User talk:Hersfold: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:04, 12 April 2008

Welcome to my Talk Page!

Thank you for coming by, however please note that I have largely retired from Wikipedia. Messages left here will not receive a prompt response, if ever. Please also note that I no longer hold any access rights; if you are contacting me in relation to a block, deletion, or any other administrative action I have taken, I am unable to assist you. Please contact another administrator for help.

If you do have an urgent need to contact me specifically, such as for one of my bots, please send me an email via Special:Emailuser/Hersfold.

Archives

This page will be archived every month. If you can't find what you're looking for, check the most recent archive.

User:Hersfold/Talk Header - v • e

User:Chicksnatural

Hi Hersfold,

I noticed that you blocked this user with account creation disabled. Since username blocks are typically softblocks, I was just wondering if you meant to do this or if it was a slip of the mouse. Thanks! --jonny-m t 03:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe...2 headings with the same title...sorry Hersfold. Tiptoety ^talk 03:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to do it - This user twice created a copyvio, spam article (Chicks natural) despite receiving a whole long list of warnings, so either they can't read or they have no intention of doing anything except advertising their company. If they request an unblock, I wouldn't say no to changing the block terms, but I don't see them being very constructive. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, not sure if you are aware of a new username policy change. A better idea before blocking may have been to attempt to get the user to change their username before blocking, and moving the username here, at least that is what the policy change is kinda sorta suggesting we start doing. Just FYI. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 03:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bah for edit conflicts. I wasn't aware of that particular change, but again, this one seems pretty blatantly obvious - take a look at his deleted contribs and image uploads. I'll do that from now on, but it seems a bit bureaucratic to me. :-/ Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree that this case should have been blocked. But I just wanted to let you know that according to this we need to start assuming more good faith when dealing with users that are not really disrupting the project in hopes not the bite so many newbs. Tiptoety ^talk 03:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Good thing I made that {{UAA}} template the other day, then, I guess. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, was just thinking the same thing. Tiptoety ^talk 03:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa; nice work on the template! Are the bots going to be able to interpret it as they do on WP:RFPP? --jonny-m t 05:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they're not set up to, but it shouldn't take much work to get them to do so. You can ask the bot operators to add that - I guess they should leave the reports there for about half an hour after the template gets added? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 13:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

No problem. And thanks for the level-headed reply to her talk page. After playing whack-a-mole with G11 pages, I think I can use a break to go do something relaxing :) Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy yourself. Hopefully that will be the end of the page-blanking, but we'll see. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:PalaceGuard008

Hi, I saw your decline of my request for review. Just wanted to point out one thing: the informal mediation is nothing to do with the complaint further up. The informal mediation was due to another user wikistalking me - perhaps you can trace the threads to the WP:AN/I report I made. As to the complaint further up, perhaps you can have a look at the history of that page. What you will find is that I made no personal attacks against the person of User:Blnugyen, but a comment about his disruptive editing on that page. As far as I can see, my comment was perfectly clear when User:Blnguyen engaged in repeated and persistent mass reverting without even any attempt at discussion. The three things are completely unconnected, and right now I feel as if I am being persecuted by a coalition of Indian-flag waving users (see User:Blnguyen and User:Nishkid64). --129.78.64.105 (talk) 07:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I'm not going to unblock you because by coming here you're evading your block, which is not allowed. Using an IP address to get around a block on your account is considered abusive sockpuppetry and is in itself grounds for blocking. Further requests to be unblocked should be made by using the {{unblock}} template, on your talk page, while logged into the blocked account. This is partially so that other administrators, as yet uninvolved in the case, may have the chance to review the block and offer additional opinions on the case, but also to ensure that your block has its intended effect.

To address your actual reason for coming here, this edit, which I assume is the one you're referring to, is not a constructive complaint. Sarcasm, particularly when used in controversial situations, is not considered constructive or helpful. It's often very harmful and prevents useful discussion from taking place.

The fact that you're continuing to accuse other users in bad faith is also not helping your case at all. Looking at your block log, I see you've been blocked once previously for edit warring. While that was by the same administrator, I can't help but notice that User:Nishkid64 has never made a single edit to Gedhun Choekyi Nyima or its talk page. It is not uncommon for administrators to watchlist the talk page of users they have blocked in the past - page histories and user contributions are kept public for specifically that reason, so that any user may act as a check against any other user's possible violations of policy. You'll notice that WP:STALK specifically mentions that this is acceptable; it does not become "wikistalking" until the user monitoring your contributions makes an effort to undo your work specifically to harass you. In reviewing your contributions and Nishkid's, I don't see this as being the situation.

Now, again, using your IP address to edit while you are blocked is not permitted. I can see from your contributions that you've been using your IP to continue the dispute on Two Chinas, and for this reason have blocked it as well. (Note that I would not have blocked you had you only come to speak to me.) The block on your IP address will expire close to when the block on your account will. Any further requests to be unblocked should be made while logged in, on your account's talk page. Thank you for coming to clarify your reasoning to me, however I again suggest you read through our policies and guidelines and wait out your block. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 13:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How long will the block last? User:PalaceGuard008 has been heavily involved in a discussion over at Talk:China. Please respond here rather than on my talk page so that any discussion is in one place.Readin (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The block is set to expire at 00:58, April 10, 2008 (UTC) (see block log). That should be in about 10 hours, assuming my math is correct. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info.Readin (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ouest Side

Hallo, You say here that you've Speedied this, but there's no sign of the tag! I spotted this while PRODding another article by same editor. PamD (talk) 09:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has already been deleted once - you'll notice the time stamp on my notice was in January, and the first edit of the current version of the page is from the end of March. I'm actually deleting it myself, this time, as I'm now an admin and it still meets speedy criteria. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 12:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia Time

Thank you for that near immmediate response to my question:).I also got info from another user about adjusting the time in my preferences but I figured Wikipedia is supposed to be an international project so UTC time seems good.Again thank you.It was a very friendly welcome.I have recntly been accused of vandalism.To be specific adding fa stars to articles when they weren't featured.However I did that after seeing a page where editors discussed wheter an article should be promoted.Because there was all support opinions I thought that made the article featured.I then added the stars only to find out that was vandalism.I panicked as I'm only 12 and have never recieved anything like a detention or gotten into serious trouble!.It was a case of a relatively new user(I don't remeber how long I've been on Wikipedia but I never really read all the policies as I never was bold) not knowing a policy then breaking it and instead of being told the policy was warned that a block would result.I lost some faith in Wikipedia.Instead of this great big book of knowledge a few edits out of line kept you contributing.So when I wanted to learn more about Wikipedia I was hesitant to ask.But when I did ask I got quick useful answers and a great welcome.Again,thank you.Xp54321 (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Sorry to hear you got warned for vandalism - I know it's tempting to jump in at some cases, and we do encourage it in some instances, but we usually expect users to have a little more knowledge of how things work before they begin participating in processes like deletion debates and featured article discussions. This helps to avoid some confusion, both on the part of the new user (you) and whoever's job it is to close the debate. We've had problems in the past, and still do, with "single purpose accounts", sockpuppet accounts that are created simply for the purpose of promoting a single point of view. We try to assume good faith as much as possible, but sometimes people slip up; I'm sure they don't mean any harm in doing so. Anyway, feel free looking around; the welcome message I posted above has some good links for you to get started at. Let me know if you ever need help. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for April 7th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 15	7 April 2008	About the Signpost

April Fools' pranks result in temporary blocks for six admins	WikiWorld: "Apples and oranges"
News and notes: 100 x 5,000, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Reviewers achieving excellence	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you know that block tags must be subst

I noticed that you placed {{usernameblocked}} on User_talk:Sundown_Records back on 24 March. I'm sure you know this should be {{subst:usernameblocked}}, as with all block and warning tags, it should be substituted. Just a remimnder. Thanks.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I must have slipped up there. I generally copy my block messages from here these days, which already included the subst: code. Hersfold non-admin (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice table, I'm going to link to that!--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for page protection

I hope I'm not putting you through the paces with the requests for page protections! :) Gary King (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are rather a lot... I'm probably not going to do all of them, just hop through and clear out the really backlogged ones. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm scavenging through articles that have not had any recent protection but have been heavily vandalized and therefore making it an unattractive article to edit by established editors because of their volatility. Gary King (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil?

OrangeMarlin's been baiting him like a fish, along with anyone who doesn't agree with him. HalfShadow (talk) 05:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I feel too, see the collapsed discussion above. However, I'm trying as much as possible to stay as neutral as possible to prevent it from getting worse. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding J. K. Rowling

Thanks for sending me to the right page to request protection of the page. I need to know the right page for the right job ;-) --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it happens, and as it turns out, you helped me find some sockpuppets of a user that's been causing us no end of trouble lately, so it all worked out quite well in the long run. Welcome to Wikipedia! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 13:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was bad policy to protect the article of the day? Even if there's a lot of vandalism by IPs, it's dealt with. Protecting a page just alienates potential new editors. I really thinks it needs unprotecting. GDallimore (Talk) 15:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the protection either. Per WP:MPFAP, the article should only be protected for extreme circumstances and then only for a limited amount of time. While there was a period of heavy vandalism it had already stopped when the page was protected. KnightLago (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was being heavily vandalized, with no less than 37 vandalism edits today alone. This is a BLP, and with that much vandalism, temporary semi-protection was necessary. The reason the expiry is set to the end of the day is because MP featured articles are move protected - setting a different expiry time would cause the move protection to fail earlier than expected. We've already had two sockpuppets of a known page move vandal edit the article, so the removal of the move protection is not an option. We can remove the edit protection earlier, but it will have to be done manually to avoid losing the edit protection. I'll leave it up for another hour or two just in case, but then I'll remove it if someone else hasn't already. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the explanation. KnightLago (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel that we can justify edit semi-protection on this article, and think that it is damaging, as I mentioned on ANI. Do you have strong objections if I remove it? TigerShark (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

I will continue to improve as an editor of Wikipedia by taking the advice given to me in the RFA to heart. Even though this RFA has failed, I thank you for your efforts. --Shark face 217 22:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing the GStS Discussion on ANI.

Before you complain, the Admin Noticeboard is not the place to argue about semantics, or the origins or the implications of any particular word. GStS was blocked, which was the purpose behind opening the thread, so all that concerns Admins in their administrative roles is over and dealt with. Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]