User talk:Hersfold/Archive 72 (December 2012)

← Previous archive - Archive 72 (December 2012) - Next archive →

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

---

Editnotice

I took your self-referential editnotice to the next step. Hope you don't mind. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it has any effect, but I found your edit summary quite amusing. ;-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Is this worthy of an arb clarification/amendment request?

Considering the slowish motion edit war at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Tel Aviv bus bombing, I wanted to see if Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles affected only those pages in the article namespace, or if the 1RR restriction applied to any page related to the topic. Ryan Vesey 20:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It's never a bad idea to request clarification when you're unsure about the scope of a ruling, as I can't speak for the whole Committee (nor can any other Arbitrator). However, taking a brief look at this, both the 1RR restriction the discretionary sanctions refer specifically to "articles," so I would say that by the letter of the sanction they are not covered there. Even if we're to go by the spirit of the restrictions, this appears to focus on the placement of an SPA tag, not on any subject related to the area of conflict, so I'd have a hard time seeing this as needing arbitration enforcement even if the restrictions did cover other namespaces.

So if a clarification request were filed, I'd likely say that, and you're welcome to do so to get more input from other arbs... but I think this situation is reasonably clear and can be handled through more conventional methods anyway. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

• News and notes: Wiki Loves Monuments announces 2012 winner

• Featured content: The play's the thing

• Discussion report: Concise Wikipedia; standardize version history tables

• Technology report: MediaWiki problems but good news for Toolserver stability

• WikiProject report: The White Rose: WikiProject Yorkshire

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Misspelling

You appear to have misspelt the username of one of the users in your most recent announcement, as it is showing up as a redlink to a nonexistent user account. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 00:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Dang it. Thanks, I'll fix it shortly. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 00:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

• News and notes: Wobbly start to ArbCom election, but turnout beats last year's

• Featured content: Wikipedia goes to Hell

• Technology report: The new Visual Editor gets a bit more visual

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Human Rights

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Oversight problem

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Mathsci (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser Request

Hello Hersfold, hope all is well with you. I was wondering if you could run a CU on 98.204.145.138, Hollisz, and Zimmermanh1997. All three have been creating edits that are less than helpful. Continuous additions of direct links to images on websites, like this, this, and this. For reference, the IP is out of Walkersville, Maryland. Admins and experienced editors have tried to talk to the editor on both the Zimmermanh1997 and the IP accounts (with a block on the IP account) to no avail. It is pretty clear from the behavior of the edits and the names "Zimmermanh" and "Hollisz" (obviously the same), that they are the same user. I just need a CU to prove that. Can you help, please? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd strongly prefer that you file an SPI so that all the evidence is in one easy-to-find place, particularly if the users are found to be linked and they continue to be an issue in the future. Please also note that no checkuser will connect an account to an IP address.

Taking a brief look at this, however, I'd say that  Looks like a duck to me, so I'm not sure a checkuser is even needed. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the account's edits do not overlap, so I'm not sure that this is an abuse of accounts at all. It's likely that they forgot their password to the first account, then decided to make a new account today. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the overlap isn't the issue, as the Zimmermanh1997 account dropped off and the IP picked up. When the IP was blocked for vandalism, the other account picked up from there with a slight overlap between the IP and Hollisz.

I will, however, file an SPI and will link you to it just to keep you in the loop. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Link to the SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zimmermanh1997. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation newsletter

Delivered 00:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC) by EdwardsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from the spamlist.

Drama board invitation

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Malleus Fatuorum making personal attacks. Thank you. Monty₈₄₅ 21:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Block threat?

Was this intended as a joke? I don't think it helped the situation, do you? --John (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it wasn't meant as a joke, but fair warning that I would be issuing blocks for any further personal attacks, as is supposed to be policy on Wikipedia. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Which of the comments you were responding to do you regard as a personal attack? --John (talk) 06:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

First there's Malleus's initial "cook the books" comment. I can understand that this may not have been meant to offend, but it's a poor choice of words. In my experience, "cooking the books" usually refers to corrupt accounting practices, either to avoid taxes or make numbers look more favorable than they really are. Malleus's phrasing can be reasonably seen as implying that the scrutineers were manipulating the results beyond their expected role of marking out invalid ballots. NYB alluded to the possible double meaning of that phrase in his reply immediately afterward.

Leaky Cauldron later posted "The length of time taken does give the appearance of a rather antiquated process more in keeping with a Gerrymandering, African dictatorship." I can't see how this would have been meant as a joke, and it rather directly accuses the scrutineers of corruption. At that point I posted my warning that further attacks against the integrity of the scrutineers would result in blocks.

LC then replied to that saying that I (and I'm guessing NYB) were acting like "dockside bullies". I ignored this as that line of conversation had turned back to a much more productive area by the time I was able to follow up.

Malleus also replied to my warning, stating that I was "unfit to be in charge of a push bike". I responded with a bit of sarcasm, which I'll admit probably didn't help, but it was making my point that I was attempting to defend those who were only here to help our project. Malleus replied to that with "Yes, you are [a horrible person]."

I'm a bit confused as to why I need to outline why "you are a horrible person" is a personal attack. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

So you were sarcastic, then threatened to block Malleus for a personal attack on yourself? If you had done that, do you think it would have improved the situation? How would it line up with WP:INVOLVED? What would the subsequent AN/I have looked like? Before making any further intemperate threats to block users you are in a personal dispute with, please review this and consider its timeless wisdom. --John (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Good job, John, on ignoring the other 75% of Hersfold's rationale and focusing on the one aspect that even remotely supports your argument. You seem to have the DefendEachOther down when Malleus is involved. Why not address the rest?--v/r - TP 20:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy to help, TP. I asked Hersfold Which of the comments you were responding to do you regard as a personal attack? at 06:15. At 18:36 Hersfold made a reply in which he describes various comments at some length. In none of the cases does he attempt to justify them as personal attacks (wisely, as they were not). In the one case that he did justify, I'm a bit confused as to why I need to outline why "you are a horrible person" is a personal attack., I noted that this was not a good use of a threat to block. I hope that aids your understanding. --John (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

John, decent of you to answer. I believe you and Hersfold may be at a disagreement on whether accusing volunteer scrutineers from foreign Wikipedia's without a ball in our court by someone who has been under attention by the body in the middle of elections is a personal attack or not. I think you should focus your attention on the larger issue here instead of whether the smaller and more contained issue of a bit of sarcasm and the subsequent insult is relevant to the rest. The threat of block was clearly directed at the former and not the latter. It seems more like tit for tat than a real opposition. On the subject of good essays, try this one.--v/r - TP 20:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

John, there seems to be a misunderstanding of the order of events when you write "So you were sarcastic, then threatened to block Malleus for a personal attack on yourself?"

Hersfold made his comment about blocking if bad faith claims continued at 16:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC). Malleus made the push-bike comment at 18:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC). Hersfold made the "sarcastic" "I am a horrible person" comment at 20:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC). Malleus made the "yes you are" comment at 20:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC). I don't see any threat to block anyone made after the 16:05 one. This means WP:INVOLVED really doesn't come into it at all. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for explaining more clearly than Hersfold did that the threat to block was aimed at trying to de-escalate Malleus's initial "cook the books" comment and at Leaky Cauldron for saying "The length of time taken does give the appearance of a rather antiquated process more in keeping with a Gerrymandering, African dictatorship...". I still don't think this was particularly effective or exemplary behaviour on Hersfold's part, but you're right, it doesn't run into INVOLVED. It was, however, heavy-handed and gave the appearance of arrogance. Should the process of choosing arbitrators be immune from criticism? Should hyperbolic criticism which is not directed at a specific person or persons be treated as a personal attack? I think this is a bit of a stretch. TP, I am familiar with that essay, but I am not seeing why it is relevant to our discussion here about a sitting Arb trying to extend the range of one of our policies on-the-fly. Feel free to explain. --John (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Demiurge1000 was likely the most helpful person out of all of us, but John the reason I mention that essay is that you might have caught on to Hersfold's intention with the block had you seen it from his angle.--v/r - TP 21:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The scrutineers are indeed a specific set of persons.

Separately, it's my view that outrageous conduct by an editor or group of editors, justifies statements or actions that may otherwise reasonably be considered "heavy-handed". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This exploded since I last had a chance to read it, so sorry if I repeat anything; I'll respond to each statement in turn.

John, your understanding of the timeline is flawed. I made a general warning, not directed at any user, that users should not make bad-faith accusations towards the scrutineers. Malleus then responded to that with an attack (directed at me). I responded sarcastically, he attacked (me) again, and I disengaged. I find it rather ironic that you quote DefendEachOther in support of Malleus, when that's precisely what I was doing with respect to the scrutineers. That "timeless wisdom" goes both ways.

Thank you, TParis.

John, a comment that implies someone is engaging in corrupt acts is a personal attack. Implying that they are incompetent (Malleus's push-bike comment) is a personal attack. And I have grave concerns about your judgment if you don't see "You are a horrible person" as anything other than a personal attack. You seemed confused about the entire conversation, so I outlined all the comments I viewed as problematic; at the time I issued my warning, only the comments alleging corruption had been made.

TParis, again, thank you.

Demiurge's timeline is correct, thank you for clarifying that.

John, my comment outlining the personal attacks went in chronological order, something which should have been evident without any explanation just from signature timestamps and the page history. Anyway, I'm sorry you don't see my warning as exemplary behavior, but it is nonetheless something I felt was necessary. I don't see how it appeared as arrogant; perhaps it was a bit heavy-handed, but a previous note (from NYB) that comments were stepping over the line had been ignored. I felt that a warning that administrative action was being considered to be the next step in stopping that particular line of misconduct. The comments being made were not general commentary on the election process, but direct attacks against the scrutineers, the users responsible for the stage of the election we were in at that time. I worry that you are reading each of these statements out of context, and are somehow missing the rest of the conversation. I reject your accusation that I am changing policy on-the-fly and ask that you retract said accusation. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I would not block an editor for a personal attack towards me. I will block editors if they make personal attacks towards other editors, including administrators or even visiting stewards. I would hope that other administrators, in turn, will block editors who make personal attacks towards me. Our policies on decorum, civility, and personal attacks should be evenly applied, regardless of who the attackers or attacked editors are. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Hersfold for the clarification. I apologise for misreading the timeline and I appreciate your and Demiurge's pointing that out. Even after rereading the policy page for the nth time, I am struggling to see either Malleus's initial "cook the books" comment or Leaky's "African dictatorship" as personal attacks of the severity we usually block for. I continue to believe that it is in the interests of good governance that we tolerate a more robust level of criticism in areas like this than we would on (say) a newbie editor's first article. I think that you somewhat walked into the insult that Malleus made to you with your sarcastic question; not to say that you deserved it, but more that there was fault on both sides. WP:NPA recommends ignoring isolated personal attacks, and I continue to feel that this would have been a wiser course of action. TP, I do not regard Hersfold as any kind of "enemy", and I do accept that he was acting with good intentions already, so I don't see any merit in the essay on this occasion. Hersfold, I do still feel that a block for a comment of the type you threatened to block for, given the context, would have been an extension of our existing policy and practice, so I decline to withdraw that. Perhaps a note on the editors' talk pages would have been less inflammatory than a public threat to block? --John (talk) 06:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not an isolated personal attack; Malleus has directed personal attacks at a large number of editors in his time here, including myself on more than one occasion. A private note to each of them could have been one way of handling it, but would not have been immediately visible to any additional editors who came by with pitchforks of their own. I felt a public warning of the sort I gave was the best option in terms of escalation and to forestall any future misconduct. I still maintain that this went beyond simple criticism, crossing the line into outright attacks; the comments weren't along the lines of "this process takes too long and needs to be fixed," but more "they're making this take too long and it seems corrupt." If they were offering commentary on the general process, those comments could have been worded much more clearly and placed in a more appropriate location. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 16:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

ACC Request

Hello Hersfold, I recently requested an ACC account. I misunderstood the identification to Wikimedia part and would like to cancel my request for ACC privlidges. Since you're an ACC admin, could you do this? Thanks! Vacation^nine 03:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  Done Declined at your request. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Vacation^nine 18:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

• News and notes: Arbitrator election: stewards release the results

• WikiProject report: WikiProjekt Computerspiel: Covering Computer Games in Germany

• Discussion report: Concise Wikipedia; section headings for navboxes

• Op-ed: Finding truth in Sandy Hook

• Featured content: Wikipedia's cute ass

• Technology report: MediaWiki groups and why you might want to start snuggling newbie editors

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Hersfold, I hope you have a Merry Christmas and hope your day is full of the true spirit of the day. Plus, good food, good family and good times. :) Have a Great Day! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Spread the joy of Christmas by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/MerryChristmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Under the header: Festive Greetings

Hi. I wish you and your family a blessful christmas feast. Joy! Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 11:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, you two! Merry Christmas! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello Hersfold! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Under Happy holidays

Some Christmas traditions are very difficult to explain. Kind of like Wikipedia policies.

Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2013. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement. For those of a more traditional inclination, I offer this rendition of my favourite carol.
Best, Risker (talk) 15:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Hope you both had a good holiday! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

• News and notes: Debates on Meta sparking along—grants, new entities, and conflicts of interest

• WikiProject report: A Song of Ice and Fire

• Featured content: Battlecruiser operational

• Technology report: Efforts to "normalise" Toolserver relations stepped up

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 09:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

SPI case: Hypocaustic

Hello. I am well and truly out of my depth in SPI/CU issues. I'd be pleased if, as one of the admins involved, you could please have a quick look at my recent addition, under the subhead "Age of accounts", to User talk:Hypocaustic#Sockpuppetry case. Although I have been concerned by the editing behaviour, I'm in no position to judge anything one way or another - but what is clear to me is that I may have muddied the waters by getting the SPI into the wrong order, in effect, so that it's in danger of being discussed upside-down. I've got no idea what can or should be done to resolve this but I hope you might consider commenting or intervening if required, please. Sorry to be a nuisance, and thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 12:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Replied there, but it doesn't really matter much. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. I am reassured to hear that I've not made anything worse. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

And finally (I hope): about the table that I pasted on one of the alleged socks' Talk page: I did that because it concerned me; it still does. If the editor is a sockpuppeteer and is now just tidying up (see the contribs at the two alleged socks' Talk pages today) before trying for a return to editing, then I don't think that's right and should be resisted. On the other hand if he is not and is as he claims an innocent victim of some sort of misunderstanding or something, then repeating this (or similar: analysis would I think find plenty more) is only making things worse. I'm tempted to post that list ("again", or not) on his Talk page and say "well explain this then" but I think that's probably a bad idea. Clearly I am in danger of becoming overinvolved; I don't really know why (or maybe I just need my medication adjusting etc [goak here]). I am not an admin and do not want to be Sherlock Holmes. I suppose that what I am seeking from you is reassurance that admins and policies have this whole thing covered, and I can and should just stfu (as the young people so delightfully put it) and go back to editing and worrying about how people spell Middlesbrough, and other such productive and vital issues. Yes?? Please advise. If this becomes or needs to become any more personal please feel free to take it to email or something but otherwise I will look for a response here. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Something to be aware of here is that it's not difficult to abusively sock. Some people aren't terribly good at it, and they get caught, but many of those intent on socking will try to figure out what gave them away so they can improve on future attempts to evade blocks. Over-analyzing the relations between accounts basically provides them a blueprint on what not to do next time (see also WP:BEANS). The evidence that was posted at SPI was sufficient; if more is needed, checkusers can be run. You do not need to post anything else, as the situation has been resolved. If more socks from this user appear, then they will be noticed and handled accordingly. You don't need to - and I would advise against - do(ing) anything further here, unless you notice any more suspicious accounts; then report them to SPI as before. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Powerful and interesting point, which had not occurred to me at all. Thank you very much - all noted, shutting up now. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

;-)

DEAR HERSFOLD!!! RIGHT THIS MOMENT GERMANY WELCOMES 2013!!!! HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!--Nephiliskos (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)