long history here. Drmies (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

(For the record, I replied to Nyttend on Tony's page). Thanks, Drmies, I appreciate it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 12:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw--that's how I got here. ;) Drmies (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Georgieboy5082

Hi you asked me about my relation to user:Greatbomb.this user was vandilising so I undid his edit. It was very obvious that he was vandalising but he has been blocked now anyway so... Georgieboy5082talk 12:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The reason the two of us are auditing from the same computer is that he is in the same school as me and it is Probably peoPle like him that got the schools ip blocked. I will paste the message I get when I try to edit at schoo. Unlike some user in my school, i edit resposibly and so would be grateful to get some recognition , maybie in the form of an ip block exampt. Many thanks92.12.168.220 (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)(Georgieboy5082.) that's me ;)

Discussion at ANI on banning LPC

LouisPhilippeCharles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

In the past you have been involved in a block/unblock procedure either on the sockmaster account of LouisPhilippeCharles or an account of one of the sockpuppets. Please see WP:ANI#LouisPhilippeCharles -- PBS (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

He's de facto banned as it is. I see little need to formalize it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Khufu

It´s finally finished now. Might satisfy you. Greetz;--Nephiliskos (talk) 08:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration enquiry

Hi, and editor made accusations against myself in this arbitration case [1][2], but I can't reply since I'm under a topic ban on the very same subject. Is there anything I can do?--PCPP (talk) 04:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to send an email to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org with any responses. Usually such topic bans do not apply to "necessary dispute resolution," but the wording of yours does not explicitly state that and does say "across all namespaces." I can understand your concerns, though; hopefully this will allow you to respond to the allegations and avoid getting blocked. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I made suggestion about this here [3]. My very best wishes (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Note that I have composed an email to the above address. Sorry for the delay due to my real life absences.--PCPP (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

MotD Nomination for the Opening Ceremony of the London 2012 Olympics (27 July 2012)

We at the Motto of the Day would be extremely grateful if you could review a couple of "special" nominations for the Opening Ceremony of the London 2012 Olympics on the 27th of July 2012. Here is the link to the first nomination, if you can help. The others follow it, and you can add your own ones or improve the existing nominations, of course.
Thank you so very much in advance! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

• Investigative report: Is the requests for adminship process 'broken'?

• News and notes: Ground shifts while chapters dither over new Association

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations

• WikiProject report: The Punks of Wikipedia

• Featured content: Taken with a pinch of "salt"

• Arbitration report: Three open cases, GoodDay case closed

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

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

pixiemasters

i had 2 do it om my ip cuz pixie masters talk is fully protected 76.220.66.126 (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Then A) stop evading your block and B) appeal your block at tools:~unblock/p/ as directed in your block message. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Another proposal on workshop for FLG 2

Hi Hersfold. I made a request for an injunction (or something) to help clarify appropriate conduct on the workshop page.[4]. Do you think that such a proposal is actionable at this stage? Homunculus (duihua) 17:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

If you have specific concerns, I'd recommend contacting the case clerks. I'll direct them to take a look at things; I've been rather occupied of late with work. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I have no idea how you folks have time to parse through documents of this length. When I have some time I may send a note to the clerks too highlighting specific statements that are of particular concern; it may not always be obvious (or maybe it is). Homunculus (duihua) 00:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's just say I'm going to be spending a lot of time reading this weekend... Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yea...sorry about that. I've been trying to keep things short, for my part, but it's not always easy.

Can I ask a question? I had a bit of a disagreement with another editor over the purpose of the workshop page here, and am wondering if my interpretation is wrong. It's really not in my nature to make accusations against other people or to try to get them banned, and I'm very much out of my element in such a setting. I've been trusting that the evidence and conduct of the parties, rather than the surrounding exegesis, will speak for itself. But I'm wondering if I'm mistaken, and if is indeed helpful for the all parties to offer their own narratives, so to speak.

I'm not sure you can answer this, but any guidance you might have would be appreciated. Homunculus (duihua) 05:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding, but I need to ask for continued patience. I've been very busy with work of late and other issues have recently cropped up which will demand my attention. I really don't have time to take a look at things just now, but will do so as soon as I get a chance. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

No worries. The workshop phase is winding down. I got to take a break from it today, as it seems the other parties have done too. Which is nice. Having reflected on it a little, I think it might helpful for me to provide a short statement on my views of the dispute and state of the pages in general, which is something I have not yet done. Do you think that might be helpful? And if so, I'm wondering under what kind of heading that would be most appropriate (ie. in my proposals section, or under general discussion). Thanks. Homunculus (duihua) 03:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Notification that you have been mentioned

This is a notification that you have been mentioned at Arbitration enforcement regarding Igny. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, although I think it's a case of mistaken identity. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Ryan Vesey Bot 2

Do you think you could take a quick look at my BRFA? The project that needs the templates modified was just recently created, so being able to go through it tonight would really help. I'd also like to know if it might take a couple of days for the approval to go through, if so, I'll have people start manually tagging. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it's been approved already. Sorry for the delay! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Harassment about FG 2 arbitration

Yeah, let's just call this little message what it is, OK? I actually am kind of sorry to bother you with this, and I know that you have been reading up the mountain of typing involved. I know that you are already doing your best to review all the material reasonably and thoroughly, and I do not want to even guess how much that is, or how much time it would take to do so. But if you or Elen could do something on the decision page to indicate that you are actively involved in trying to resolve the case by the pre-set date of the 30th, it might help ease some of the possible tension and might also actually get people to stop adding even more lengthy comments to the Workshop page.

Also want to take the opportunity to thank you for having been willing to take the Arb assignment on. God knows I wouldn't have the patience for it, and I more than sometimes wonder how those of you on the ArbCom can put up with it. But thanks for doing so. John Carter (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

We're doing what we can, but speaking for myself I've had a lot of stuff come up in "real life" recently that's been demanding a lot of my time; that's why I haven't been very active of late. We're likely going to need to extend the timeline a bit to allow for review of our own proposals. Once we've had a chance to discuss matters amongst ourselves, we'll post something to the PD talk page. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Does the workshop page ever close, as the evidence page has? Homunculus (duihua) 03:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Not really, but in light of recent activity I've asked the clerks to protect it for the time being. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 14:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone could have any real objections to your taking as long as you need, particularly if real life brings up unanticipated stuff. And I think we all know that this one presents quite a bit to read. Thanks again for being willing to take on the task of being an arbitrator. John Carter (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

• Op-ed: A call for editorial input in developing new Creative Commons licensing

• News and notes: "Mystical" Picture of the Year; run-up to Wikimania DC; RfA reform 2012

• In the news: Wales enters extradition battle; Wikipedia's political bias

• Recent research: Edit war patterns, deleters vs. the 1%, never used cleanup tags, authorship inequality, higher quality from central users, and mapping the wikimediasphere

• WikiProject report: Summer Sports Series: WikiProject Athletics

• Featured content: A good week for the Williams

• Arbitration report: Three open cases

• Technology report: Second Visual Editor prototype launches

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Unblock on hold

You may be able to help me with an unblock request. You previously declined an unblock request from the same user. I have posted a message about it at User talk:Bwilkins#Unblock on hold. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this. I have decided that it is indeed a sockpuppet account, as you said. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem, glad I could help. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Question about block

Hi - I have a friend who is relatively new to Wikipedia. She said she got a message that said her IP address (67.142.174.24) was blocked until 2016, apparently by you. Here are two questions that I'm asking on her behalf, as she doesn't know enough yet to contact you herself. (I've had more editing experience myself, but no experience with blocks.) What exactly was the reason for her being blocked? Is there anything she can do to get unblocked? Thanks for your help! Compend73 (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Unfortunately I'm not sure what block she's running into... there are no current blocks on that IP address (link), nor are there any autoblocks in my name at the moment (link). Your friend should be getting one of two block messages, which will provide the information I'll need to look things up:

• If she's getting this message, I need everything from "Editing from (her IP address) has been blocked" through "This block has been set to expire: (date)".
• If she's getting this message, I need everything from "A user of this IP address" through "This block has been set to expire: (date)".

You (or her) can post that information here or send me an email with that information through Special:Emailuser/Hersfold. If she has an account, it'll help to know her username as well. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)