Jump to content

User talk:Hersfold/Archive 46 (October 2010)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


← Previous archive - Archive 46 (October 2010) - Next archive →

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

HerfoldOTRSBot and flickr reviewed images

Howdy. Edits by your bot like this one might not be beneficial. The OTRS permission was not required in this case, and tagging it for deletion, seems to be the wrong thing to do in my opinion. Any thoughts?--Rockfang (talk) 06:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hm. You do have a point there. I could update the bot to have it search for a {{Flickrreview}} template, and if it notices one, simply remove the OTRS pending tag without marking it for deletion. Would that work? Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for replying. The first thought that came to my mind was what parameters that template uses. If it comes along {{Flickrreview}} without any parameters, that means the file hasn't been reviewed yet. This scenario would most likely be extremely rare though. Since your bot only tags images that "...have been tagged with an {{OTRS pending}} template for more than thirty days." Images with {{Flickrreview}} rarely (if ever) go 30 days without being reviewed. Your bot may need to pick up whether or not the image has been reviewed or not. {{flickrreview|Username|2006-10-20}} is an example of an "approved" image. Unfortunately, there are cases where parameters are used when the result is a "disapproval" of an image. {{flickrreview|Username|2006-10-20|PD-Magic}} is an example of this. To answer your question of "Would that work?", I'm not sure because I don't code bots. :) If it were able to tell the difference between the above situations though, that would be most enjoyable. :) Rockfang (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I think are situations when there is some form of {{Flickrreview}} on an image page that also has {{OTRS pending}} on it and I don't think removal of {{OTRS pending}} would be a good thing. For example when the file was "approved" in a Flickrreview. In that situation, if the Flickrreview was ever doubted, the OTRS queue could be checked. If you'd like clarification on anything I've said, please ask.--Rockfang (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
One more thing if I may. :) Would you mind if I reverted this edit? I apologize for not adding all of this in one edit.--Rockfang (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Answering the last post first, yes, please go ahead if you're sure that picture is OK. That goes for any page where you're certain the bot is incorrect (although please let me know, of course!).
As for the first and second, it shouldn't be too difficult to add a few lines of code to search for an "approved" template of the form {{(F|f)lickrreview|[string of symbols not including a |]|YYYY-MM-DD}} Anything with an extra parameter, or missing those two, would not be noticed and so the bot would flag the image for deletion as normal. In the case you mention in the second case, though, would it be better for the bot to simply ignore the flickr-approved images then? I can still have the bot remind people about the OTRS permission in those cases. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
To clarify (and now I'm doing it), this is what I'm suggesting the bot would do:
  • Pull up image, look for OTRS pending as normal.
  • If OTRS pending is present:
    • Look for flickrreview template, and handle as follows:
      • If Flickr approved, leave OTRS pending alone and remind uploader to send in OTRS permission (note that they would get reminded on every run, but since I generally don't run it but for every month it shouldn't be an issue).
      • If Flickr unapproved, mark for deletion as normal
      • If Flickr unreviewed, mark for deletion as normal. (possible alternative; leave a note on some noticeboard that says "hey, this needs to be reviewed and someone should stab the uploader about OTRS stuff too")
      • If not found at all, handle as normal.
  • If OTRS received is present:
    • Ignore the Flickr template entirely and remind the OTRS volunteer as normal.
Does this sound like it makes sense? Don't worry about the coding end of things, that's my job to worry about. I just want to make sure I'm going to have the bot doing what seems logical to you guys. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry for the delay. If I remember correctly, I was heading to sleep right when you replied, and I figured I'd reply the next day. Unfortunately, I then forgot about it. I just re-read your post above and it seems fine to me. Except for the "...stab the uploader..." part. Stabbing people seems a bit much. ;) Rockfang (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Aww, now you're taking all the fun out of it... :-P Ok, I'll make a note to add all this before the next run. Thanks! Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
You are welcome. Thank you for being so receptive to questions.--Rockfang (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Status Template with https Connections

It seems that your status template doesn't work when used with an https connection, which I always use. Is there an easy fix for this? I really like this template. --AJ00200 (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ummm... hang on. I might be able to add a parameter to switch the links to secure server links. They should work, but we'll see. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Try it now? Make sure to purge your cache first. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
No, it brings me to the same page as it did last time, even after clearing my cache.--AJ00200 (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I did manage to find part of the problem. There is an extra "wiki/wikipedia/secure/" in the link, but it still doesn't auto-save.--AJ00200 (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
It looks as though that was caused because the links still specified http:// and not https://... so Mediawiki, thinking it was being smart, tried to fix it with that extra /secure/ crap and instead messed things up. I've added a ParserFunction to turn the http's into https's if you're on the secure server, and logged into the secure server to double-check this time, so now it'll work. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The link works now, but it still doesn't autosave (not that big of a deal as I could always write my own script to do this, or modify yours). Is this template cross-browser? Before I go to edit your script, do you have any ideas as to what might be causing this or if it is even possible to autosave?
To be honest, you're probably best off writing your own script. For some reason, this script seems to be extremely temperamental and will randomly decide to not work for people. I've never had an issue with it, but I regularly get complaints "I just added your template and script but the links don't work." Oddly, it'll randomly turn itself on (sometimes) several months later. I can't figure it out. So far as I know, given the same conditions, the same code should do the same thing every time, that is, work or not work. Anyway, the script should work in any browser, but I don't know the full details of it, as it was actually written by User:Henrik. The script works for me on both the secure and standard servers, so I haven't a clue why it wouldn't be working for you. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. If I do complete a script or fix yours, I will let you know and you can add it to the templates page if you would like. Thanks, --AJ00200 (talk)

Ace of Base Name Dispute

I saw that You rightfully approved the new information the Ace.of.Base page. I kindly ask You to take a look at the Ace of Base page too as there is someone (the same person as You opposed on the Ace.of.Base page?) from Germany/Netherlands (where Ace.of.Base record company is based) continuously reverting to the misleading information about the members and completely removing the name dispute information.

Thank You!

Allyearlong (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Allyearlong

Just to be clear, not deleting the article is not an approval of things. I simply felt that it didn't qualify for speedy deletion under that particular criteria. The article still needs some work, and can still be deleted through an Articles for Deletion discussion should one be started. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

User:CallumV

Noted. Seemed a bit odd to attack that user, right then, within minutes of their block. How'd some random walking up to a keyboard find that particular vandal right then? Agree, it's hinky. Thanks for having a look. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup of ribbons

Hi.. I am cleaning up on the Wikipedia:Ribbons site.

You have made a ribbon for IRC Barnstar, but there is no such barnstar.. Also the ribbon is not being used anywhere.
Should I nominate the ribbon for deletion or do you know if there is an IRC barnstar on the drawing-board? Skibden (talk) 12:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd created it mostly for my own use, as I was awarded an "IRC Buddy Barnstar" in 2007 (see near the bottom of User:Hersfold/Awards). I haven't used ribbons since I overhauled my userpage a while ago, and I can't see to find that the barnstar template still exists, so if you think it should still be deleted, I can go remove it myself. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I have myself spend a lot of time looking for the IRC Buddy Barnstar, but with no luck. If you are no longer using the ribbon, then I don't see a reason to keep it :-) Skibden (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I've removed it from the listing on WP:RIBBON. The file itself seems to be on Commons, so I can't delete that, but then there probably isn't any harm in letting float around cyberspace anyway. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Superb! Thx.. Now, I'm up to fixing the rest of WP:RIBBON :P

Page Deletion: 'Boy Banned'

You deleted the page ‘Boy Banned’ on 5 October, 2010 citing Wikipedia notability criterion A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject.

The article clearly states that the significance of the subject is that the band is the first band ever to be signed to a gay pornography company, Eurocreme, with a reference to that company’s diversification strategy. The references in the article to non-trivial published works satisfy Wikipedia’s notability criteria for musicians and ensembles:

A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria: Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.

I consider that the page was deleted without consideration of the notability criteria, and without the references being checked. I should be grateful if you would undelete the page.

Gayblogger (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that there were multiple reliable sources as you claim. There was one link to xBiz.com, but all of the remaining references provided went to YouTube (which we ask editors to avoid linking), the band's own website, or to sound clips of their own music, which are unreliable (in the first two cases) or don't provide any encyclopedic value (in the first and third cases). If this the first band to be signed to a pornography company, that could be notable, however again, you'll need more reliable sources to back that up. Unless those are found, I will not be restoring the article. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rangoon11

Hi,

Thanks for resolving the SPI, just one question with this & this edit you said you had blocked Rangoon11 (talk · contribs) for 3 months, but the block log only shows 2 weeks. Codf1977 (talk) 08:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for catching that, I've corrected the duration of the block. It should now expire three months from when it was originally placed. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
No problem - have also added {{Sockpuppetry|status=timeblocked|blocklength=3 month|t=master|spipage=Rangoon11}} to his/her user page - hope that is OK. Codf1977 (talk) 04:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for Admin help

Hi, If I place a merge tag on a page and another user keeps removing it, what shall I do? I do not want to start reverting for ever. Please see: Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church. I placed a merge tag there and another user removed it twice. What do you suggest? Thank you. History2007 (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Try discussing it with them; ideally, if they have an objection, they should be posting about it to the talk page and not removing it, but either way, discussion is the way to go. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, and it was handled anyway. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Please explain your deletion of Special Science Senior Secondary School, Makurdi, Benue State

Please could you further explain your reasoning for your deletion of this article. You list no speedy delete criteria and give the reason "single sentence provides no encyclopaedic value" which also doesn't seem to match any of the criteria. From what I remember it certainly wasn't an A1 or A7 candidate. If you deleted under IAR then I think you erred as in my opinion this should only be used in clear cut cases and I think the community consensus on cases such as this is far from clear. Additionally I also note that the deletion policy states that where there is doubt over whether a speedy delete criteria applies other routes should be followed. As a reasonably experienced editor I'd have hoped you'd have taken more account of my view that it didn't, which should have been clear from the logs as I had previously removed the speedy request. Dpmuk (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Dpmuk: Absolutely Yes, The decision was acceptable to community regarding deletion of article, this things has not been decided in a single moment, instead a extensive discussion has been done with many wikipedians. The Admin took the decision as after discussing with many community members. I think the admin's decision was right in his way as there was no doubt about articles speedy deletion criteria, so other routes were not followed.(  Abu Torsam  16:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC))
Dpmuk, you are correct in that schools are exempt from A7 criteria, and I did take your comments into consideration. However, as Abu pointed out to me later, the article was still in very bad shape, toeing the line on several speedy deletion criteria. Under WP:A1, it only barely manages to identify the subject of the article beyond the obvious with "is a government science school started in 1995 to enhance science education in the state." Under WP:A3, again, it doesn't do terribly much more than restate the title of the article, with the only useful content being the line I quoted previously. When discussing it with another administrator, they suggested that WP:G11 could apply, although that case is admittedly weaker than the previous two. Finally, while there is no explicit policy about it, there is a minimum level of effort expected for our articles. This clearly did not take much effort to write, evidence by the short length, capitalization, and grammatical errors throughout. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and this article, such as it was, provided no encyclopedic content. For all of these reasons, I chose to delete it without involving other processes, in order to avoid wasting the community's time. Had I PROD'd the article, I would simply be asking someone else to do my work for me a week in the future; and had I AfD'd the article, I'd doing that as well as wasting the time of other contributors who came to comment on the discussion. In this case, deletion seemed to be inevitable, so common sense told me to speed things along and get back to improving the project. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Although I sympathise with your view I cannot support it. Personally I don't subscribe to the view that all secondary schools are notable, and I'd support a speedy delete criteria to delete articles like this but at the moment one doesn't exist (you admit above that it doesn't meet any of the criteria). Speedy delete criteria are narrowly construed for a reason - to ensure that there would be consensus to delete, and in this case I'm far from sure there would be consensus. One line articles are often considered valid stubs and all secondary schools are considered notable so I can't see how anyone can reach the reasonable conclusion that this is certain to be deleted (likely maybe but that doesn't reach the bar required for speedy deletion). As such I'd like to see this page restored and taken to AfD as I don't think it's certain that community consensus will be with you. As a slight aside I also don't believe in IAR speedy deletions except in very exceptional circumstances, but I accept opinion is divided on this. I also believe that ensuring process is followed does improve the encyclopaedia as we won't scare off new editors by making them think admins can do what they want and ignore process, although in this case I'm not just asking for the sake of process - I'm honestly unsure what consensus will be. I'm also interested where the discussions of this article took place - I can not find one any where on wikipedia.
Finally I think it may help if you had a word with abutorsam007. You'll see from my discussion with them on their talk page that he seems to have got the wrong end of the stick concerning consensus, the role of admins and one or two other things and they don't seem to want to listen to me as because an "admin" has said it's OK that's the end of the issue. Dpmuk (talk) 10:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I greatly dislike doing this, as I do feel it is a waste of time (anyone wanting to improve the article would need to start from scratch anyway), however if you're going to be stubborn about it, then fine. I'll have the AfD open soon. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
If it does turn out to be a waste of time, I'll happily apologise and I'll hope you can think of it as a learning point for me as I will happily admit when I made a mistake. However I will be truly surprised if it doesn't get one or two keep votes. Dpmuk (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I would as well, but then that's how Wikipedia works - there will almost always be one or two users who will pop in with a contrary opinion just so that, in their minds, it's justified as a discussion. The fact that we're now making a mountain out of a molehill won't help matters either, and I wouldn't be surprised if the AfD closed as keep, not because of any merits of the article, but solely because of the reason it's there in the first place. Anyway, the AfD is posted. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Well I have to disagree with your "The fact that we're now making a mountain out of a molehill won't help matters either" statement. Hopefully be AfDing a few articles such as this consensus will become clear that such articles are not warranted and we can get a new CSD criteria to cover them. At the moment I'm sure many such articles aren't tagged for speedy because, as you yourself admit, they don't meet any of the crtieria. I wonder how many of those people bother to take to AfD? If these articles are never taken to AfD and just IAR deleted such consensus can never form - after all consensus forming should take place on wikipedia not by a limited set of users on IRC. Dpmuk (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

An update from adopt a user

Hi there Hersfold! You may be wondering, what have I done to sound the alarm this time? Nothing. I'm messaging you in regards to the adopt-a-user program, which currently has a backlog of users wishing to be adopted. This doesn't make much sense, as we have a considerable list of users offer adoption, so there shouldn't be any backlog. I've begun to eliminate this backlog myself through a matching program, but I need your help to make it work. Of course, adoptees and adopters don't have to go through there, but I believe it helps eliminate the backlog because someone is actively matching pairs.

On the list of adopters, I have modified the middle column to say "Interests." It's easier working with other users that have similar interests, so if it's not too much to ask, could you add your interests in the middle column? For example, if I was interested in hurricanes, computers, business, and ... reptiles? I would place those in the middle column. Counter-vandalism and the like can also be included (maintenance should be used as the general term). The more interests, the better, since adoptees can learn more about you and choose the one they feel most comfortable working with. The information about when you're most active and other stuff can go into the "Notes" section to the right.

Finally, I've gone around and asked adoptees (and will in the future) to fill in a short survey so adopters can take the initiative and contact users they feel comfortable working with. We all know that most adoptees just place the adopt me template on their user page and leave it - so it's up to us to approach them and offer adoption. So, please take a look at the survey, adopt those that fit your interests, and maybe watchlist it so you can see the interests of adoptees and adopt one that fits your interests in the future.

Once again, thank you for participating in the adopt-a-user program! If you wish to respond to this post, please message me on my talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 05:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC).

Replied

I've replied to your post on my talk page. Netalarmtalk 20:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

Unblocking CU-blocked ranges

In response to your latest message on my talk page: That's OK, I am as guilty as anyone of sometimes acting without checking every detail of the relevant history. (In fact I see that my failure to see your "no talkbacks" message above is an example of exactly that! Sorry.) JamesBWatson (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It's ok, I just don't understand the point of the templates. Thanks! Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I guess that you mean that you don't understand using a template instead of writing a custom "I have replied to your post on my talk page" message. If so then I admit there probably isn't a great deal of advantage. It probably saves a few seconds each time, but that's all. I tend to use it out of habit, I suppose. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Abusive IP?

This user recently requested unblock auto, and soon went on to vandalize in a way making it obvious s/he isn't a total noob here. Is there enough account activity with usernames to warrant a longer block? Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to check, because even if there is, the WHOIS data for that IP says it's dynamic. More than likely this guy will be on another IP this time tomorrow and there isn't much to do about it unless it turns into rampant abuse. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo_2

I think "2010-10-15T00:39:43 Hersfold (talk | contribs) blocked Polargeo 2 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ ({{checkuserblock}} - Abusing multiple accounts / block evasion - User:Polargeo)" is a mistake. PG has never abused multiple accounts and is not subject to any blocks (he is subject to the Cl Ch case, but that is a different matter). He *has* had a somewhat confusing succession of single accounts, though. IF you look at the indef block of PG, this says "2010-10-07T13:21:37 Coren (talk | contribs) blocked Polargeo (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Now using new account User:Jbtscott)". Which I see you've blocked too - again, there is no obvious justification for that William M. Connolley (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Just an observer, but acording to Hersfolds logs it looks like there are 10 other accounts that are (alleged) to be Polargeo.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
But is there any evidence for abuse via these accounts? Count Iblis (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes. [1] [2] -Atmoz (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm missing the evidence of abuse *by PG* there William M. Connolley (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Assuming the CU evidence is solid you have interaction with a user on a subject with one account followed by using a different undisclosed account to file a SPI against that user. I believe that's beyond allowed usage--Cube lurker (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, that looks odd. I'll ask him. Even if verified that looks thin to me, but I'm biased William M. Connolley (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
(ECx2) @WMC: Warning a user with the PG account, then opening an SPI with another account a couple hours later? Definitely not legit. See also WP:ILLEGIT. Editing project space: check. Avoiding scrutiny: check. Deceptively seeking positions of community trust: check, ran for admin without disclosing alternate accounts. Administrators with multiple accounts: check. -Atmoz (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and [3] in case you're in doubt. -Atmoz (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't that prove the opposite? He isn't trying to hide it William M. Connolley (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Check the dates on the first 2 diffs I provided. He had that account for over a year without disclosing it, and ran for admin twice during that time. Why the sudden change of heart? -Atmoz (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
These blocks are based on checkuser evidence, and were made on the advice of a member of the Arbitration Committee. There is evidence of misuse of accounts, and there is no reason why any single user would require half a dozen undisclosed accounts in any event. I would ask that if you do not have access to the checkuser tool - which none of you do - you leave the handling of this matter to those who do. Thank you. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
No comment on the merit of the case at the moment. Big objection to being told to leave the issue alone. See WP:ARBCOMRFC, especially the part about "no secret trials". If you do not want to explain yourself, refrain from performing actions that need explanation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser can config the *identity* of the accounts, and as far as I can see no-one is doubting that. So trying to close this down on the basis of you-can't-see-the CU is not valid. What is being questionned is the evidence for *abuse* of multiple accounts, and the only pair of diffs presented for that is thin (and disputed by PG, via email). So, what is the evidenece for *abuse*? And who is the shy arb? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

There's about 10 or so seperate accounts here. The Committee is currently reviewing the situation, and will probably have a statement or motion shortly. We've sent a message to Polargeo to see what he thinks. SirFozzie (talk) 23:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Asking again: where is the evidence for abuse justifying an indef block? And, please clarify whether PG2 has talkpage access or not William M. Connolley (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Replying again: there is no reason why someone would need ten separate undisclosed accounts. Several of these were used in a way to hide their identity. From what I can see in ArbCom's statement/comments, they've also found a number of other accounts I hadn't caught, so you'll need to ask them about those. As for talk page access, you know where to find his block logs, and I have a feeling you'll trust your own eyes better than you will anything I have to say. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
"no reason" is not evidence of abuse, and you should know that. If you're indef blocking someone, you should give clear reasons for the block. If you think there are diffs justifying an idef block - and so far, no-one has presented them - you should put them on t:PG2.
As to talk page access: I don't know, I'm not confident of reading the logs. Why can't you just answer the question? This obesssive secrecy about the simplest of matters is very disturbing. Fortunately (Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Polargeo.27s_administrative_permissions) it looks like others are going to be rather more forthcoming than you.
I'm really disappointed in the way that you are handling this William M. Connolley (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I did not block talk page access, as the block logs clearly state. In any event, he is more than capable of emailing people, as evidenced by the dozens of emails I've received from him. I gave clear reasons for the block, and acted on the advice of an Arbitrator, who I consulted before blocking anything. I have better things to do with my time than answer questions clearly intended to bring up drama, asked by someone who I'm not going to be able to please no matter what I do, due to prejudices from previous experiences, particularly when there is an entire group of people that have more information about this situation than I do, and when providing those answers could potentially violate someone's privacy. Good day, sir. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
You've been asked a very simple question, that violates no-ones privacy: what diffs from PG or socks justifies an indef block? And you haven't answered William M. Connolley (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
It must've been a bug - it was revoked on the block form but not the log [4]. –xenotalk 20:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not block talk page access, as the block logs clearly state. - well, actually, that turns out not to be true. As for prejudices from previous experiences that appears to be you. I'd forgotten. Permit me to quote from an email I sent PG earlier: 15 October 2010 15:18 / subject Re: Wikipedia e-mail / Just asked. Looks like an error. Hersfold is a good guy (as I recall: it can be hard to keep track) so should be amenable to reversal. So it would seem like a bit more AGF from you is in order, and perhaps an apology for the unjustifed "dramamongering" accusations William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The first statement could still be true; there was definitely a bug here - personally I would trust the log as a better representation of what Hf did. Why the tp access got blocked according to the block form is another question. –xenotalk 21:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible SPI case merger?

Hi. I've been rather involved with SPI in the past relating to a number of different and exceptionally tenacious sockpuppets and I always try to err on the side of fewer accusations as the editors I am dealing with often only have a few edits to their name and I try to abide by WP:BITE. With that said, there are often newcomer editors that make a few edits that really make me suspicious and I try to follow up on those if I can remember. One such editor I notice has recently been caught up in a different SPI and is now banned as the sockpuppet of a user I'd never heard of. At the SPI for Wikipedian05 I noticed that along with "User:Drakes Fortune" you had identified "User:Ikemen" as sockpuppets of "User:Wikipedian05." This surprised me because I had suspected both as having been sockpuppets of User:Dr90s (see Dr90s' casepage for reference). Reviewing the facts from both casepages and especially noting:

  • A) The peculiarly combative nature of User:Drakes Fortune's 3 edits - all targeting me and apropos of nothing (Dr90s would, I think, be the only "enemy" I have at Wikipedia)
  • B) The use of the name "Drake's Fortune" which comes from the title of a game that has been one of Dr90s' favorite articles to edit
  • C) User:Drakes Fortune's interest in Famitsu (another article frequently edited by Dr90s)
  • D) The fascination of User:Ikemem with the direction of The Ocarina of Time game in the Zelda series (Dr90s' pet interest above all others) which even prompted comment at the Ocarina of Time talk page.
  • E) The fact that User:Wikipedian05 and User:Dr90s share such an interest in rankings and both edit from schools in Tokyo, Japan.

I believe that it is highly likely that Wikipedian05 and Dr90s are one and the same. I am now wondering if there is some good way to merge the two SPIs that I believe cover the same person. Is this possible? Would I have to file a new SPI listing Wikipedian05 as a sockpuppet of Dr90s and support it with proofs?

Secondly, in passing I wanted to mention that for a long time I've been suspicious that Dr90s was the same as User:Wikipedian06. The fact that Wikipedian05 seems so similar to Dr90s lends even more support to the vague suspicion I'd always had about the Dr90s-Wikipedian06 connection (originally based on similar viewpoint and highly similar combative editing styles but now backed up by a highly similar username). Wikipedian06 is currently banned for vandalism, but if you think there is any merit in his connection to the other accounts I mentioned earlier then perhaps he should be joined in the SPI as well. Perhaps all of the WikipedianXX users should be reviewed? I don't know. Please let me know what you think of this Wikipedian06 business as well.

Thank you very much. -Thibbs (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I just took a look at some of the other WikipedianXX accounts and I think there is a strong possibility that User:Wikipedian02 (see Wikipedian02's SPI page) is also the same person as Dr90s and Wikipedian05. The names this user has used for his sockpuppets is highly reminiscent of Dr90s' sock-naming style. I couldn't find any other similarities at first glance with the other WikipedianXX editors (i.e. User:Wikipedian2, User:Wikipedian27, User:Wikipedian64, and User:Wikipedian1234 all look like legitimate editors) -Thibbs (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
We can certainly merge more than one SPI case together if it seems they are related. Go ahead and file an SPI about your suspicions - we'll be more easily able to look at it that way, and if there is a connection, the clerks can mush things together when the case gets archived. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggested changes at MOTD

Hello fellow motto contributor. Discussions arer still open on Wikipedia talk:Motto of the day/Nominations#Suggested changes and still require further input especially on ideas 10-17. Please could you voice your opinion as this is going to be closed in early November. Please help out or even make any new idea suggestions. Simply south (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a last call. Any opinions should be suggested by and including November 5th. See Wikipedia talk:Motto of the day/Nominations/Archive 2#Suggested Changes Simply south (talk) 21:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Erm hiya Hersfold, I recently got suspended on the ACC Tool because of a large error of judgment in dealing with a request and it shouldn't have happened. Do you think it would be possible for me to get the suspension lifted and have my account creator flag returned? Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 10:32am • 23:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Stwalkerster has reactivated my account. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 7:44pm • 08:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Rangoon11

On his promise to use only this one account, and to consult with me and Colonel Warden about editing, I have unblocked this editor. Obviously, if he should sock again, I will be very disappointed and deal with it appropriately. DGG ( talk ) 21:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok... I'd appreciate being consulted before unblocking, but that's fine. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I really do apologize for that--the reason was that he seemed to be responsive & I did not want to lose the momentum. The lonk block you placed seemed indeed to have been effective. I hope it stays effective. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Like I said, it's perfectly fine. I trust your judgment. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is DGG's unblocking of Rangoon11. Thank you. Codf1977 (talk) 07:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia DC Meetup, October 23

You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #12 on Saturday, October 23, 6pm at Bertucci's in Foggy Bottom. Special guests at this meetup will include Wikimedia CTO Danese Cooper, other Wikimedia technical staff and volunteer developers who will be in DC for Hack-A-Ton DC. Please RSVP on the meetup page.

You can remove your name from the Washington DC Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

I had a feeling I was going to get suspended...

Yeah so my account create thing was suspended because I did something wrong. I clicked "reset" instead of zoom and so it put it to the open requests thing and I didn't know how to close it because it didn't say in the guide and so I have never created an account on the interface because people keep beating me to it and I just wanted to click zoom but I pressed reset by accident so the suspension was unethical and unconstitutional towards myself so I think you should un suspend me because I was going to press zoom but I accidentally pressed reset so it went to open but there was no option saying close and I think I should be not suspended because it doesn't say in the guide which I read sixty eight times to make sure and it still said nothing and I tried to log in and it said I was suspended forever and I had to contact an admin but I don't know if you are a account create admin or a wikipedia admin and if you are both how? and I think I should be un suspended and get something off of the cow bins because I did read the guide sixty eight times as I said before and I am so so unhappy with me because I pressed reset but not zoom so if you press un suspend I would be happy because I would be able to go back onto the interface but I read the guide and I am writing this essay because I want to be unsuspended please. Thank you administrator person. Puffin Lets talk! 16:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Puffin Lets talk! 16:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to reactivate your account, certainly not so soon. The interface says in several places that if you can see a button or link, you can do whatever that link says. There was absolutely no reason for you to create that account, even if you had accidentally reset it. The best way to proceed would have been to Drop the request, which marks it as declined without sending an email, or asking another ACC member for advice. This stream-of-consciousness request does not convince me that reinstating your account so soon would be a benefit, especially so soon after your suspension. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Megaidler

You may wish to look at User:MuZemike#Block of Megaidler as there are is currently consideration of unblocking him. –MuZemike 23:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I should have indicated that your comment is appreciated there, just in case you weren't aware :) –MuZemike 20:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't really have much to say, to be honest; I didn't run a check myself, and in all honesty part of the reason for declining his request was TLDR-ness. I just didn't see that he'd changed a whole lot from his previous (declined) request. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Skegness Town F.C.

I see that two years ago, you deleted the article on this football club. As they have played in the FA Cup, they pass the bar for notability, so can you re-instate the article. I will then endeavour to bring it up to scratch. Cheers. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I can, but it's a single sentence that only states the club's location. You may as well just start from scratch. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
OK - thanks for looking. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Conditions

The "conditions" count on the edit filter is notoriously unreliable, and even the core group of edit filter experts don't seem to understand why. If you go to any filter and hit refresh a few times, you can often see the conditions count vary wildly up and down, and I think a better estimate of how many conditions it's really eating up would be an average of many of those samples. But to be honest, I pretty much ignore the condition count and use common sense: a filter with a lot of code, or one which requires the entire page to be read, will take more time to run (even if not necessarily more conditions) than a small and simple one. —Soap— 22:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I was wondering. It didn't really make a whole lot of sense, since the most involved part of this filter is looking for "bot" in the user's name. I'll probably go turn it back on then, with a couple changes. Thanks! Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

Filter 368

You changed this filter to supposedly "not trigger within a user's own userspace". Except that what you actually did was change it to only trigger within a user's own userspace. Apparently nobody ever tests these filters.

Fortunately for you, this filter is one of the few not needlessly marked private, so I can actually see your above comment about what it is supposed to do and tell you that because you missed a ! off the front of the condition it is broken. Gurch (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was embarrassing. Thanks, Gurch, I'll go fix it. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The filter conditions should be put in certain order so that conditions which exclude the largest portion of edits are put higher in the order. In addition, complex conditions should be placed lower in the order. I suggest the following order: 

 minor_edit &
 (edit_delta < -500 | edit_delta > 500) &
 user_editcount < 500 &
 !((article_namespace == 2 | article_namespace == 3) & user_name in article_text) &
 !(article_namespace / 2 == 1) &
 !("bot" in lcase(user_name)) &
 !("bot" in user_groups)

I don't think there are many sysops with less than 500 edits. Also, I highly recommend limiting this filter to the main space only. Sole Soul (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I've reordered them as you suggest, but I'll leave the namespace part alone for now; a minor edit to a Template page can affect dozens of articles, and in that way can be worse than a mis-marked minor edit to an article. This already excludes (all) talk pages, so they won't be an issue. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
What gives you the impression that this excludes all talk pages?
Hint: "article_namespace / 2 == 1" is true only when article_namespace == 2, i.e. user space, so that condition is entirely redundant to the one above it.
Seriously, if this is the quality level of public filters I dread to think what the private ones are like. Gurch (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I was under the assumption that this was integer division, and any remainders would get tossed out. I really could do without the rudeness, Gurch. You can make the same point without being an ass. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Did you want modulo instead? The modulo symbol is a parenthesispercent sign: !(article_namespace % 2 == 1) would (I think) make it exclude all talk pages. —Soap— 22:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Whether it is integer division or not, the condition still won't match all talk pages. At most it would match namespaces 2 and 3, i.e. still redundant to the condition above it.
I apologise for the rudeness, but as you are probably aware, I have no respect for any aspect of the abuse filter system and its operation, and consider its introduction one of the worst things to happen to this project. When you create abuse filters, you are essentially programming the software, and I will be just as rude about it as I would to a MediaWiki developer who deployed code on the live site that contained a similarly elementary error. Gurch (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I did want modulo, and have changed it to such, and you're right, integer division wouldn't have helped either, so I do apologize for snapping back at you, Gurch. I do also understand your concerns, but in a filter that is not designed to prohibit edits, a bug such as this that doesn't unduly affect matters still isn't the end of the wiki. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 05:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hersfold/Archive_46_(October_2010)&oldid=1143046353"