Jump to content

User talk:Hersfold/Archive 47 (November 2010)

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


← Previous archive - Archive 47 (November 2010) - Next archive →

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

Re: Question

Is there some reason you're creating additional accounts? Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

What? Additional accounts? The last username left was taken (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, User:(Abuse of our Username policy) was created from your computer a few days ago. Wikipedia's policies don't allow users to operate more than one account except in very narrowly defined cases. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
According to what, CheckUser? The last username left was taken (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello , The last username left was taken; I am not a checkuser but, the Checkuser you are addressing here left This link on your talk page to the policy page that explains the use of multiple accounts. Cheers. Mlpearc powwow 15:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I am aware of the multiple account policy. However, I was confused about the existence of the account. The last username left was taken (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, according to technical evidence from checkuser. I'll ask again; why are you creating multiple accounts? Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Several of the IP addresses that I edit from are shared between multiple people, it's possible that one of them created it. The last username left was taken (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
This was created from your computer; not just your IP address. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think so. Checkuser only determines IP addresses, so I don't see how you can assert that it was my computer anyway. The last username left was taken (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Without getting in to technical detail, you're incorrect about what a checkuser check does. If Hersfold says it came from your computer, it did. Shell babelfish 12:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh I see, a matching user-agent and XFF as well? All of these were the same? The last username left was taken (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes. This is what we call a  Confirmed result. Now I'm losing patience. Why are there additional accounts coming from your computer. Your evasiveness is making me extremely suspicious. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello again The last username left was taken, Checkusers are "expected" to monitor, seek out and investigate situations just like this. Just a FYI it would be in your best interest to comply and answer all query's addressed to you by Hersfold and any other Checkuser for that matter. Mlpearc powwow 16:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Pseudo-unblock request

See User talk:Bsadowski1. This user is requesting an unblock, arguing that he shares an IP with some other individuals. I note that the contributions of this user seem to be OK. Was there further evidence from CU results (like UA) that conclusively showed that this was the same user? I'm not contesting your block I'm just asking you to take a look at it again; I'm well aware you are privy to much more information than I am here; I'm just passing the note along. Thanks, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm very certain. User:Those Kids is one of almost a dozen accounts all running from the same IP address with the same unusual useragent. If they want to be unblocked, he'll need to email the unblock or functionaries lists, and stop evading his block with other IP addresses (which I've already told him to do). Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a proxy

  • Hello Hersfold... FYI on User talk:LS C HIST, please take note that User:218.188.3.66 is a not a proxy. Using a third-party program, I've been able to traced the IP's visit to several sites in Hong Kong (including a prominent Uni), several of which are all related to the school the kid is thought to be studying in (institution name hereby withheld for security reasons) and had made several passing comments about his/her school from as far back as in 2003 and 2006. Another thing, I'm not sure if I should raise this now but does User:Instantnood and User:ColourWolf ring a bell? Like I said, I'm not sure so don't shoot me if I got my hunch wrong. Best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 19:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • BTW, User:Scania N113 is thought to be a throw-away SPA of his as he pretended not to know anything about Scania N113 while deliberately asking an Administrator a legit question → here ←. I think this is now a no brainer, eh? Best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 20:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I wasn't 100% certain about the IP; for some reason it looked kinda suspicious to me (although I can't remember why now). The Scania account was weird, I wouldn't call it a SPA because it does have some other edits later on, and it's rather well-used for a throw-away account. :-/ Either way, he's not the best socker, as claiming you know nothing about an account when they repeatedly show up on your IP address AND share the same interests is rather fail. As for Instantnood and ColourWolf, what exactly is causing your bell to ring? As they were banned back in 2007, there's not much I can do with them checkuser-wise. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • If you think there is a concern, then go ahead and list them on Possibly Unfree Files, as I can see you've done for at least one. However, I'm not so sure this is a big issue aside from the simple matter of duplication; as he created the files based on a blank map that I'm pretty sure is either PD or CC/GFDL multilicensed, he's ok as long as they remain multilicensed (in the latter case only, in the former he can declare whatever he wants on it). The maps are available on Commons somewhere, just search for "blank world map". Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Wasn't me. Not my style. I'm a Wikipedian. The Transhumanist 03:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I got your email, sorry for not replying. Thanks for the response, we've since closed the case. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

Response

Any chance you can point me in the right direction then (re: your response below)? Is there another template I need for my situation and what is "clear"? Thanks. 75.55.215.5 (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason: "You're not editing from that IP address, so it's irrelevant, but it's also clear. Please only use this template for requesting unblocks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)"
I replied to your question - that IP address isn't blocked, which is what I meant by "clear". As for checking to see whether or not something is blocked, you can look up the address here or simply try to edit from it. I'm not sure what you're after, aside from that. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hello, thank you for providing feedback at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pricer1980, and I had a follow-up question in regard to the accounts' underlying IP addresses. It can be seen here. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia DC Meetup 13

You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #13 on Wednesday, November 17, from 7 to 9 pm, location to be determined (but near a Metro station in DC).

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can join the mailing list.

You can remove your name from future notifications of Washington DC Meetups by editing this page: Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List.
BrownBot (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Unprotection

Cresix (talk · contribs) requested protection at RFPP for the article Alexis Jordan (singer), this is complety unnecessary since I've already added sources. So I request unprotection since it is not justified now. TbhotchTalk C. 04:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: (User talk:ais523) Javascript update

Your code would have worked, but the script was getting long and unmaintainable, so it's probably better for me to rewrite it rather than just add even more cases. I've refactored it so that new cases will be easy to add in future; it now also looks at the page's built-in JavaScript variables to see which server it's on, and aims the links there. (Thus, it won't now highlight links from the insecure to secure server, or vice versa, but will now work on any Wikimedia wiki, not just enwiki.) Thanks for bringing this to my attention! --ais523 15:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, very clever. And it looks like it's working. Thanks! Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

Deleted Article

Hi,

How are you? I am having a problem which you have half corrected. I made a defamatory article about a colleague of mine at work which was not supposed to go live.

You have however found the article and removed it. Which I am VERY thankful for.

My problem is that the old text still appears on Google when you search for either his name, or the title of the article on Google.

I was wandering if either yourself, or another person would be able to remove any traces whatsoever from Google (and any other search engines) so I can forget this whole debacle ever happened.

[I've removed the link to avoid further publicizing the deleted article. Of course it's available in the page history. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)]

and you can see the old text in the article here:

[Again, I've deleted this link, which given the way Google works, would actually raise the pagerank of the article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)]

Further to my initial problem, I forgot the password for the old user name (Beaver1000000), so I have made a new account which I am using now.

Any help or advice would be very much appreciated.

Thanks

Beaver2000000

Deleting the page is about as much as I can do in this regard; in general, if you don't want something to be posted, you should not be typing it into the edit box on Wikipedia, or indeed on any website. You're somewhat lucky I didn't block you for that article. In any event, if it's still in Google's cache, then in order to get the page removed you'll need to ask them to remove it; this page should help with that. As Brad pointed out above, you should also stop linking to and referring to the article entirely, as further links or mentions will simply make the page easier to locate. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have learnt my lesson the hard way and will not be entering anything that should not be on the internet on Wikipedia or any other site again.

I clicked onto the page that you suggested that could remove the content from the Google cache; it suggests that I contact the sites Webmaster to gain approval for the removal of any last traces on Google.

Would you be able to advise me of the next step in regards to communicating with the web master (if possible), or do i write straight to Google stating that the page has already been removed and please dont crawl it in future?

I do thank you for not blocking me, I understand what I have done wrong and will be sure not to do it again.

Thanks

We don't really have a webmaster in the traditional sense; since the page has been deleted here (which really is all Google is after anyway), you're welcome to submit the form asking them to remove it from their listings. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


Checkuser

Hey, could you look over User talk:ArtieWater and User talk:Arthur Water and see if the users need a CU? Thanks! Also please check your e-mail, I'll send you one about this. --Addihockey10e-mail 05:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I think a checkuser here would be unnecessary - the email you sent me appears to be an open admission that these accounts are controlled if not by the same person, at least from the same computer, which is all I'll be able to tell with CU anyway. It looks like this passes the duck test to me. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

Edit notice

Would it be okay if I copied your edit notice. I'm cool if you don't want to! But I just wnt to scare away vandals! Smiley4541 (Click to Talk) 00:55, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's fine... just change the picture. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request HersfoldCiteBot

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HersfoldCiteBot as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 03:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

Question

Hi Hersfold - I noticed this and I wondering if there is something wrong with the block notice or if I used the wrong one. Let me know. Thanks.  7  07:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I realized afterward that I'd misread things; since the block allowed him to make a new account (which he eventually did anyway) there really isn't a need for the unblock-un template. What you did was just fine and made things a lot easier, I just misunderstood stuff. Comes from doing three things at once, I think. Hersfold (t/a/c) 08:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Phew, thanks. I think the goal of the unblock template in the promosofter block is in case the user is trying to argue that their name is not promotional and/or not a company name. I agree that unblock-un isn't needed in that one because they can create a new username themselves. Regards.  7  09:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted page

Dear Hersfold, I'm here asking for a deleted page. Its name was リサルト (in japanese, there's an italian and english version named Risalto)...the problem is that i put it in the wrong wikipedia (the english one). Then i discovered that i cannot use my account on other country's wikipedias...I managed to create an english and an italian one...why can i create in those country and not in japan? I'd like to translate some pages also in French, German, Thai, Chinese and some other languages...how could i do that? thank you for the help. Teoporta (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I've found the deleted version of リサルト - if you enable your email in Special:Preferences, I can email you with the most recent version of the article.
You should be able to use the same account on multiple projects. Make sure that the accounts you've created on the English, Italian, and Japanese Wikipedias all share the same name and password, then see WP:SUL for more information on how to unify those accounts.
For more information about translation projects, see WP:TRANSL. I'm afraid I'm not really the best to ask about that. I hope all of this helps - let me know when you've enabled your email. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

{{Infobox musician awards}}

Hello Hersfold, remember me? Well I have come here with a particularly difficult request. The above template lists all teh awards received by a musician during his/her tenure. However, the template is exceedingly long, and most of the times contricts the award tables of the articles where it is present. So, since you are good with HTML coding, can you pleas add a collapsible feature on the template like "collapsed = yes" or something like that so that an editor can click on "show" and see the awards. Regards — Legolas (talk2me) 09:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I can, it's not very hard; to do this, all that is needed is to replace class="infobox" in the very first line with class="infobox collapsible collapsed", and then tweak the headers around so the [show] link doesn't pop up in a weird place. This diff [1] shows all the changes needed. I haven't done this on the live template, yet, however, as this would be a fairly major change to simply do. Was there a discussion for this anywhere? A change like this could easily change the layout of any page it appears on. Also, the infobox being inaccurate doesn't seem like a reason to make a change to the infobox, rather it seems like a reason to update the information it contains. I'm rather hesitant about adding this edit until there seems to be some sort of consensus for it. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Hersfold. Yes, there is a discussion going on, as soon as a consensus is reached for this, I will let you know to make the changes. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

HAPPY HOLIDAYS

Holiday Card from Mlpearc
HAPPY HOLIDAYS !
Wishing you and yours a very peaceful and joyous holiday season


Ambience

Thanks! Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Since your the second person to in-case the card I know how to post them in the future,lol thanks. Mlpearc powwow 20:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Christmas mottos

The motto idea for those between 25th December and mid January needs consensus dtermined on what should be used for which day or even whether the whole idea should be scrapped or postponed. Please help by discussion and determining consensus at WT:Motto of the day/Nominations#Christmas series and Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Specials. Simply south (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Open proxy user

Would you take a look at this user's talk page and, as requested, have a talk with the Iranian administrator? I think he's uncomfortable talking in English, and I don't know how to check for an open proxy. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I can ask Mardetanha to help translate, but until he's no longer editing from a proxy there isn't much to be done. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

F. Simon Grant vs Tao2911

I just thought I'd mention I think you were a little hasty/high-handed in taking Tao2911's side against F. Simon Grant. I can see why you thought F. Simon Grant deserved to be blocked, but I might argue that Tao2911 actually provoked the fight (it could be they both deserved to be blocked). Tao2911 lead off accusing Grant of posting "nonsense" (when it was actually pretty reasonable), Tao2911 kept repeating obvious things about how references are important, and yet kept ignoring any references we pointed him at, and so on. It's certainly too bad that Grant took Tao2911's bait, but now the result is I'm stuck working with a troll, and one of the guys who was actually willing to do the hard work of tracking down references has been driven off. -- Doom (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't take "sides". I extended Grant's block because he was evading it for the purposes of continuing his harassment. Regardless of whatever provoked it, conduct such as that is unacceptable. If he was willing to put as much effort into making a sincere unblock request as he seems to put into his constructive work, I may have considered things, but as it is, certainly not. I'm sorry if this seems "high-handed" to you, but that's how things work. If you're having difficultly with another user, there are appropriate channels to get that addressed; this is not one of them. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Once again: I did not say I couldn't see why you blocked Grant. I might object to your interpretation of his unblock request as lacking sincerity... it is true he was all over the map, but lack of sincerity was not the problem (I would suggest "excessive honesty"). The issue that I'm raising, however, is that I think that both you and Grant have been manipulated by someone who is having entirely too much fun gaming the system. -- Doom (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Then, as I said, take that up in the proper channels. When I'm reviewing an unblock request, I'm there to consider the actions of whoever it was who got blocked. I didn't look at Tao's actions at all. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, what exactly would these "proper channels" be? (I thought it was funny that you "suspected the motives" of my SPI request... the motives are exactly as I stated here. There's something wrong with them?) -- Doom (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I noticed your comment, Hersfold, on the sock investigation Doom instigated, that he had commented here, so I just checked it out. I'll say in brief that I didn't pick any kind of fight whatsoever, with Doom or Grant; I just brought up what I considered important points, and repeatedly refused to get sucked into the fights or digressions they were both trying to start, in a peculiar tandem - and once again, reading these comments by Doom raises deep suspicions that Doom is a sock or meat-puppet, or alias of the same user, called F Simon Grant among other things. I've found this whole episode bizarre. They make the same claims, argue the same points, and make the same accusations against me using extremely similar language (that for instance I am "having fun" manipulating or "gaming the system." Grant repeatedly used these same phrases, for me, and weirdly, for himself.) In fact, I said something to Grant early on, and Doom responded, making me think he'd gotten his alias' confused. And Grant certainly plainly wished to "game the system", getting himself blocked in the process. Maybe you might run a check - Grant used two different IP's, and I think both have been blocked. Also, after being very active at the same time Grant was, for weeks or months, Doom was suddenly inactive for a number of days after Grant(plus alias' and 2 IPs) was blocked. He just now resurfaced. Also, Doom's tone is eerily familiar, like Grant trying to really keep a lid on himself, but with the same insistence on "sincerity", "hard work", etc. Frankly, I'm increasingly convinced it's the same person. Maybe you can find something there, if you care to check talk at Beat Gen. and even Grant's AND Doom's comments on my talk (Archive two)...thanks for your balanced review of the matter so far.Tao2911 (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hersfold, I'm sorry to dump all this on you. I filed a sock investigation request about Doom/Grant a couple weeks back, but didn't look that deeply into it myself. It was dismissed without much inquiry, and I didn't feel need to push it then. Just now, I was just cursorily scanning the Beat page talk, Doom's talk, and Grant's, and it is virtually the same voice when read en masse. Same issues, same diatribes, same pet peeves, same phrases. Same person, I think. I think Doom's activity is now spotty because he's had two IP's blocked and it's trouble to get to that third one. Pure conjecture however. Any recommendations how to proceed? And would you mind looking into it? I'm no admin, and you are familiar with the case already. I'd appreciate you giving your assessment. Cheers.Tao2911 (talk) 07:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Grant used IP 134.224.220.1 to avoid two bans. I checked and this IP does not appear to be blocked (an oversight by the investigator who blocked Grant and other IP/ID's?) Maybe Doom's IP?Tao2911 (talk) 07:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Please provide all of this in a new SPI if you'd like a check done. I'm not going to conduct a check based off of evidence provided here, as it's harder to track down the discussion should anything ever be questioned. Before you do so, however, please also take a step back and try to look at this objectively; do you see a relation, or do you just want to see a relation between these users? That's the concern I had with Doom's filing, and to be honest I'm slightly concerned here too. I'm not likely to do a check myself, either, as I've ended up becoming a little too involved in all of this. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
understood. I had this suspicion earlier due to just one comment but didn't look further, dropped it; then it came back, stronger than ever, largely due to Doom's comments to you, as described above. I don't really care one way or the other - but simply felt like I just saw the whole picture a bit more clearly suddenly. The more I looked, the more evidence I found (check out Doom's profile page - thousands of words, mostly critiquing Wikipedia - then read Grant's rants on the Beat Gen talk page - eerily similar, with Grant just being more Id to Doom's Ego). Doom is inactive right now, so I won't pursue unless a problem arises. A dif page will connect the dots if needed. Thanks for responding.Tao2911 (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

ACC

Hi Hersfold - was this for me or for the account requestor? Thanks.  7  02:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, heh. That was for the requester, sorry - I was just a bit bewildered by the comment they made. What you did was just fine. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. No worries.  7  22:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

Doing it by the book

Re [2] - it was clearly a no-brainer, but there's always someone who'll get uppity if they see admins "breaking the rules" ;-)  —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Meh - in those cases I think IAR and common sense apply. But yeah, I can understand. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Antonellicollege/Brexx

Can you comment on whether he is still using IPs that bounce all over the globe? If so, do you have any clues as to how? The last set I caught him one were neither open proxies nor tor nodes.—Kww(talk) 21:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a number of the IPs being used were from different countries. Several were positively identified as open proxies; as for the others, they might have just been configured better. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hersfold/Archive_47_(November_2010)&oldid=1165662127"