User talk:Hersfold/Archive 75 (March 2013)

← Previous archive - Archive 75 (March 2013) - Next archive →

This page contains discussions dated during the month of March 2013 from User talk:Hersfold. Please direct all current discussions there. Thank you.

---

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Burd & Keyz

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Burd & Keyz has been substantially revised since you declined it on Feb. 6th. It's marginal now, so I'm asking you to take a look at it and make the call. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. The tone could still use a bit of work - it reads part memorial ("Burd [...] has vowed to stay true to the name to stay close to and remember Keyz", for example)/part resume (the Production section, for example) to me - but you're right, it is substantially better. I'd still prefer that it be revised to read a bit more formally, but I won't stand in the way if you or someone else thinks it's good to accept now. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for text of Oversight block statement

Hi Hersfold. I've gone through the text of the Checkuser block statement that Rschen highlighted [1] and have reworded it as appropriate to cover a category of "oversight blocks" implemented in cases where sensitive information has been oversighted. Do you think the text below might work as a draft statement to put to a motion? Prioryman (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Oversight blocks

The Arbitration Committee would like to remind administrators that those with Oversight permission may sometimes block accounts in connection with suppressing edits under the Oversight policy. When such blocks are appealed, non-Oversight administrators will generally not be privy to all the information that the Oversighter relied on in deciding to block. Moreover, in many cases the Oversighter may not be able to share such information because doing so would violate the privacy policy.

Therefore, in most cases, appeals from blocks designated as "Oversight block" should be referred to the Arbitration Committee, which will address such appeals as promptly as possible. If an administrator believes that an Oversight block has been made in error, the administrator should first discuss the matter with the Oversighter in question, and if a satisfactory resolution is not reached, should e-mail the committee. As appropriate, the matter will be handled by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, by the Arbitration Committee as a whole, or by an individual arbitrator designated by the committee. When an unblock is appropriate -- either because the reviews disagree with the initial checkuser findings, or for other reasons -- it will be granted.

This policy applies only to blocks designated as "Oversight blocks", that is as blocks made as a consequence of oversighted edits. It does not apply to ordinary blocks by an administrator who happens to be a Oversighter, but are not related to an Oversight action. These blocks may be reviewed on-wiki or on unblock-l, the same as any other block. Oversighters are reminded that because designating a block as a "Oversight block" means that it cannot be reviewed on-wiki or on unblock-l, this term should only be used when the blocking decision has been made in connection with an Oversight action carried out to protect sensitive information.

Block should only be annotated as "should be reviewed only by the Arbitration Committee" or "should only be lifted by ArbCom" if the block is based upon a concern that should not be discussed on-wiki but only in a confidential environment. Bases for such a concern could include information whose disclosure would identify anonymous users, could jeopardize a user's physical or mental well-being, or where the underlying block reason would be defamatory if the block proved to be unjustified. In every such case, the Arbitration Committee should be notified immediately by e-mail of the block and of the reasons for it. The designation "block should be reviewed only by ArbCom" should not be used simply to indicate that administrator feels strongly about the block. Where an administrator is unsure, he or she should feel free to email the Arbitration Committee mailing list before blocking.

I've got a shorter version already proposed that references the existing checkuser statement; I was hoping to avoid the somewhat excessive verbiage that statement used. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It was a bit long, wasn't it? :-) Fair enough. I'll wait and see what your version looks like. I guess the principles will be much the same? Prioryman (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

More or less, it's along the lines of "these blocks are based on stuff you can't see, so defer to those who can see it." Thanks for the suggestion, though. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Hopefully some good will come out of this kerfuffle. Prioryman (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I definitely concur with that sentiment by Prioryman. Cla68 (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Mkdw#Refactoring

Thank you for your email. My wording was precise and it could not be taken as a threat of legal action. However as the person who raised concerns clearly had not read the relevant section on the refracting talk page to place the comments in context, I nave now stated on at User talk:Mkdw#Refactoring "My posting here has is nothing to do with a legal threat", and added a quote (with a diff) to show that Mkdw clearly had no idea (at the time) that there is a difference between an assertion of fact and an opinion and that this is commonly understood to be so within the Anglosphere. -- PBS (talk) 08:31, 6 March 2013 (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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

• Op-ed: We must do more to turn readers into editors

• News and notes: Outing of editor causes firestorm

• Featured content: Slow week for featured content

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Television Stations

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Public domain request for File:PascalTriangleAnimated2.gif

Dear Hersfold!

Recently, I exchanged a couple of messages with User:Rthmn3021, about the topic you should already be aware of. He has quoted me your message in the topic. Please feel free to release the image to public domain, as my modifications were purely technical. (I am sure you are already aware of the fact that due to the copyleft nature of the licenses, I can not do so myself, and I can not take the *quoted* message as consent)

Sorry for the double-posting and the work: Dratini0 (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the note, I'll go change the license now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)