Jump to content

User talk:Hersfold/Archive 63 (March 2012)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
← Previous archive - Archive 63 (March 2012) - Next archive →

This page contains discussions dated during the month of March 2012 from User talk:Hersfold. Please direct all current discussions there. Thank you.

Block of Littlehappyrose

Hello, this user was recently blocked by you. I've been in a discussion with them on IRC, and I don't think that the "vandalism only account" block is justified. The editor claims to have a relationship with the individual that the deleted article draft was about. Accordingly, I have gone over notability, conflict of interest, "verifiability, not truth," and reliable sourcing, and have asked that the article not be resubmitted until there are proper sources. This does not appear to be a hoax so much as an obscure person who probably doesn't meet notability guidelines (something I stressed) and the editor does indicate a desire to improve Wikipedia. Would you object if I were to lift the block? --Chris (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I would. I did some research into this myself, and I cannot find any evidence to support the fact that this person exists; I'm quite certain that the article they are proposing is a hoax, and their efforts to post it simply trolling. User:DragonflySixtyseven and I both had conversations with this user, addressing the same policies; when I raised the concern that without sources (which they refused to provide) the article would likely be deleted, they became hostile. At the end of our conversation, the user claimed that they'd been discussing the issue with Jimbo, and that they'd get me fired since I was a) not a volunteer and b) not doing my job since I refused to give them approval to post their one-sentence "article" as it stood. This is not behavior which I associate with a "here to contribute" mentality, but rather someone whose sole purpose is to disrupt and waste time. I'm open to discussing this further, and should be able to provide a copy of my conversation with this user if you'd like to see that (I think my client's set up to log private conversations, unfortunately since I'm at work right now I can't confirm that). From what I've seen, however, this user is not here to help the encyclopedia, and fits squarely in the definition of troll. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 20:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the info. I would appreciate a quick look at the IRC logs when you get a chance to locate them. (There's a few ways you can get this to me privately.) --Chris (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Sure, hopefully I do indeed have them. I'll head home in about an hour, I should be online a little while after that. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 21:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
...Aaaand it may be a little longer than I'd expected, things are running a bit slowly and I'm going to need to stay a bit late at work. I'll email as soon as I can. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 21:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

Arbitration Analysis story

Hello Hersfold! I am beginning work on a story for The Signpost, similar to an article I wrote last year, this one concerning the voting patterns of newly-elected arbitrators. While my work has not yet begun, you will be able to find the draft story here. I would like to know if you would be willing to answer some questions (via email) concerning your experience as a member of the committee and the principles you balance when making decisions on a PD. Your assistance would enhance the purpose of the article, which is to make arbitrators more visible to the greater community as individual actors rather than a monolithic block of 'deciders'.

If this works for you, please leave a note on my talk page and I will be sure to email you promptly. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, shoot me an email. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Email sent. Thanks! Lord Roem (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification

The Helpful One 22:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hersfold! Hope you are fine! You may have noticed over the past few days (5–7 March) that the MOTD that you link to on your user page has simply displayed a red link. This is due to the fact that not enough people are reviewing pending MOTDs here. Please help us keep the MOTD template alive and simply go and review a few of the MOTDs in the list. That way we can have a real MOTD in the future rather than re-using (This space for rent). Any help would be appreciated! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Documentation for gadget authors

I saw you had done some work on heavily-used gadgets. We're trying to start a library for gadget authors to use. Please check it out and post any questions or comments there. -- ☠MarkAHershberger☢(talk)☣ 01:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't really, but thanks for the note. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Global blocks

Hi, I just saw User talk:Kreidtl and wanted to make sure you knew that Enwiki admins can actually disable global IP blocks from applying on enwiki thru Special:GlobalBlockWhitelist. Regards, Snowolf How can I help? 17:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I know we can, but I'm extremely reluctant to do so unless there's an extremely pressing need. Kinda like IPBE but even more so. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 1998

So I know you have everything up to 1999 up, are you gonna be able to do 1998? Arjoccolenty (talk)

Uh. I think you have the wrong number... Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

Congratulations

"Congratulations" may not be the best greeting to one whose "prize" for winning a contest is hours upon hours of work, month after month, dealing with the fiercest battles on en.Wikipedia, and with the most difficult editors who participate here. Based on your performance as Clerk throughout the 'Speed of light' arbitration, I thought you would be an ideal Arbitrator. For what it's worth (inasmuch as I was one of the combatants), I agreed with every action you took, including your warnings to me (actually, I think you might have been wrong about one of those, but it is more likely, objectively, that I was wrong in that instance too). You displayed remarkably detached fairness and good judgment even with the most contentious participants. Frankly, I do not understand how you can volunteer so much time here, or why you do, but Wikipedia is a better community because of it.

I thought about writing someting similar to this message when you won the election in 2010. However, I concluded that it was too soon after the 'Speed of light' decision for that to be appropriate.

I have been spending much less time on Wikipedia than I used to. It was taking too much away from my real-world work and life. For many months, my only contributions have been copy editing articles that I come to for information.—Finell 18:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much, sometimes I have to wonder at how I do all this too. I hope you get the real-life stuff sorted out in future, I know it's a beast for everyone at times. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

April Fool Motto

April Fools Day is just around the corner. As such please could you nominate a new motto or comment on existing suggestions at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Specials? Simply south...... facing oncoming traffic for over 5 years 16:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hurt and perplexed

I'm perplexed as to why you and the others signed up to the following, and very hurt that you did.

5) Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors.

If you have any examples of where you feel my contributions to discussion did not reflect sufficient receptiveness to compromise and/or too low of a tolerance for the views of other editors, I would very much like to know where, and why you think that.

If you don't know of any such examples, why did you agree to this?

Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate place to discuss this. If you have concerns about a particular part of an arbitration decision, those concerns should be raised on the proposed decision talk page at the time of voting. In any event, it's based on the evidence brought against you by the other parties and your conduct during the case itself. In fact, this itself is a good example; you left this same note on the talk page of every arbitrator who voted for that remedy, but don't show any signs that you're willing to take what is intended to be constructive criticism on board and improve your conduct. To quote you from Courcelles's talk page: "Now there is this blemish on my record - to what end? I don't understand why you guys would treat me, or anyone else, so unfairly." The end is to point out to you where your conduct needs improvement. To date, it hasn't been serious enough to merit any sort of binding sanction, however it's a warning that if it does continue, sanctions may be applied. As noted in the discussion about the finding of fact related to you, you were "singled out" due only to the large amount of evidence about you in comparison to others. It wasn't done out of a desire to be unfair - in fact that discussion I mentioned was in part to make sure we were being fair - but a stated mission to identify what areas need improvement and guide editors to that improvement, either by issuing warnings and guidance such as this, or by removing especially problematic editors from the area entirely so that the rest of the community can work on those improvements.
Again, this is more meant to be a pointer of how you can become a better editor than a "blemish on your record" - I'd strongly encourage you to step back for a bit, consider all the evidence that others brought against you, and your conduct in the case, and see how what we said can apply to that. Don't look at what others said except as absolutely needed to give yourself context; it won't help towards seeing what you've done and what you could have done better. Then work on improving from that. If it helps, consider placing yourself on some sort of personal restriction, that you're responsible for enforcing against yourself. Something like "I will not comment twice on the same discussion within 24 hours," perhaps. We avoided placing any binding restriction of the sort because a) the evidence didn't show your conduct had been problematic enough to merit it and b) in my case at least, I always hope that editors can improve upon themselves when given the chance. Please take that chance, and I'm sure in time you'll see why this warning was necessary. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hi there. I have re-written the article "Weneg" meaning the deity. Look: Weneg (Egyptian deity). Hope you like it. Cheers;--Nephiliskos (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)‎

Pixie

See my talk pageRich Farmbrough, 03:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC).

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

Request for oversight

Please examine the recent edits to Blackbird Raum by User:Gargamel9000 and myself to see if any need to be redacted due to BLP issues. Thanks, NotFromUtrecht (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) After conferring with another admin, OS Is definitely out. we also think that revdel would be a bIt of an overkill unless outing was an issue. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 22:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I was just about to say the same thing - while it definitely needed to be removed from the page, this doesn't rise to the level of defamation where further action is likely needed. For future reference, though, all requests for oversight should be sent to oversight-en-wp@wikimedia.org or Special:Emailuser/Oversight. I have blocked the user who posted those edits, however. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Idiot

No need to be so hard on yourself, we've all made similar mistakes! But thanks for giving me a good chuckle with your edit summary.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem at all, glad to have entertained. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hersfold/Archive_63_(March_2012)&oldid=1151022136"