Jump to content

User talk:Hersfold/Archive 55 (July 2011)

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


← Previous archive - Archive 55 (July 2011) - Next archive →

This page contains discussions dated during the month of July 2011 from User talk:Hersfold. Please direct all current discussions there. Thank you.

July 1-16

Editrequest

Hi, please take a look at my editrequest {{IPAsym}} here. -DePiep (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll reply there, but for future reference the edit protected template adds pages to a watch category; you don't need to ask an admin directly. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
That cascade stuff is even getting worse. Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Template:IPAsym_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29. Is it a private enterprise? -DePiep (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I've explained at RFPP. Sorry, I didn't realize at first why you'd asked me specifically. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, to expand my knowledge in this. Is it true that an article, protected through cascade (so fully protected) cannot be edited at all, not even via admin tools & {{editprotect}}? (unless the cascade source protection is lifted)? -DePiep (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

No, as I've said previously, if you can provide code you would like an administrator to put in that template and draw attention to it with an {{editprotected}} template, we can do so for you. Administrators can edit through any sort of protection. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the removal of protection, the sockpuppeteer was active again last night and again targeted unprotected high-risk templates. I'm afraid it'll need to stay protected a bit longer. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
So you know it's a sockpuppet, but don't know how to stop it. Interesting. Anyway, Wikipedia is finished by now and only needs to be maintained by officers. Congrats. No more editors to take care of. Sorry for disturbing your habit.
End of thread for me. -DePiep (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Um, I'm sorry if I've offended you in some way, but I am trying to be helpful here. Yes, it is a sockpuppeteer, and yes, we have so far been unable to stop them due to a little inconvenience called proxies. As I'm sure you know as an active editor, Wikipedia is continually being worked on, and we would appreciate your help, especially with complicated templates such as this. As I've explained, I am uncomfortable removing the protection at this time, however you are welcome to set up a sandbox for the template, make your changes there, and let me or another administrator know when they are done. We can then copy the changes over, crediting you with the edit summary. I really am trying to be as cooperative as possible here while maintaining the security of the site, as is my responsibility. I do not appreciate the aggressive tone you're taking, as I don't feel that I've deserved it. I've been civil throughout this entire discussion, and I'd appreciate receiving some civility in turn. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
You're right. I did not understand the frustrating situation but took it too far, cynically. Struck. -DePiep (talk) 13:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate that. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Your idea for a bot to monitor the length of evidence on ArbCom cases was a brilliant idea!! Thank you for thinking of it and putting into action so quickly. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Yay! Thanks a lot, I'm glad I can help. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

you new clerkbot

Aesthetically not very pleasing, double entries with too many spaces and should all be done in one edit (if at all). Also if a clerk has permitted between 1500 and 2000 words for some participants, that should be set as an extra parameter. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

If you'd bothered to read the BRFA for it, you'd notice that I'm doing trial runs right now and am fixing the first issue and added a feature to address the second. I'm so glad you approve. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Amongst other problems. [1] Also you have to leave an error margin for length and number of diffs, since clerks rarely complain about mild excess. I had read an announcement about your bot, although not about this experiment. The page is on my watch list, since I added evidence myself, and there is no reason why others participating in the case should be aware of your new bot. I can't say at the moment if your bot is a good idea or not, since cases vary so much and there are so many unforeseeable exceptions. However, it was very kind of you to think up the idea and volunteer to write the code. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, unfortunately the bot is not set up to see if a user is blocked or a sockpuppet, although such a feature would make my job as a checkuser much easier ;-). As it turns out, Chester's talk page was useful for testing anyway, which is why I didn't tell the bot to ignore him. The bot does have built-in and configurable tolerances for each of the limits; if a user simply exceeds the limit, the bot won't give them a talk page notice, but it will if they exceed the limit by a set percentage. I worked closely with both clerks and arbitrators for this bot, so I'm hoping that it will prove useful and effective. I apologize for the snippiness last night. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Phdoc0

Hi. Over at User talk:Phdoc0, Daniel Case appears to have rejected your CheckUser evidence and declined an unblock - is it possible you could expand on the question I've asked there? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar
This is for your fine work on the ArbClerkBot, which is an elegant technical solution to a social problem. Thank you.  Roger Davies talk 11:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Wow, two barnstars for the same bot. Thanks, Roger! Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Suspension

It's been ages since my suspension, lift if please. Puffin Let's talk! 12:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

  • The ACC logs indicate that User:AlexandrDmitri was the one who suspended you. You should ask him first. When doing so, you may want to be a little more specific as to what you're talking about, as I didn't realize what you were talking about at first. You're also going to need to give a bit more than "please lift it". Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

deleting my comments

Hi, please replace my comment in the relevant section, (actually both comments that you deleted in this diff) there is no reason for you to delete it, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

No. As I'd said previously, "This is not the proper forum for that discussion, and any further edits to [that] page, especially in such a tone, will be regarded as disruption and reverted." Your comment was inappropriate and a personal attack, and so was removed. The situation is now on WP:AN, I suggest you go there. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Cop-out. Whitewash. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

We all know what is going on - get off your horse. Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

If you ask me, I'm fairly certain BarkingMoon is the user everyone thinks they are. However, if they are, they seem to be making a perfectly valid WP:CLEANSTART. In the absence of evidence that they are being disruptive, which presumably is what the AN discussion is for, they can neither be blocked for sockpuppetry nor any other reason, as their actions are in accordance with policy. From what I've heard from the Arbitration Committee, there is some evidence that my convictions may be wrong, in which case we have no idea who BarkingMoon is. Either way, in the absence of any normal reason to block, such as the harassment/disruption block you're steering towards, BarkingMoon is not obligated to reveal their original identity and any effort to force them to do so is a violation of their privacy, as per policy. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, I appreciate your open comment. I have over the last few days been attempting to start a discussion about WP:RTV to get it more community/current usage reflective, please consider opining there - Wikipedia talk:Right to vanish#RTV is getting abused - suggest rewording - my main interest in this is focused on the communities position in regard to WP:RTV. Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

SPI note

You folks have really made yourselves look stupid. It is perfectly obvious that BarkingMoon is a returning user who is well-acquainted with Giacomo, as evidenced by the verbal shots he took at him. That is not a "clean start", it's sockpuppetry, and you're letting him get away with it on some dubious "privacy" grounds. Between this kind of thing, and the arbcom fiasco, the "leaders" of wikipedia are looking like the Keystone Kops these days. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

There is some doubt as to BarkingMoon's identity. Would you rather we act hastily and block an innocent user? Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't bloody care who his former identity is. He's a sock, and you block socks. Or you used to, anyway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
He's a sock in the sense that he admits to having another account at some point. But I see no evidence of concurrent or abusive use of accounts; in fact, BarkingMoon doesn't match any other currently active accounts on checkuser. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
He's not making a "clean start". Do you intend to do anything about that? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
That's up to the community to determine; a discussion has been opened on WP:AN for that purpose. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Baseball, your continued edits constitute harassment and will stop at once. I will use my tools as I see fit and in accordance with policy. In the absence of disruption, I will not block users. The end. If you don't like it, I have told you to post on AN to that effect. Go away. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I can just as easily post my complaints on AN, to where you passed that buck, so it's off to there I go. You may now delete any comments here that you don't like. But since you won't address them, you'll be seeing them again in a larger forum. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Taro-Gabunia

Thanks for the block review and CU on TGilmour (talk · contribs). Another apparent sock just turned up, Claptonn (talk · contribs), and if the pattern of the previous socks is any indication, the next one will come soon. Is a range block or so an option here? Ucucha 12:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked an underlying IP, we'll see how that goes and scale up as needed. Hersfold (t/a/c) 14:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Ucucha 22:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Frangfl

Hello Hersfold, Frangfl had asked for a review of their autoblock, and you had suggested that checkuser evidence needed to be examined before accepting or denying the request. I had put the unblock on hold but failed to follow up. Would you have a chance to look at the evidence? I don't see that the editor has been at all disruptive with their contributions so far. Thank you. -- Atama頭 16:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ack! I completely forgot about that case. I've given the guy an IP Block Exemption, hopefully he's still around... :-/ Thanks for the poke. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
It's okay, someone had to poke me first to get me to poke you. Thanks for the help! -- Atama頭 23:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Redaction request

pls redact edit summary at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Proud_Serbian_Chetnik&diff=prev&oldid=438350175 etc. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Replied on IRC Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Block of JelvinJS7

An unblock request at User talk:JelvinJS7 has now been on hold for 15 days. It looks to me as though it should be declined, as the user is not blocked, and has not made any useful response to requests for clarification. Perhaps you can look back at it. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No, he responded - I asked him to edit from something other than a mobile device, and he did. I needed to be able to distinguish him from sockpuppet accounts on his network range. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sinbad Barron

Hey. Sorry to bug you, but another editor and I have left a question for you over at the SPI case. If you have a minute, could you swing by and clarify things? Thanks. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shannon1488

I'm checking this one right now too...want to compare notes?  Frank  |  talk  00:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm on IRC right now if you want to pop in. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Never having done so, I now find I need an invite for it (which makes sense). I'll leave it to you. Short answer is I find 3 definite and 1 likely same as those 3. Others...not so much.  Frank  |  talk  00:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a dang clue. I've listed what I think is confirmed on the case but I'd appreciate a second look. Would you mind leaving some comments? Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

User:とある白い猫

Are you trying to rename yourself? Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Eventually yes. It will be a long process as so many wiki b'crats will need to be individually asked on many wikis. Merely reserving it in advance. -- Cat chi?
Ok... would you mind not redirecting things in the meantime? It may make things very confusing for other users trying to communicate with you. It's also generally a lot easier for crats to do a rename without an account already in place, but I guess it's too late for that now. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I just moved my userpage. You can move it back if you like (I cannot do this myself anymore anyways). I moved it to limit confusion but I may be causing confusion unknowingly. -- Cat chi? 00:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Abhishek191288 block

Hi Hersfold, I'm here regarding the the block that you implemented on Abhishek191288. The relationale you provided was "for edit warring on Padmanabhanagar". I think your action is quite heavy, because Abhi reverted unexplained blanking of the page by an IP user, who instead made it a redirect. Doesn't that constitute a vandal edit and so Abhi's actions were simply fighting vandalism? The IP user seemed to have moved the page without consensus/discussion. Even on Banashankari, Bangalore the IP simply did not include the information previously present on Padmanabhanagar, and even added some "info" that are unsourced and possibly are OR. I may be wrong here, but I'm pretty sure I'm right. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 01:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No, as Steve said at RFPP, this looks like a legitimate content dispute to me. The IP may be slightly misguided in his actions, but their lack of knowledge doesn't make this vandalism. Abhi and the IP need to discuss things on the talk page; which Abhi should know from his previous edit warring blocks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
The IP user, in a previous edit, said they'd move the article to a new page. Clearly he/she hasn't done that, and even added unsourced information to Banashankari, Bangalore. All the evidence suggests that the IP does not know what they're doing. Compared with previous edit wars, this case is different. Whereas Abhishek191288 is involved in content dispute at Electronics City, the problem on Padmanabhanagar is about an IP user who unreasonably and incorrectly blanked the page and made it a redirect. So, it is up to that user to start a discussion because Abhi's actions were merely reactionary. Comment? Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 02:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
As I said, not knowing what one is doing does not imply that one is intending to vandalize the site. Marking a valid attempt to make a redirect as vandalism is inappropriate. In any event, it is incumbent on Abhi to request an unblock; I do not consider third-party appeals. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Abhishek191288's retired. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 05:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that, especially since it looks like the IP editor made an account for the express purpose of discussing logged into their actually rather old account to discuss things with him. Hopefully he'll take some time to cool off and will return. Hersfold (t/a/c) 07:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

Image fixes

1, 2, 3. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 03:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for helping me with the image issue! Intoronto1125TalkContributions 03:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Quite welcome. Thanks for the star! Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions for your RfB

Hi Hersfold. Here are the questions I intend to pose at your RfB which I have drawn from my questions at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Maxim 2. Opposes have mainly been about your lack of activity at Wikipedia. I hope these questions will provide insights about how you will close RfAs. I have posted the questions here, instead of at your RfB, because the questions will take some time to answer. It would be unfair to place immediately all these questions on your RfB because participants may have a negative view of you if the questions were to be left unanswered for several hours. When you finish answering these questions, please copy them to your RfB. I am interested to hear your thoughts about these questions. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yay homework! Thanks, I'll put these up as soon as possible. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I've also added Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2 to Q13. Cunard (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Questions
Additional questions from Cunard

At Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bsadowski1, the closing bureaucrat wrote:

... I have to say that I do not regard this as a particularly borderline call. I think the discussion between users in this RfA shows a consensus for promotion.

The final tally of the RfB was 75/29/8 at 72.1%.

On the closing bureaucrat's talk page, an opposer wrote:

I think the rationale Scribe posted is symptomatic of a recent trend among bureaucrats to be too dismissive of legitimate opposition, while weighing unexplained supports too heavily. Just one editor's opinion.

The closing bureaucrat replied:

It is hard to please all of the people all of the time. If it can be said with certainty that users with x% support will pass/fail RfA, users complain that RfA is a vote rather than a discussion and that this is bad. If bureaucrats analyse the discussions and determine consensus according (leading to different outcomes for those with the same % support), results are criticised for being inconsistent and that this is bad. I suspect bureaucrats tend to be resigned to someone telling us we are wrong whatever we do, but (for the record) I am loathe to "dismiss" any opposition, though I do think examples of misconduct are weightier concerns than general worries about inexperience.

Earlier in the year, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Connormah 2 was closed as unsuccessful at a tally of 88/30/11 at 74.6%. Commentators at User talk:WJBscribe#Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bsadowski1 generally believed that the consensus was to promote Connormah.
10. HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) wrote in the above discussion: "I think this demonstrates that bureaucrat discussions should be more of a common practice than they are currently, especially when an RfA is at the lower end of the discretionary area."

Nsk92 (talk · contribs) wrote: "HJ Mitchell make a good point that in cases where the outcome is likely to be a close call, having a crat chat would be useful ... Having crat chats in close cases like these is useful, both for more accurate determination of consensus and for greater consistency, particularly so that future RfA candidates better know what to expect."

Should bureaucrat discussions have been opened for the above two RfAs? When will you initiate a bureaucrat discussion instead of performing an independent closure?

A: I feel that any RfA below 75% - that is, in the lower half of the discretionary zone - should not be closed by a single bureaucrat acting alone. I certainly will not do so, especially given my relative lack of experience in the area. As I said above, any RfA that appears contentious would be better served being closed by at least two crats working together (obviously only one can actually make the edit, but you get the idea). This ensures that a) the single crat is not misinterpreting something important, b) that all sides of the discussion are being fully considered, and c) there is a second layer of consensus as to whether there is in fact a first layer (that may have been a little unclear). These two RfA's probably could have benefited from at least a short discussion amongst crats. However, I do believe that in spite of the lack of discussion these closes were appropriate. In the case of Bsadowski's, most of the opposition was focused on the lack of article editing, but a few other (what I consider to be) more serious concerns: HJ Mitchell pointed out "You have more edits to your own userpage than [...] any discussion page in any namespace"; zzuuzz pointed out a substantial lack of experience in several areas; perhaps most importantly, Tiptoety pointed out he had been removed as an SPI clerk despite claiming SPI as his best contribution to the project. While those more serious concerns are serious, they did not constitute a major focus in the oppose section, and there were not many people switching their !votes to a more negative viewpoint. On Connormah's, the major concern was unreferenced BLP's. As noted, this came up shortly after a wide-spread community focus on this, and indicated a more serious concern than a simple lack of experience; to whit, a misunderstanding/misapplication of policy. While there was vote-switching in both directions, there were a significant number of people in the neutral section that elected not to vote (or had gone neutral then switched to oppose later) as a result of those concerns. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The closing bureaucrat wrote at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bsadowski1:

... I note that (as has been the case for a number of years) there remains no consensus as to whether a proven record of article-writing ability should be a prerequisite for a contributor to Wikipedia to become an administrator ...

The closing bureaucrat at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GorillaWarfare (70.7%) wrote:

To quote WJBScribe, "there remains no consensus as to whether a proven record of article-writing ability should be a prerequisite for a contributor to Wikipedia to become an administrator."

Several months later, an RfA participant wrote:

Last time I checked, the closing bureaucrats here have stated that "lack of content building" as an oppose rationale carries zero weight.

11. How much weight should be accorded to opposes based on lack of content creation? For example, if an RfA was in the discretionary zone, and many of the opposes referenced lack of content creation in their rationales, how much weight would you give such opposes? What weight would these opposes carry in relation to opposes based on (1) maturity, (2) inactivity, (3) lack of edit summaries, and (4) knowledge of policy?
A: As might be guessed by my own lack of content work, I don't think a simple lack of content work compared to other users is the most valid reason to oppose someone. What is more important for administrators (in my opinion) is a demonstration of understanding of policy, willingness and ability to communicate with others, and some basic experience in admin work. As far as I am aware, the issue of having X DYK's, Y GA's, and Z FA's as a requirement for adminship has not reached any consensus yet, or even a set ratio of content edits to other edits. However, it is not entirely invalid, and a lack of content work coupled with lack of other efforts to improve/help the encyclopedia is a big red flag. I'm rather hesitant to rank that particular argument against others, as if a significant number of editors commenting on an RFA feel it's a major concern, it probably is a major concern, but I'd probably rank knowledge of policy as the most important (as this covers issues like those raised in Connormah's RFA cited above, and more serious concerns like recent blocks), maturity as second (kinda covers ability to communicate, also general responsibility with the tools), edit summaries and content roughly tied for third (edit summaries also covers communication), and inactivity as last (as while it may make judging quality of work difficult, it in no way impacts one's ability to click a delete button - however a pattern of disappearing shortly after controversial actions would be a more serious concern). However, this is all very relative and dependent on the specific circumstances of each RfA. In Bsadowski1's case, he had demonstrated great responsibility and dedication to other projects, which helped offset the lack of content work. In GorillaWarfare's case, there were a number of opposers who stated their opposition was weak, and a number of the supporters directly addressed the content issue. Had the opposition is a bit more forceful and/or there were other issues brought up besides content work (there were a few in GW's, but no major themes that I saw), that RfA may have had a different result. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Cunard
12. What is your opinion about vote-striking during and after an RfX? Refer to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 12#Nichalp actions in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Redmarkviolinist 3, Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 16#Vote striking by a crat, reversal by a noncrat and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 16#Guidelines and strikings and !votes, oh my.
A: After an RfX is closed, votes should not be stricken, as the page needs to be maintained as a record or archive of what happened. During an RfX, any user is welcome to strike or change their own !vote at any time, of course; further, users striking !votes from accounts belonging to vandals, sockpuppeteers, etc. is appropriate; banned/blocked users aren't welcome to comment per the blocking policy, and vandals by definition aren't around to usefully contribute. However, strikings of the sort you're referring to should be avoided, except in extreme cases; this causes undue drama, and in general, users reviewing a RFA are capable of identifying obvious crap !votes on their own. Taking these one at a time - Nichalp's striking of Richard Cavell's vote (first link) was probably inappropriate. While I agree that the specific examples used in Cavell's oppose were not the best to choose from, most especially the picture, I can see that the point he was trying to get across was something similar to WP:NOTNOW - the candidate clearly was having some difficulty understanding how Wikipedia worked and had some maturity issues. A more appropriate response would have been to ask him to refactor his comment to make that point clearer, and use examples more relevant to adminship (the AfD links probably could have remained). The second link, with Bibliomaniac15 striking Peter Damian's !vote, I feel was appropriate, as the !vote was nothing but an attack and possibly a threat of some kind; there was no basis whatsoever in the candidate's contributions to the project or their qualifications as a potential administrator. Furthermore, Biblio's explaination at [2] was very thorough. Rank incivility is inappropriate in a forum that is supposed to be a reasoned discussion. The third link isn't a separate incident of itself, but a very well-thought-out comment/speech by Avi about the appropriateness of striking votes in various circumstances; I agree completely with his assessment of the situation. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Additional question from Cunard

13. How would have closed the following RfAs? (successful, unsuccessful, bureaucrat discussion, or extension) If you intend to initiate a bureaucrat discussion, would your opinion be to promote or fail the candidate?
a. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GorillaWarfare – closed as successful on 16 August 2010 at (87/36/8) at 70.7%
b. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bsadowski1 – closed as successful on 28 July 2010 at (75/29/8) at 72.1%
c. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Davemeistermoab – closed as successful on 11 July 2009 at (69/33/4) at 67.6%
d. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/^demon 3 – closed as successful on 23 February 2008 at (89/52/14) at 63.1%
e. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Logan – closed as unsuccessful on 21 May 2011 at (76/29/4) at 72.4%
f. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Slon02 3 – closed as unsuccessful on 12 March 2011 at (45/19/10) at 70.3%
g. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GiantSnowman – closed as unsuccessful on 21 January 2011 at (76/36/10) at 67.9%
h. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ling.Nut – closed as unsuccessful on 3 November 2010 at (113/63/7) at 64.2%
i. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Connormah 2 – closed as unsuccessful on 17 July 2010 at (88/30/11) at 74.6%
j. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Thing That Should Not Be 2 – closed as unsuccessful on 26 October 2010 at (123/59/21) at 67.6%
k. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2 – closed as successful on 10 May 2011 at (166/63/10) at 72.5%
A: Due to the relatively low support percentage of each of these, I'd probably start a discussion on all of them unless otherwise noted below (again, I certainly would as I started out as a bureaucrat, but even once I'd gotten some proper experience under my belt I don't think I'd close any of these on my own per my previous comments (unless noted otherwise)).
A / GorillaWarfare: Discuss with opinion towards accepting. As discussed above, the primary concerns with this one are the lack of content work and large number of automated edits. There are a substantial number of support votes that meaningfully explain their rationales, many addressing those very concerns.
B / Bsadowski1: Discuss with opinion towards accepting as discussed above.
C / Davemeistermoab: Discuss with opinion against accepting. The low percentage aside, the concerns initially raised by Ottava are concerning, and there were a number of opposes referring to a lack of experience in relevant areas.
D / ^demon 3: Discuss with opinion towards accepting but open to being convinced otherwise. This one's a bit odd, because as WJB pointed out in the closing, it wasn't a "start-from-scratch" RfA - they'd been an admin before and resigned without being under a cloud. Thus I agree that the bar should be set a bit lower for this particular RfA. As further noted in the close statement, a lot of the opposes fail to offer concrete evidence of any of the assertions, and there's a good number that are simply "per X". However, the diffs provided by hmwith and indications that that was not an isolated incident would have given me pause.
E / Logan: Discuss with opinion against accepting, possibly close as unsuccessful of own accord. Many of the opposes focus on, in a word, maturity, or more properly an apparent lack of it. As I mentioned above, maturity is a fairly important consideration when reviewing admin candidates, and the oppose !vote left by Ironholds carried a lot of weight on both sides of the aisle.
F / Slon02 3: Close as unsuccessful, possibly discuss with that in mind. The opposers all focus fairly heavily on CSD mistaggings, and that's mentioned a fair bit in the support section as well. The support percentage is also very low, and the number of support votes is not very high for a 2011 RfA.
G / GiantSnowman: Close as unsuccessful. This is a fair bit below the general minimum threshold, and there are a good number of apparently justified concerns regarding CSD mistaggings and other policy misapplications.
H / Ling.Nut: Close as unsuccessful. This is well below the general minimum threshold, and unlike ^demon's 3rd RFA, there are diffs here showing evidence of insults and other poor attitude. Given that a fair number of supports do address the civility concerns, I may check with another crat first, but this seems pretty clear-cut.
I / Connormah 2: Discuss with opinion against accepting. As discussed above, the primary concern here is policy application, a fairly major concern.
J / The Thing That Should Not Be 2: Close as unsuccessful. The maturity and experience concerns are most prevalent, although there are a fair number of concerns about the lack content work as well. While, as I said before, I'd usually not count that as much, many of them are noting that those concerns were raised in four previous RfAs and had not been addressed. All this in conjunction with the low support percentage would result in an unsuccessful close.
K / SarekOfVulcan 2: Discuss with opinion towards accepting. As with ^demon's, this is a reconfirmation RFA, so I'd consider the bar to be a little lower than usual. Furthermore, a number of the opposes have nothing to do with the candidate but are opposing simply due to the RFA being a reconfirmation. While there is a very strong focus on using admin tools whilst involved in the oppose section, I'm having a hard time picking out any other issues in the opposes, and there were a number of votes changed in a more positive direction, which is encouraging.

Help with Robina Suwol

Hersfold- Really appreciated your genuine desire to help and guidance. I don't know where things took an altered course but Iam certain I just ruined the Robina Suwol page. Given my lousy track record, in spite of your help. I will cease editing, if you can assist or direct me on how to fix it. Finally, I would like to share that your swift response to my inquiry and request for help and your knowledge of proper protocol and process for Wikipedia makes you more than deserving for any position you are seeking or being considered. Thanks Hersfold, I can admit that I am unqualified to edit, and just wish to undue any harm I may have done to an individual who has done such great work.CentralAbe (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)CentralAbe

Woah, hang on there. This is Wikipedia - even if an article actually does get completely blown up, it's a matter of a few seconds to undo whatever damage was done, and certainly doesn't mean you're unqualified to edit. WP:UNDO explains how you can undo your own or other's edits as needed. In this particular case, the problem was caused by the insertion of a pair of <ref> </ref> tags that had nothing between them. I've removed these now ([3]) and the article's back to normal. No harm was done, don't worry about it. If you run into trouble again, let me know or post a {{helpme}} template on your user talk page. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

May I...

...copy edit your nom statement pl? You could undo if you believe it's not productive - or you could just refuse here. Simple grammar updations... Wifione ....... Leave a message 03:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, carry on. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, I did the copy edit; but was promptly reverted by Worm, who communicated he'd wish you to make changes rather than somebody else :) I guess that's the end of my vainglorious effort :) Best wishes for the cratship. Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Smithsonian Archives of American Art Backstage Pass

Archives of American Art Backstage Pass! - You are invited!
The Smithsonian is hosting its first Backstage Pass at the Archives of American Art on Friday, July 29. 10 Wikimedians will experience the behind the scenes aspects of archiving the world's largest collection of documents and photographs related to American art. After a complimentary lunch, an edit-a-thon will take place and prizes will be awarded. Followed by an evening happy hour. We hope you'll participate! SarahStierch (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, unfortunately I don't think I can make it. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

GLAM-Wiki Baltimore meetup

You are invited to the first Wikipedia Baltimore meetup on Saturday, July 23, 10:00am-12:30pm at the Walters Art Museum. Come meet Wikimedians, learn about GLAM-Wiki partnerships, get involved, and discuss future wiki outreach and activities in the Baltimore area!

There also is a Wikipedia & Cultural Heritage at the Young Preservationist Happy Hour on Friday, July 22, 6:30pm at the Midtown Yacht Club, an unpretentious neighborhood pub.

Note: You can remove your name from the Baltimore meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

July 17-31

Sorry about that...

Sorry to see you're taking heat because you said you'd lean support on SarekOfVulcan 2. But thanks. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, it's not your fault; if it turns out that I don't get crat because of my answers to those questions, it's most certainly not the end of the world. I'll still have plenty to do all the same. Thanks for your support! Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

ArbClerkBot and Tree shaping

Hey Hersfold. Now that Tree shaping is over, how exactly would we go about removing it from User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length reports? NW (Talk) 02:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The bot should remove it once it's set to "closed" on ArbComOpenTasks... I'm not sure why it's still showing there. I'll have to take a look at the code and figure that out. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Operator error ;-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Not having to do anything for the bot to work = fantastic. NW (Talk) 04:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

Congratulations!

I see that your RfB is about to end and it is clear that it is going to pass, so congratulations! NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 19:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's not as clear as you may think - RfB's usually need at least 90% to be a clear pass. Mine is currently well within the "crat's discretion" range at around 85%. If I were to guess, it's probably going to be a little late closing as the crats think it over. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
oh okay, didn't know that RfBs were more intense than RfAs. But since you actually made it, again, congrats! NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 04:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Out until roughly midnight UTC

About to board a flight, so in the event there are any issues with the RfB, I'm out until after the scheduled closing time. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You are now a bureaucrat

Congratulations - I have closed your RfB as successful and you are now a bureaucrat. Please don't hesitate contact me if I can be of any help with regard to your new tools. Best, WJBscribe (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations :). Have fun, Airplaneman ✈ 23:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Good for you Hersfold. :) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 23:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Congrats Mlpearc powwow 23:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Nice! Congratulations! Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Yay, thanks, all! Now for the traditional thankspam... Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
...or not. I've been advised that doing so will probably just annoy 120-odd people, so I'll leave a general thank you note here. Thanks to everyone who supported, I appreciate your confidence in me and I'll be sure to make thousands of vandals into admins make wise decisions once I get my RfA experience back up. To those to opposed, thanks for the feedback, and I'll do my best to address your concerns as I wield the wrench. Thanks, everyone! Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Congrats, and you're welcome. :-) You know, if you want to be the shortest b'crat on record, you could go give the bit to [redacted] and [redacted]... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, yes. Now he can rename Jimbo. --Σ talkcontribs 06:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Congrats! I think you'll make a fine 'crat. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I was following your RfB and really pulling for you, it made me happy to see it succeed. I'd say good luck but you won't need it, you'll be great. -- Atama頭 06:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Many apologies for having missed your RfB, but also even more congratulations. Dougweller (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Contratulations, but you'll have to get a new lolcat for your page notice . Mjroots (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Let me add my congrats. While I didn't do enough homework to cast a !vote, I was following it, and happy to see the result. Good Luck.--SPhilbrickT 12:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Again, thanks everyone! Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the team. I name-dropped you on BN. There's a sparsely-used mailing list - it's almost exclusively for RTV stuff that can't be discussed onwiki for privacy reasons. If you'd like to join it, you're welcome, but there's no compulsion. Other Crats have, in the past, opted not to, and there's enough of us on there (see the chart on WP:CRAT) to handle the meagre amount of traffic. Up to you. --Dweller (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I was actually wondering about that; I think I would like to sign up, just in case I need it for anything. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Heh, I'm clueless what a bureaucrat is, but congrats anyways! Hurricanefan25 tropical cyclone 16:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Congrats :) Wifione ....... Leave a message 19:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Congratulations. Even though I did wind up opposing you because of Q15, I can't say that the success of you candidacy distresses me. I think you'll do good work with the robot army and all. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Bureaucrat

★ T-shirt of the Bureaucracy ★
Congratulations. I'm sure you will do great as a bureaucrat, as you have been at everything else. --Σ talkcontribs 02:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the shirt and the well wishes! Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Congrats Hersfold :) sorry I didn't make your RfB! Decided to persue it after all those years, eh? Keep up the good work! :) —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:43am • 23:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

FUI

This is just a reminder. If a motto has been used multiple times it should be under or added to Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Frequently used ideas. Simply south...... improving for 5 years So much for ER 08:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The WikiProject National Archives Newsletter

The first ever WikiProject National Archives newsletter has been published. Please read on to find out what we're up to and how to help out! There are many opportunities for getting more involved. Dominic·t 21:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you do me the courtesy

of conveying to the Arbitration Committee my personal thanks for their recent decision in my regard? I hope they will not have any further occasion to see my mug around, except if by happenchance they stumble across one of the pages I will edit towards the ends of an encyclopedia. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure they understand, but I'll pass it on when I get the chance. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

RE's RfA

I've seen these guys (or this guy, more likely) before, but I can't put my finger on it. I don't suppose you can shed any light on it? Congrats on the RfB, btw, I'm sure you'll make a fine 'crat. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :-). It's 4chan, we've been discussing it on IRC, which is why I was a few seconds behind you each time. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I shoulda known! Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

AlimNaz

Err...could you tell me why did you block this user? Going through your contributions, I don't seem to witness any sockpuppet investigation case either. Sorry if this question annoys you, as it's none of my business really, but I was just a bit curious (having engaged in dialogue and interacted numerous times with this user over the past few days, found this a bit unexpected). Mar4d (talk) 09:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

When doing a checkuser scan on a network range for an unrelated account request, I noticed that AlimNaz's data matched that of another sockpuppeteer. I blocked the account, and then a few minutes later got an email from AlimNaz confirming that he was socking. Apparently he felt that if a block was inappropriate, it would be ok for him to create another account to evade it :-/
Sorry, I know that blocks like this sometimes come out of the blue, but in this particular case the user in question has confessed to it. I've given them instructions on how to appeal the block, but so far I haven't seen anything. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Could you check whether User:Mirwais Hotak is related to this person? This 'new' user has just over 100 edits (and first edited in July 28), seems to be editing similiar Pashtun-related topics, has a similiar command of the English language, and also seems to be experienced in Wikipedia. Sort of odd for a new user. Mar4d (talk) 09:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Little fibbers

Kinda interesting how AlDafna picked exactly the day checkuser data expired to claim innocence... --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've always been a bit suspicious of timing like that... Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The Wikistalk results are pretty compelling. --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, there's also little idiosyncrasies in the edit summaries that are screaming "I'm a sock!" The only person I've ever heard use cf. on a regular basis was my AP Lit teacher in high school. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Robina Suwol help

Thank you for your help on the Robina Suwol page and for fixing what I had unintentionally ruined. I should have contacted you directly, but didnt want to keep bothering you. I want to avoid errors and follow protocol. I posted request for help specific to citations, and now citations have been removed and the article appears to have been significantly edited. I could not locate name of recent editor or would have contacted them directly and not bothered you. Can this be fixed?Thanks

Hello again. If you want to see who has made recent edits to a page, click on the "View History" tab at the top right hand side of a page. It'll show all recent edits. See Help:Page history for more information. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Evidence length

Hi Hersfold, please see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee#Evidence_length. Thanks, --JN466 10:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

workshop

Hi , I have been laying out some proposals on the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466/Workshop - as you likely can see, I have never posted to a workshop page before. Please let me know if I have miss-posted or violated anything, and I will gladly correct it, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

They look ok to me. It is a bit early, though; only you and Jayen have presented evidence, and Cirt hasn't even been online since a few days before the case opened. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
All the diffs were laid out recently in the RFC user, and having already had a month to look at and assess them, I don't see what the need is for delay. If you ask I will happily remove the proposals until a later date - what are the usual time guidelines/limits? Off2riorob (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
No, they're fine, leave them there. There's no real schedule for workshop, it's intended to go along with the evidence phase. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Scid

I will without question defer to your greater expertise, in that you have checkuser option and I do not (although in my primary task of defending the wiki it would unquestionably be useful to me). This user is an occasional editor with an editing history extending back over several years; he clearly saw a block message, and I assumed it was a rangeblock; his history shows a previous capture by one. He did specifically ask for an IPexemption, which I venture to suggest indicates a specific need. He is clearly not a vandal, at least not in this current account. I saw no harm in granting an IPBE, but please feel free to point out any harm you feel I have done.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no harm, and I'm sorry if I implied that - it's just that I'd already commented that there were no blocks facing this user. I'll go ahead and remove the IPBE, but hopefully we can help them sort out whatever the problem is. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

DC Meetup, July 29

DC Meetup 21 - Who should come? You should. Really.
DC MEETUP 21 is July 29! This meet up will involve Wikipedians from the area as well as Wiki-loving GLAM professionals. See you Friday! SarahStierch (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Sarah overwrote my last message; I assume it was accidental. I have re-inserted it, with Sarah's message in correct sequence. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

Case opened

Hersfold, could you add here that one of the cases has now in fact opened? I don't see that noted anywhere on the page. Thanks. --JN466 15:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I meant to do that, and forgot. Thanks for the reminder. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Another thing is that we appear to have contradictory information as to the evidence submission period. Roger's post 19:18, 17 July 2011, appears to indicate 7 days, if I understand it correctly, while his post 11:15, 21 July 2011 links to the target timetable, which specifies 2 weeks. I'll assume the later post supersedes the former, and the 2-week limit applies. --JN466 05:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The standard timetable is two weeks for evidence (ending August 7), an additional one week for workshop (ending August 14), and one week for the Committee to vote on the Proposed Decision (case closing August 21). This is what is expected, but may change a bit as we proceed. I've been instructed to follow the standard timetable for this case, so unless and until instructed otherwise, that's what we'll be following. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Hersfold, that's what I thought. --JN466 20:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Robina Suwol Page Hersfold the page has fallen apart. Can you assist.I don't know or have any connection to Robina Suwol. Just know she's done good work to protect school kids. Ironic, thought I would help and add references. Page is really worse than when tried to help. Orange Mike questioned the credibility and unbiased writing of editors. There is no basis fre such a comment since the page cites references.Feeling like recent blast of comments and edits are seeking to discredit the individual and their work.Suggestions? Thanks Hersfold CentralAbe (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)CentralAbe

DC-area Meetup, Saturday, August 6

National Archives Backstage Pass - Who should come? You should. Really.
On Saturday, August 6, the National Archives is hosting a Wikipedia meetup, backstage pass tour, and edit-a-thon in College Park, Maryland. Meet staff and fellow Wikipedians, go behind the scenes at the National Archives, help digitize documents, and edit together! Dominic·t 21:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

For your orientation, Wikipedia:Help desk#Need to have a comment I made redacted due to the threat of legal action involves an alleged legal threat apparently coming from a user you once listed in a checkuser report. The alleged threat was not directed at you and the threat sounds silly to me but I'm not a lawyer. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused. What do I need to do exactly? I don't see that I've ever had involvement with the user there either - I took a look at the SPI linked at the Help Desk and they're not listed there. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
It was just for you orientation. Nobody has asked you to do anything and you don't need to do anything. Alxxthegeek posted the diff [12] which shows the accusation of multiple accounts was directed at User:ID092833535 whom you listed as a sock in [13]. The whole thing looks silly to me. If there really is a legal threat then I don't know whether you can be dragged into it. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Ohhhkay. The whole thing does seem rather odd. I'll keep an eye on it I suppose. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:08, 29 July 2011 (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.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Replied. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Help Request

Hello, a few days ago you intervened on a "sockpuppet" investigation. During that, it was stated that the creator of the article Knight Communications, LTD (UK) had been using the same IP as I and therefore was likely to be a "sockpuppet."

  • Could you please recheck the IPs which you had listed for this user against mine, as I assure you, i do not know this person, nor do I have any association with that UserID.
  • I am using the free service BT Openzone here in London, as I am in London as a Parliamentary advisor.
  • I hold a Doctorate, and do not need to resort to such antics, as my name and reputation are of utmost importance to myself.

Please, if you would be so kind, take a moment to recheck the information. I do not know how OpenZone allocates their IPs but can assure you User:AmieRoseLong and myself are two completely unrelated people; however, I did speak to John Laird, Baron Laird and he has confirmed that there was a person by the name of Amie Long at the Parliamentary investigation where Knight Communications was queried in June.

Thank you AKnight2B (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

My rechecking the data is not going to change anything. The two of you were sharing an IP address; this could be due to you using the same computer, or it could be two different computers in the same location. Either way, it does indicate that there is either one person behind both of these accounts, or there are two people with access to the same network. Beyond my technical review, blocks for sockpuppetry are also placed based on behavioral evidence. As noted at the SPI investigation, the two of you were editing the same articles within hours of each other. This greatly reduces the chance of this being simple coincidence, and is why you were blocked. To be honest, your qualifications or the titles of your colleague really mean nothing to me, as my actions are based on what I have in front of me. Your block has since expired, so I recommend at this point that you move on and continue editing normally. If this was a false identification, then I apologize, and I am sure that will be demonstrated by your constructive edits to the project. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

GW

I've replied on the SPI page. It's a little difficult for me to do much from here - my internet connection has been "shaped", and by the time it has lifted, I'll have left for Wikimania. Orderinchaos 01:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hersfold, can I ask your opinion on whether Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GorillaWarfare should have been deleted? G7 doesn't seem to be appropriate, and I'm not sure about allowing administrators to delete mistaken SPIs they've initiated.  -- Lear's Fool 03:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really fit, no, but I'm not going to complain about it. It's not as though deleting the page completely removes things from the record anyway. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Echigo mole - A.K.Nole

I have sent you an email about the SPI report, containing information which I cannot disclose on wikipedia. Since apparently you don;t have access to data on accounts blocked in early April, I have sent an email to checkusers on ArbCom who are familiar with the issues of long term wikihounding and outing by the sockpuppets of A.K.Nole. Perhaps you were also unaware of separate very recent issues of outing by Mikemikev where outing occurred in two sockpuppet usernames and by an IP on ANI. These were removed by various checkusers and oversighters (Fred Bauder and Casliber, amongst others) In this case--in particular the three recently blocked accounts of A.K.Nole (Holding Ray, Zarboublian, Julian Birdbath) in late March and early April--Julian Birdbath was also involved in a different kind of outing, also dealt with by ArbCom and Shell Kinney. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I replied. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Re:LiteralKa proposal

I proposed what I did because we appear to be deadlocked on whether not to have an indef block. If you can get the support for the indef block to stick, go right ahead. If not, I'd get on board my suggestion...as I outline on WP:ANI, he's bound to sock or violate his terms eventually, and that'll give you your indef block Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hersfold/Archive_55_(July_2011)&oldid=1144607874"