Jump to content

User talk:Hersfold/Archive 74 (February 2013)

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


← Previous archive - Archive 74 (February 2013) - Next archive →

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

Thanks for helping with socks and COI/BLPs

Hersfold, Thanks for your help with Maxwell_C._Hall, Maxwell_C_Hall, User:ILoveWiki955, User:AlexTJ86, and User:MaxHall1994. I really appreciate your willingness to hear my explanations of the issues and to help. I also would like to thank you for the advice you gave this user. I totally agree with you that not using a bunch of templates for this circumstance was the right thing to do and I was happily amazed that you spent the time to craft all of that language for this specific circumstance. Perhaps I'll see you around WP again sometime. Thanks again. - ʈucoxn\talk 09:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Quite welcome. I'll see you around. :-) Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 17:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

Content deleted for copyright concerns

Hi, Hersfold. Speaking purely and solely as Moonriddengirl, I hope that the committee will consider the temporary restoration of this content under appropriate blanking template. We currently have dozens of articles blanked (some for months) at WP:CP. While there may be some additional legal jeopardy for the editor who restores that content (who may then become guilty of contributory infringement), I feel confident enough that (a) the lack of actual publication and (b) the clearly transformative intent of the investigation would provide protection that I would comfortably restore them so myself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, I think we've worked out a way to handle this to minimize the impact as much as possible. I actually just sent a summary of the plan to the arbcom list for a "final review, speak now or forever hold your peace." I'll send you a copy as well so we've got some more experienced eyes on it, but I'm fairly sure it should work. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 21:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Anthony77600

Since you looked at the unblocks, could I get you to take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations#Quick CheckUser requests? The hardblock didn't stop the socking, yet, he is still obviously using that IP address based on his unblock request. I'm confused.—Kww(talk) 17:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I dropped by with an explanation for you. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Looks like DQ's handling it. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

RAN

I'm off to work pretty quick here, will get back to you with the list of RAN pieces with histories wiped at the time of restarting.

I've bumped into a wiped history for the Copyright Problems board WP:CP. The edit history only goes back to 2005, but the board archive lists a few things as early as 2002. If that 2002-2005 history could be located, that would be of interest, I'm trying to untangle the institutional history of WP's copyvio rules and practices for addressing copyvio. Thanks very much! — Tim /// Carrite (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) FWIW, the earliest coding I see of copyvio rules are here. I haven't checked to see when it first entered, but a spot-check of 2004 ([1]) shows that issues have been listed at CP for some time, although at its earlier title. The oldest edit I find there is 2003: [2]. At least then, the rules seemed similar - remove unless you can verify license; block people who won't stop. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah. I doubt you'll find anything more historical than this. :)
The practice in the U.S. Wikipedia when one of us discovers an article (or part of one) that has been copied from a webpage (or printed source, for that matter, although that's rare) is to remove that material immediately, post a notice in its place that it has been removed for suspicion of copyright infringement (and include the URL for the website), and let the contributor show either proof it is not copyrighted or proof of permission from the copyright holder to include it in the 'pedia -- and that does not apply only to webpages in English or originating in the U.S. If the contributor does not do so, the material stays out; if a contributor keeps posting suspicious material without proving it's not infringing a copyright, that contributor is blocked. This is an issue on which there is no room for negotiation: When in doubt, leave it out.
[3] --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, you two. The history of how copyright has been handled on Wikipedia will definitely be central to this case, and I was planning on doing one of those crowd-sourced evidence sections on it if nobody posted it on their own. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Gosh! Just think what skeletons might come tumbling out of the cupboard! :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)\\

Wiped histories

Here are the pulled-blanked-and-restarted pages for which I need to read the original histories so as to assess what was done and when in terms of copyvio:

I may be missing one, I see 9 at the moment... Thanks. Carrite (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh goodie, I was hoping the pages were still deleted, this'll be fun. Thanks, I'll start working on getting these loaded up. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Done all of them except for Infanticide, as that page has never been deleted and you only mentioned eight in the CCI mentioned above anyway. If you do have any more that you'd like restored, please link to them in the section on the Evidence page. The remaining four articles will be selected from the ones the parties request. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Doncram evidence question

I note there are a couple of sections of Doncram's evidence that don't have any supporting diffs -- will those be removed, as you suggested might happen on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Evidence#Question for clerks or arbs? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll check with the Committee on it, but taking a quick glance at it it's likely some of them will be. Some of the evidence sections seem to be more commentary than actual evidence - which I personally don't think is appropriate for an Evidence page, but historically those tend to be permitted - but others (looking at Orlady has egged on several combative-type editors against me right now) make actual assertions with no evidence, and that's almost certainly inadmissible. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that was one of the sections I was thinking of, along with "Consequences of longterm attacking undermine Wikipedia in several ways that really do matter". Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I pointed out those two sections along with two others in my email. I'm honestly not quite sure what he's getting at in the one you mention, though. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 18:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

Talkback

Hello, Hersfold. You have new messages at 108.28.162.125's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

108.28.162.125 (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Kindly take a look at my suggestions concerning this IP (who is User:Kumioko) on the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Eh. If they refuse to abide by policy, then I'll likely just block the IP. If they do intend to do a clean start, they're more than welcome to do so, but editing as an IP isn't really the way to do it. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Do whatever you feel like Hersfold. I didn't do anything wrong so I have nothing to apologize for. I made good edits including those in discussions and made it intentionally obvious who I was. In the end my passion for the project was largely extinguished so if you feel that my edits are not wanted then feel free to show that. I wanted to be a benefit to the project and a useful editor because I believe in the project but the majority of editors jsut think I am a troll and a vandal and can't be trusted so I no longer see a reason to prove them wrong. Its just part of the toxic culture of the pedia. Partly my fault for giving in but after 6 years I am tired of the BS and being told I can't be trusted by a bunch of kids. I would have been a useful contributor for a long time to come but there is a price to pay for repeatedly telling a user they can't be trusted so I am just the most recent of a long line of useful contributors who was run off by the community's antics. I only hope that one day they figure it out and change their ways. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, feeling sorry for yourself isn't a policy-supported justification for sockpuppetry. Get over it and follow the same rules everyone else has to follow, you're not as special as you seem to think you are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You're probably going to get some static for your block of 108...125 (Kumioko), but I think it was the right call. I still have hopes that he will come to understand that his current position is untenable and not supported by Wikipedia policy. We shall see. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, the first part "feeling sorry for yourself ... get over it" is a bit rude and disrespectful, plus he wasn't talking to you. The last bit "you're not as special as you think you are" was uncivil. This is Colton Cosmic.

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

Re: Unblock Reviewing

Well, I've managed to get many "username" blocks lifted but if it is causing a problem then i'll will post my comments on the bottem of the page. –BuickCenturyDriver 03:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

That's fine; I don't want to discourage you from commenting on the blocks, but the templates are used by administrators and bots to track when an administrator has actually reviewed the block. Thanks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject Articles for creation Needs You!

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1st, 2013 – March 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

Delivered by User:EdwardsBot on behalf of Wikiproject Articles for Creation at 13:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hersfold/Archive_74_(February_2013)&oldid=1143046382"