Fastilysock (usurped) (talk | contribs) m Reverted edits by 72.95.78.51 to last revision by JohnWBarber (HG) |
IP69.226.103.13 (talk | contribs) →User:Betacommand Arbcom Enforcement Request: new section |
||
Line 354: | Line 354: | ||
''Now'' I understand where I saw your name before. I meant to tell you that I thought your DS close was a very good one, nicely detailed, although I disagreed about the discounting of the "per so-and-so" !votes. I think they entirely depend on what so-and-so said. Anyway, thanks again! [[User:JohnWBarber|JohnWBarber]] ([[User talk:JohnWBarber|talk]]) 23:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC) |
''Now'' I understand where I saw your name before. I meant to tell you that I thought your DS close was a very good one, nicely detailed, although I disagreed about the discounting of the "per so-and-so" !votes. I think they entirely depend on what so-and-so said. Anyway, thanks again! [[User:JohnWBarber|JohnWBarber]] ([[User talk:JohnWBarber|talk]]) 23:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:Betacommand]] Arbcom Enforcement Request == |
|||
I don't see that you or user MBisanz take requiring [[User:Betacommand]] to act in a civil manner with any sort of seriousness. He's been allowed to personally attack and stalk me. Apparently he gets dozens more chances than anyone else. --[[User:IP69.226.103.13|IP69.226.103.13]] ([[User talk:IP69.226.103.13|talk]]) 08:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:54, 2 November 2009
ATTENTION: One or more IPBE flags are up for review at this time. Please confirm that all flags listed on this page are still necessary. Thank you! ATTENTION: One or more IPBE flags are up for review at this time. Please confirm that all flags listed on this page are still necessary. Thank you!
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. |
| ||||
User:Hersfold/Talk Header - v • |
Could the SoL case finally be resolved?
Brews and Tombe going at it again, dominating the talk page of the physics project with the same old "free space doesn't really exist / the redefinition of the SoL in 1983 means the end of the world" song. If nothing is done, in a few hours the page will probably have doubled in length like everything the Brews & Tombe couple touch. Could you get the administrators to finally deliberate? The atmosphere is untennable and is incredibly harmful to the physics project. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 15:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- A simple proposal has been put before Headbomb: show specifically what your objections are; put up or shut up. Instead, he is searching for Admin action. The simple facts: he hasn't a leg to stand on. Brews ohare (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes well since you're the clerk I thought it would make more sense that if you asked them to deliberate. But if it's better that I do it, could you direct me to the proper page to ask this? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'll send them (another) email to figure out what's going on. Unfortunately, that's about all I can do. I'd recommend posting a question on the PD talk page if you're interested in inquiring yourself; Vassyana and a few of the other arbs should have it watchlisted. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Good enough for me thanks. I'll leave a notice on the PD page as well. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'll send them (another) email to figure out what's going on. Unfortunately, that's about all I can do. I'd recommend posting a question on the PD talk page if you're interested in inquiring yourself; Vassyana and a few of the other arbs should have it watchlisted. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
This complaint by Headbomb is probably the most unsubstantiated and barren complaint that has ever been made in the whole of human history. If a complaint like this followed for every legitimate reply to a query at WT:PHYS, the world's telecommunication lines would be totally clogged up. 'Tombe and Brews are going at it again'? You mean we attempted to answer A. di M.'s query at WT:PHYS. Is that not what WT:PHYS is all about? Is it not about the sharing of knowledge about physics? It was a similar kind of complaint by Headbomb at AN/I that was taken too seriously, that led to the whole arbitration hearing in the first place. Headbomb needs to be spoken to and warned to stop making malicious complaints. David Tombe (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- It is clear that Headbomb is out to stir up trouble, not reduce it, and his attitude is geared to that purpose, involving rudeness, scorn and false allegations. Brews ohare (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Beaufort High School - Vandalism
You gave me some helpful information a while back so I am coming to you first for advice. I came across a wiki page for; Beaufort High School in Beaufort, South Carolina. I have noticed that it has been so vandalized that fact and fiction have become intertwined. I would like to make the correct reverts but do not know how to make multiple corrections without using edit for the main article and just doing all of the edits manually.
Please advise!
Thank you,
"bigcats_lair"
bigcats_lair (talk) 15 October 2009
- In complex cases like this, it's easiest to go into the page history and locate the last "good" revision (the most recent one that hasn't been vandalized). Clicking on the timestamp for a revision will show you what the page looked like at that time. While looking at an old revision like this, you can edit that page and save it to return to that old revision. You'll see a big pink warning box above the edit area warning you that this is what you're about to do. Make sure to mention "revert to last good revision" or something in your edit summary. Hope this helps. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Cascading protection
I have anthologised your protected items page to Wikipedia:Cascade-protected_items, to do this job centrally rather than in disparate user pages - thanks for the work yo put into creating it. Unless there's a good reason your user page should be unprotected now I guess. Rich Farmbrough, 22:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC).
- Oh, cool. I'll probably keep the user page up just as an extra precaution, but it's good to have a central page for this. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
*ping* You've got mail! -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 23:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Arbitration Clerking
I am interested in becoming a clerk for WP:ARBCOM at some point, whether it be now or at a later date. I would like to be part of the process and help out because I feel that the committee is an essential element to the community. Feel free to leave any suggestions or comments on my talk page. Thanks! - 97.115.53.203 (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- You'll need to have an account and establish yourself within the community first - potential clerks are offered positions by the clerk corps and Committee, and we will only offer such invitations to experienced editors. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. Unfortunately, as I said, we only offer positions to highly experienced editors who are well established in the community. I can see that your account was registered back in 2007, but you've only been actively editing since August. While there's no particular guideline to required tenure, the ArbClerk position is a position of significant trust, so an editor would probably need an absolute minimum of a year's active work in order to be offered a position. Another necessity is experience in several "drama" situations, or otherwise undertaking difficult and/or unpopular but still necessary actions, and repeatedly handling them with a high level of civility and decorum, since as a clerk you would be responsible for maintaining order within your assigned cases; often a difficult task since tempers are frayed very thin by the time an issue reaches the Arbitration Committee.
- Thank you for your enthusiasm and willingness, but at this time I don't feel you're experienced enough. I can let the clerk corps know you're interested (as we do keep a list of those who have expressed an interest), however I don't believe you would be offered a position for some time. Should you have any more questions, please let me know. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Hello... thanks for dealing with the Carljung issue. I had a feeling the account was from one of the long-term problem users I've dealt with, but I was thinking more along the lines of Serafin or EverybodyHatesChris. I hadn't considered Akraj, an account confirmed by that user to be the head of an institute in India. Said individual is determined to use Wikipedia for explicit self-promotion through an ever-lengthening series of socks and IP accounts. Thanks again. --Ckatzchatspy 07:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Recent CU
You ran a Check User, I was asked to show you "this thread"[1]. It has relevance to this ANI[2] and it's sub-ANIs. Cheers. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's not Akraj; as for who it may be, if anyone, I'm not sure, as I don't have the time nor the mental capacity to check just now. As Jehochman pointed out, however, we try to avoid linking specific IP addresses to accounts anyway for privacy reasons. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009
- News and notes: WikiReader, Meetup in Pakistan, Audit committee elections, and more
- In the news: Sanger controversy reignited, Limbaugh libelled, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
/Lockbox
Hello! I ran into your lockbox and found a minor typo in the header. Right now, it says,
Most of these are directly full-protected, however this page...
It should say,
Most of these are directly full-protected; however, this page...
Sorry if I sound picky, but since I can't edit it myself, I thought I'd let you know. Thanks. Regards, Airplaneman talk 04:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks; it's not terribly important, but I guess I'll fix it when I get the chance. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Archiving Case/Speed of light
Jehochman has suggested that these proceedings be deleted following closing of the case. As I personally feel they are a testimony to the ineptitude of all concerned, I am anxious that they be preserved as evidence for future inquiry and do request that they be archived for that purpose. Brews ohare (talk) 11:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Arbitration case pages within the Wikipedia namespace are never deleted. They may be courtesy blanked in some cases, however that decision is left to the Arbitration Committee. As for evidence pages in userspace, I am not sure, however I believe many are MfD'd following the end of the case. I would note, however, that keeping a page as a "testimony to the ineptitude of all concerned" sounds an awful lot like an attack page that would have been better not posted in the first place.
- I skimmed through the discussion you've linked, and I'm uncertain as to what all is being requested and why. I've commented there; if anyone wants something done, they can ask me directly in an area I'm likely to check. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- No, I did not, Brews. Don't be silly. And you, Hersfold, aren't you omniscient yet? Jehochman Talk 01:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Speed of light arbitration (continued)
Naively, I thought that an arbitration decision settled disputes. Is it typical for disputes to erupt on the arbitration pages right after a final decision? I'm new to this process. I believe that the services of a referee (the kind that officiates boxing matches) would be welcome. Also, I believe that Tombe violated his topic ban in the final decision, again giving his take on the impact of the redefinition of the metre upon science, here: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#The final analysis. Finell (Talk) 06:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Price goading Brews
Although you warned him against similar incivility on 5 October, Michael C Price (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is goading Brews on Brews' talk page. I warned Price, and collected the diffs, on Price's talk page. A warning from you ought to carry more weight than mine. Finell (Talk) 18:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict): :Price said that he would stop.[3][4] No further action appears to be necessary at this time. Risker didn't do anything about Price's comments on Brews' talk page, from what I can see. Risker did shut down the discussion on the ArbCom noticeboard. Thanks for replying. Finell (Talk) 01:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Discussion of topic ban is itself an infraction of topic ban!!!
Hersfold: Could you kindly clarify for me the basis for intrusion by Risker and further intrusion by MBisanz into the discussion of the ban itself as a violation of my topic ban against "physics-based topics, broadly construed"? I absolutely fail to grasp how a discussion of the ban implications and propriety constitutes a "physics-based topic". Moreover, the posting of the decision on my Talk page explicitly invites such discussion and provides a link to the location to post it. Brews ohare (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
BTW, inquiry to Risker has produced no answers, other than such discussion is redundant, which is debatable, and which also is not a reason to claim violation of the topic ban. Brews ohare (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I believe Finell's statement on your talk page is largely correct; comments by several editors were becoming problematic in that they were discussing various ways in which the topic bans could or should be ignored/circumvented/violated/etc. Advice to violate the ban using IAR as justification, offers to proxy edit, among other comments, if expounded upon, could be viewed as an attempt to breach your topic ban or the general restrictions under which you were placed. Other comments that were made by you, such as comparing the arbitration case to a lynch mob, probably did violate those restrictions. Risker's action and MBisanz's subsequent warning were intended to stop the drama by allowing everyone to step away and go back to work before any blocks needed to be handed out less than two days after the closing of the case. That's how I understand it, however the two of them may have a slightly different view on the matter. I don't speak for others. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
User Jehochman
Jehochman has elected to interfere in my efforts to smooth out a disagreement at ANI. I have complained to him here. I am afraid that this action indicates a desire by Jehochman to insure my non-participation under pretext of my ban, not to enforce the topic ban, and I would like you to suggest that he curtail this activity. Brews ohare (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Talking about people without inviting them to the conversation is not the best way to make friends. Please don't discuss me here. I am not interested in spending my time debating with a tendentious editor. Jehochman Talk 20:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, you have improved my very very bad day. :)
Best AfD close evar. All the best. - Sinneed 00:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Seconded, we need a "You made me snort soda through my nose" barnstar for that close. Consider yourself awarded with it. StarM 21:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I think there was a mix-up
Pbweil (talk · contribs) exists, but you deleted their talk page as being a nonexistant user. I restored the talk page, because they do indeed exist. I think you might have wanted to delete a different page? Just leaving a note explaining things. Killiondude (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oops. I meant to delete User talk:Theodore Earl Butler, but the redirect must have gotten in the way. Thanks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Trainwrecks
Welcome to the wonderful world of Falun Gong and it's related sub-pages. That AfD was nothing. Simonm223 (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Any thoughts on how to improve on it? Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, nationalistic disputes (and I include Falun Gong in this due to the Communist Party's involvement) tend to be a royal mess regardless of what's done. My only suggestion would be to continue to try and bring in more people to the project who aren't currently involved, in the hopes that with some more neutral viewpoints on the matter (people not particularly biased either way), you'll be able to bridge some of the gaps between those on the ends of the spectrum who can't agree on anything. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you! Makes sense. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, nationalistic disputes (and I include Falun Gong in this due to the Communist Party's involvement) tend to be a royal mess regardless of what's done. My only suggestion would be to continue to try and bring in more people to the project who aren't currently involved, in the hopes that with some more neutral viewpoints on the matter (people not particularly biased either way), you'll be able to bridge some of the gaps between those on the ends of the spectrum who can't agree on anything. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Could you please provide a clarification on what is the default on Trainwrecks? See here --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've commented at the discussion you linked. Trainwreck basically means that there was no way to determine a consensus, so officially it's "no consensus, default to keep, next time let's make this go a little smoother." Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- I place my hope in this to help to restore the Wikipedia spirit. Any other thoughts? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
David Shankbone AfD
Complain here. New sections on this topic will be merged under this header. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Phew! Whatever about the way the decision fell (which I disagree with), it took a lot of fortitude to take on the job of closing it. Kudos for that, sir!! :) - Alison ❤ 16:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed that was a difficult close, and you gave good reasoning. I know this thread is for complaints, so I guess I am off topic. Chillum 17:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- It was also seven hours early. Also, did I correctly interpret that you discounted "per x" votes as invalid? If so, does this include instances when "x" had presented a valid argument? Lara 17:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Seven hours over the course of a week isn't a terribly large amount of time; I find it unlikely that things would have changed considerably between now and then. As for the "Per X" arguments, they were for the most part marked as marginal or invalid depending on the strength of the cited argument and other comments made in addition to the "per". WP:PERNOM does state that these arguments are valid for particularly strong arguments, however it also states that where reasonable counter-arguments were presented, which was true for every argument made here, personal support should also be provided. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd reverted your closure, and as I was writing a note here saying so, I got caught up in Chillum's idiocy. Apologies I couldn't be quicker. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's since been re-reverted, and I decline to reopen an AfD over the difference of seven hours. As I said above, seven hours is inconsequential over the course of seven days, and not worth process wonking over. You've clearly involved in this matter and shouldn't be making an issue over this yourself. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- What Hersfold said. And it was six hours early, not seven. Big deal. And although I may be perceived as being biased, being a major proponent for keeping in that AfD, leaving it open for another six hours would have made no difference in the outcome. Good sound closing rationale and thanks for the long explanation. Kudos for a difficult close and I would like to believe I would say the same if the close had gone the other way. — Becksguy (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- A determined consensus of precisely 60% could have been affected by waiting the six hours and 40 minutes remaining to reach the "at least seven days". And to clarify, the closing statement was made almost six hours to the minute, but the close took nearly 40 minutes. Lara 18:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- I wasn't suggesting that 40 minutes to close was inappropriate. I was pointing out that while your statement was made six hours before the scheduled end time, as opposed to seven, that the close itself, which caused discussion to end, took 40 minutes. Thus, the article was closed for discussion six hours and 40 minutes early. Apologies for the confusion. Lara 19:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Good job with the closure. Those complaining about hours are losing the purpose for the process. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Your closure looks thoughtful and well-defensible on the merits, after a brief read-through, but I am very disappointed that you chose to violate process for no reason at all by closing the discussion before the mandatory seven days elapsed. I'd not have expected this from an administrator of your stature and experience, I'm sorry to say. Sandstein 18:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's unlikely User:Hersfold woke up this morning and said "I'm going to 'choose to violate process for no reason at all' today." Seriously? He decided to close a deletion discussion based on its merits, not based on bureaucracy. When he believed others felt the bureaucratic "process violation" was an issue, he reversed himself and reopened the discussion. That's the sort of thing you ought to expect from "an administrator of [his] stature and experience." user:J aka justen (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I appreciate the reversion, thanks, Hersfold! Though it really should not have needed a DRV, just a talk page request. Sandstein 20:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)6
- I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's unlikely User:Hersfold woke up this morning and said "I'm going to 'choose to violate process for no reason at all' today." Seriously? He decided to close a deletion discussion based on its merits, not based on bureaucracy. When he believed others felt the bureaucratic "process violation" was an issue, he reversed himself and reopened the discussion. That's the sort of thing you ought to expect from "an administrator of [his] stature and experience." user:J aka justen (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Your closure looks thoughtful and well-defensible on the merits, after a brief read-through, but I am very disappointed that you chose to violate process for no reason at all by closing the discussion before the mandatory seven days elapsed. I'd not have expected this from an administrator of your stature and experience, I'm sorry to say. Sandstein 18:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
My respect for you, Hersfold, just went up considerably. I think you were right that the six hours was not a process violation, after all, it was on the seventh day. I have complete faith in your integrity so I agree with justen. However, maybe it's better to let controversial AfDs complete and avoid unnecessary drama. — Becksguy (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for reverting the close, I think that was the right thing to do. The close itself was fine, though no consensus defaulting to keep seems more plausible to me, but that's a matter of interpretation. I think it does show why closing AfDs early (particularly controversial ones) is not really a good idea. Risker pointed out that she was planning on commenting and the close initially prevented her from doing that, and her comment has now been discussed and cited by others who have commented after her. If a lot of people are watching an AfD, you can assume some are just holding off on their comments and maybe plan to weigh in before the end. Just as importantly, I think it's bad if we get into a pattern of closing "notable" AfDs early, as this can easily lead to admins trying to get the jump on a particular AfD that they very much want to close, which is somewhat problematic since there are probably other admins sitting by waiting to close as well but who are following the "one week" rule (another admin mentioned this very fact in the DRV). Personally I think admins should be aware of the exact time when an AfD opened, and the general understanding should be that no one places a "closing" tag there until 168 hours later. Obviously that time itself is not important, but it's a good thing to have the norm be that when 7 days (exactly) is up the AfD is fair game for closure, and that basically whoever ends up there first will take care of the close. There's no harm in that at all and I think it's the more equitable and less drama-filled way to proceed. Anyhow just some thoughts on situations like this in general, no worries on the specifics here and as I said I think you did well by reverting the closing, and your statement at closing was well thought out. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Deletion review for David Shankbone
An editor has asked for a deletion review of David Shankbone. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Lara 17:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'll comment later, after a related discussion on IRC I'm in no mood to comment at present; I'd probably end up saying something I regretted. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- As you are probably aware, the AfD was quickly re-closed after you reopened it, but with the opposite result. I commented about the claimed rationale, which was based on a policy page change made during this AfD, here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/David Shankbone#Default is delete?. I think that deletion review is in order. —Finell (Talk) 02:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Shanker's AfD
Hi Brett,
When you prematurely closed the AfD you added this comment at the end:
- and requesting that anyone who wishes to contest this please speak with me before going to DRV. Thank you.
I was wondering, is it customary that an editor who believes a deletion discussion should be reviewed should discuss the matter with the closing admin? If so where is that written? What would happen if an editor wasn't to speak with you beforehand? Cheers, Crafty (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's mentioned at WP:DRV. As for what would happen, I'm not sure, because many people tend to skip that step anyway - cf. McBride's reversion of the closure. Please don't refer to me by name on Wiki. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for re-opening the AfD. Admitting error can definitely be hard, even if you don't think it's actually error and you just want the voices to go away. @harej 19:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Another shenanigan
A non-admin "courtesy" blanked the AfD page with no apparent justification. The blanking was since reverted. Discussed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/David Shankbone#Why was the page blanked?. —Finell (Talk) 22:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Formatting
Hi. Quick questions on the Rjanag arb request. I noticed a couple of formatting SNAFUs.
First, Rjanag is not listed at this point as a party. I had thought I added him originally, and of course I expect he should be listed -- is that something I should add, or would you prefer to handle?
Also, I noticed that the formatting changes after the Seresin statement (.1.1.7) to 1.1.2 ... and the subsequent statements by editors seem to have the wrong numbers. I'm guesssing (but let me know if I'm wrong) that I shouldn't touch that, but you may wish to. Finally, am I supposed to do something so that my responses appear as sub-headings? I thought I followed the arb directions, but that didn't happen. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- You'd put Rjanag's name in the section, but it was left in as part of a comment, so never appeared. It's fixed now.
- The problem with the headers was that you, and everyone following you until Ncmvocalist, was using a level 4 header instead of a level 3. I've fixed this as well.
- The way your responses are formatted is fine. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks from Sydney, Australia, for the URL unblock and especially for the feedback. I edit what I hope are usually uncontroversial subjects, but physician in particular attracts a lot of vandalism and I try to patrol it frequently. As it turned out, someone else undid what I had wanted to undo when inadvertently blocked.
Cheers, and thanks again --DavidB 01:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
RfArb
I did something rather stupid at the RfA for Rjanag--I struck it out, but if you would refactor I would be very grateful and much less embarrassed, DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- It took me a minute to figure out what you were talking about, but now I see the problem. It's fixed. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Note to self; comment. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009
- Interview: Interview with John Blossom
- News and notes: New hires, German Wikipedian dies, new book tool, and more
- In the news: Editor profiled in Washington Post, Wikia magazines, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Barnstar - For your closure of Shankbone AfD
The Admin's Barnstar | ||
Because even if tainted by a small technicality and still disputed, your analysis of that hotly debated AfD was one of the best I've seen ever, and your thorough rationale was a shining example of how admins should weigh AfD discussion. You did a wonderful job, don't let yourself down for the subsequent discussion. I thank you for your work. Cyclopiatalk 12:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC) |
- It is a shame we tossed out a quality closure with good rational and basis in policy because it was a few hours early only to get a much lower quality result. Hopefully people will learn not to throw away good decision due to a technicality from this, the next one may not be so good. Keep up the good work here. Chillum 14:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
bug
See here. Best Regards, --HappyInGeneral (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, ok, then let's call it unexpected behavior --HappyInGeneral (talk) 02:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Question
Hi. I'm just trying to verify whether or not there is a current ArbCom injunction pertaining to reversions on Scientology or Scientology-related articles. I know there was one, and we've been having an issue with an editor who continues to remove a paragraph from the Jenna Elfman article pertaining to her sitting on the board of directors for a Scientology-related museum. Editor contends it's a fringe cult and not philanthropy. I personally don't care one way or another, except that the content is sourced and the editor is new to the article. Information about the status per ArbCom would be helpful. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, all Scientology-related articles are subject to article probation - "Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. See Category:Articles on probation." You can look up general sanctions such as this at Wikipedia:General sanctions, and if you feel some sort of enforcement is needed, you can make a request at WP:AE. If they're new to the area, you may want to just try to explain things to them. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll post a link to your response at the article talk page. I'll note the editor, who isn't new to Wikipedia, but is to the article in question, basically called me a liar when I noted the ArbCom injunction. I'll give him one more opportunity to check on this and stop POV editing. Thanks again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Could you maybe help out with this?
I notice you review a lot of unblock requests, User:JohnWBarber is asking for someone with CheckUser rights to discuss a matter with him privately as part of his unblock request. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like Alison is offering help as well, but I'll make sure to alert other checkusers to this. Thanks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Checkuser request
Euclid's Optics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a new (crated 20:05, 28 October 2009), uncontroversial article has been continually vandalized by a succession of anons:
- 128.113.196.208 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 128.113.96.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 128.113.241.59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 165.82.84.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
The nature of the vandalism by all of them, after the first 2 quickly reverted examples, is quite similar, so it may be one individual or group. With the exception of one unrelated, innocuous edit by 165.82.84.121 on 17 September 2009, the only edits by these IPs are the vandalism of this article. All the IPs have been warned; 128.113.196.208 was blocked upon my request. The 128 ... IP address are registered to Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; 165 ... is registered to Haverford College. I can't fathom why this article would be the target of this volume of vandalism. Can checkuser tell you more about these IP addresses, and possibly a connection with registered Wikipedians?
Does Wikipedia have a policy about notifying colleges when their networks are being used for vandalism?
The article was created by Vaxelrod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who created that user account just before saving the article (I should welcome this new editor). That account's only edits are to this new article and to link the article from Euclid. Can you use checkuser to see if the vandals are connected in some way to this editor?
I requested semi-protection for the article.
I didn't mean for this to be so long. Thank you. —Finell (Talk) 01:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC) (To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply, if any, here on your Talk page)
- I'd prefer that sockpuppetry/checkuser requests be made at WP:SPI for record keeping purposes. Without evidence to support that the author of the article would also be vandalising it, I don't see a need for a checkuser investigation to be made here.
- As for the university abuse, you may want to check at WP:LTA. I don't believe there's any set policy on this. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Block
Out of curiostiy why did you block The Unstoqqable W1k1ped1an (talk · contribs)? I've got to admit, not only is the username suspicious but they seem to know an awful lot about Wikipedia for a newbie. Cheers, Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 02:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
I appreciate your help with that. I'm sure when I get more blocks under my belt I'll figure out how those unblock things work.
Now I understand where I saw your name before. I meant to tell you that I thought your DS close was a very good one, nicely detailed, although I disagreed about the discounting of the "per so-and-so" !votes. I think they entirely depend on what so-and-so said. Anyway, thanks again! JohnWBarber (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
User:Betacommand Arbcom Enforcement Request
I don't see that you or user MBisanz take requiring User:Betacommand to act in a civil manner with any sort of seriousness. He's been allowed to personally attack and stalk me. Apparently he gets dozens more chances than anyone else. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)