Jump to content

User talk:Hersfold/Archive 67 (July 2012)

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


← Previous archive - Archive 67 (July 2012) - Next archive →

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


Nangparbat

I think I got one here. Rjd0060 (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks about right to me. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Viber

There was a discussion on this matter on Viber's talk page and everyone was of the view that the "origins//privacy accusation" section was just spam. The only "source" was a article likely written by the same guy who was editing the page, who is based in Beirut, Lebanon. The CV of the founder of the company does not seem relevant to this article. I looked up this matter further, and it may be connected to a tv piece also from Lebanon on Al Mannar (the Hezbollah TV station that was also bashing Viber = http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=R9Ny10-O4Wk - note that hezbollah is a terrorist organization. Not the most credible source). Anyway, this guy never participated in the discussion following the protection and then the protection was removed. If he wishes to discuss the founder of the company, he should setup a separate page for him (if he feels he is notable enough). Thank you Quinta222 (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

What you are doing is edit warring; silence should not be interpreted as assent for your edits. The two of you need to discuss this, and preferably bring in some other editors as a third opinion, before continuing to revert. If it can be demonstrated that there is a consensus that takes the dissenting opinions into account, I will lift the protection early. If, however, the edit war continues after the protection is lifted or expires, I will issue blocks to anyone who continues to make reverts. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think a consensus is likely. This whole thing started with a TV clip on Hezbollah TV. Notice that the article he is quoting is also from Lebanon and on a website with a similar name to his (UTLguy vs UTLgate). Also, the last edit is from an IP address from Lebanon. This whole thing is Hezbollah Social Media department. Read the article that they are quoting, "Viber is an spying application from Israel", They write things like "more over the calls that you make on Viber are being logged and recorded on those server", but fail to provide any credible reference. Anyway, you be the judge.Quinta222 (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I really don't care to be the judge, having no interest in this topic - I was pointed to the edit war by another editor, who asked if there was anything I could do to stop it. The allegations you're raising about the editors against you are very serious, however, and should be backed up with more evidence. You may want to raise this issue on the conflict of interest noticeboard. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 16:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)



You Could've just stopped wasting your time , and have googled your company to know that the truth is out, there is no relevance between naming the founder and Hezbollah. the founder and his nationality have been stated on many website , including An Israeli government site , some of them : 


http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000746993&fid=1725

http://ws.lteconference.com/speaker/talmon-marco/ http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4189528,00.html itrade.gov.il/us-chicago/2012/02/17/israeli-smartphone-app-viber-growing-quickly/ http://www.park.by/post-460/ --Utlguy (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't use my talk page to continue your dispute. Hersfold (t/a/c) 14:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

Headphones99/Worldtown99

I guess stranger coincidences have happened. I find no absolute smoking guns. If you feel confident that no proxies are involved to create the geographic separation, I can release the blocks. Please be confident of that, though ... it's probably worth a double-check from someone skilled in proxy analysis.—Kww(talk) 18:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain; in any event, the useragents are different. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

RTV / mailing list

Regarding this - whilst I totally agree with the sentiment regarding users not using us to spit their dummy out of the pram, I don't like the idea that RTV requests should primarily be sent to the mailing list. If people are happy to make such requests onwiki, that is IMO the best place for them. I also don't think people should be discouraged from emailing invidual bureaucrats (which linking to the mailing list might) given the project's historic inability to keep traffic to mailing lists confidential. WJBscribe (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This is true. I was mainly collapsing that to cut off the discussion, which was quickly running downhill. I'll go rephrase that. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. WJBscribe (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

ARBFLG2

Hope you don't mind. T. Canens (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 18:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

Any thoughts on this one?

Hi Hersfold,
I'm posting here because I'm not sure at what point you stop reading the back-and-forth on the PD talk page for ARBFLG2. I'm curious if you intended to offer any findings for the conduct of Shrigley. I am not sure why TSTF offered less evidence on him—space constraints perhaps—but I think there was a fair bit of evidence of POV editing, as well as unseemly behavior, in the AE case. The user's conduct on the workshop page also seemed quite problematic, and is really very distressing for those on the receiving end of his constant distortions. The user's contributions in this space are fairly rare, but I think just about every single edit he/she does make serves to advance singular point of view—criticizing or delegitimizing Falun Gong and affiliated organizations, and downplaying information on the Chinese government's suppression, often accomplished by misrepresenting sources—or are plainly counterproductive.[1][2][3][4][5] The user also has a worrying propensity for misquoting or misrepresenting reliable sources in order to advance a point of view:[6][7][8][9][10][11][12] (in all these cases, the talk pages explain how Shrigley misquoted or otherwise misrepresented the sources; in some cases he did this repeatedly, even after the problem was identified). At a minimum I would advise a MER, given that the user's apparent problems satisfying verifiability and neutrality in this namespace. His conduct towards other users is also....well, it serves to make for a very unpleasant editing environment, and if he is not subject to some remedies here, I imagine it will only be a matter of time before further proceedings are necessary. Any thoughts you have would be appreciated. Regards, Homunculus (duihua) 13:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer such concerns be raised on the PD talk page rather than here; I don't want my talk page to turn into a battle ground. However, I am not considering any further evidence at this point, and the proposals made are based on what evidence was presented to the Committee. There was comparatively very little of that with regard to Shrigley, and so there were no findings or sanctions. If the alleged misconduct continues after the conclusion of this case and the MER remedy passes, it would be permissible for a non-topic-banned user to file an AE request to apply MER to Shrigley and/or any other user exhibiting the same behavior. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 21:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Usurpation request

Hello. For privacy reasons, I made that request. I hope you approve it as soon as possible. Thanks in advance.--M.Gedawy Talk 06:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I've commented there. Just so you know, however, usurpation requests do take several days to process (you'll note the section you posted in states that it should be handled on or before July 12, 2012), and it generally is not necessary to both email the bureaucrats and leave notes on their talk pages. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Request to restart HersfoldOTRSBot

Hi Hersfold. I posted a request on Commons to restart your bot, see commons:User talk:Hersfold#Request to restart HersfoldOTRSBot. Trijnsteltalk 11:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Bump, has the bot stopped working again or is it disabled? No actions after July 12. --Denniss (talk) 08:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I have to manually activate the bot each time, it's not set to run on a regular schedule. I'll run it tonight. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Another note - can you check this one out?

Hey, sorry to trouble you, but I just have a quick request: could you take a look at this user's activity[13]? Over half of this IP user's contributions involve adding negative information against consensus on Shen Yun Performing Arts, deleting positive information about the performance, and deleting information critical of the Chinese government. Today the user restored material that appears to violate BLP on the Falun Gong namespace.

Yesterday, The Sound and the Fury removed[14] an external link to a Chinese government website that violated the BLP policy (as he explained on the talk page). The link was to a Chinese government website dedicated to propagandizing about Falun Gong, and contains extensive denunciations and extraordinary claims about Falun Gong's founder. This IP user has reverted The Sound and The Fury [15] on the basis that he is a "banned user" per the current ArbCom case (he's not, obviously). It seems rather curious that the IP editor would have knowledge of the ArbCom case, and the purport of this user's edits does not appear helpful. Regards, Homunculus (duihua) 18:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks as though the IP address has been given a warning about discretionary sanctions; that's likely how they found out about the current case. Since they've been warned and it appears to be the same user as from February, you can report them to AE if there are issues. Given the current case, I shouldn't be taking administrative action in this area unless it directly pertains to the case, which I don't see this doing. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Alright, thank you. Homunculus (duihua) 22:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

ping

Hi Hersfold. I've asked a question here[16], and was wondering if you or others might have any thoughts. One suggestion may be to see whether some of the arbitrators are open to be contacted on an ad hoc basis when editors are engaging in inappropriate personal comments on talk pages, etc.?

Secondly, I'm not sure about the rules of engagement here, but I noticed some arbitrators commenting on some of the findings that they were unable to clearly determine whether certain diffs are evidence of POV editing. I don't blame them; diffs in a vacuum, removed of context, can be difficult to understand. For instance, it is impossible to know from looking at it that this material was a known WP:BLP and WP:V violation, was very likely libelous, that the claim originated from a man described in reliable sources as a Chinese government-backed critic of FLG, and that the editor was aware of these objections when making the edit. Would it be acceptable if I offered on the PD talk page a brief analysis of the diffs you provided in evidence, and directed some of the arbitrators to that thread? I would try to keep it very factual and brief so as to avoid complicating the issue further.

Thanks as always for your advice.Homunculus (duihua) 01:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

If there is sanctionable misconduct ongoing, that's what AE is for. I honestly can't imagine that the Committee members would be open to being contacted about such issues.
You're welcome to post comments about the decision and voting on the PD talk page, but I can't guarantee that the rest of the Committee will read it. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

Clerk monitoring

You wrote "should a clerk ever undertake an "official" action that does not have the backing of the Committee, we will be sure to revert it and respond appropriately."

  • How do you technically monitor official actions by clerks?
  • How does this lack (or excess) of active monitoring square with prior failures of the ArbCom to appropriately distinguish between "an arbiter wanted this," and "the committee wanted this?"
  • Please provide a list of all clerk actions that have been reverted and responded to appropriately.

Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

  1. Same as anyone else would; we watchlist arbitration pages as a matter of course, and observe edits being made to and in relation to them. We also have the benefit of the clerk's mailing list, where clerks will generally report any major actions they've taken for the benefit of the Committee and the rest of the clerks. Furthermore, as has been proven time and again, if anyone does have an issue with a clerk's action, we can be pretty darn sure we're going to hear about it.
  2. Since everyone (clerks and arbitrators) gets the same emails, if one arbitrator asks the clerks to do A and another wants B to happen, we'll discuss amongst ourselves whether the clerks should do A or B or whatever else. That aside the point, the clerks aren't mindless drones, and they're quite capable of refusing to do anything until their "orders" no longer contradict one another. Naturally, not everyone reads all emails at the same time, and I'm sure that there have been cases where an arbitrator thought A would be uncontroversial, told the clerks to do A, and then woke up the next morning to find that the rest of the Committee wanted B. In that case, the "do this-do that-wait while we discuss" pattern gets a little scrambled around, but it more-or-less works out the same way in the end.
  3. No. Even if I could pull up a list of such cases of the top of my head, I'm sure that they are so very few and so very far between that it's insignificant, and even then would likely be the result of a poorly worded request rather than a deliberate misstep on the part of the clerks. I can vouch for each of the clerk's reliability and capability in performing the duties of their office, which really are very few (maintaining order and discipline in arbitration proceedings, and handling paperwork for us so we don't have to); none of them would have been promoted to full clerk unless the whole Committee was willing to trust them in this role (while the clerk corps is, for the most part, able to choose for itself who may be selected as a trainee, acceptance as a full clerk is left to the sole discretion of the Committee). Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 17:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

BBC

You're mentioned by the BBC.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! :-D Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Happyeggplant

This user is a former vandal, who, indeed, vandalised my user page some years ago. S/he has, I believe, recognised the errors of his/her ways, and there is a significant thread on their talk page. The last block was applied (correctly) by your good self. Would you be so kind as to look at the thread on their talk page, and consider whether an unblock may be appropriate? I have, if appropriate, volunteered as mentor.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm at work presently, so can't unblock myself, but I left a comment there. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 15:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I have unblocked, and I hope that in assuming good faith I will not be disappointed. That is what AGF is all about, is it not? S/he knows that I will be watching closely, and any transgression means the executioner's block.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, hopefully not that, but yes, hopefully all works out. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Darkness Shines's talk page. Message added 20:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC). About creating a Wikipedia:Long-term abuse report for Nangparbat (talk · contribs) DBigXray 20:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what comment is needed from me. Anyone's welcome to set up a LTA page for a user with Nangparbat's history of disruption... Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
not sure what exactly to write in that report, I came here following the note on Nangparbat to contact you, so thought may be you could help in that--DBigXray 16:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

Khufu

Hi.^^ I got a lil´ problem: the article is candidating for a "good"-nomination. During this week I had planned to work down the critics (as seen on discussion page), but - phew! - itz a lot! And my English is possibly not good nuff to clean ALL up. Therefor I wanna beg for yer help. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hersfold/Archive_67_(July_2012)&oldid=1033921431"