Jump to content

User talk:Hersfold/Archive 64 (April 2012)

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


← Previous archive - Archive 64 (April 2012) - Next archive →

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

Email

Please review your submission to ArbCom and redact any material you derived from private emails you may have seen. Material in emails is private so as not to cause damage to other editors. Rich Farmbrough, 00:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC).

I didn't refer to any emails when drafting that. What are you referring to? Feel free to email if you prefer. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Harassment of editors and Arbcom transparency

On my talk page at User_talk:Russavia#Comment_from_AGK, there is a discussion between myself and your fellow Arb User:AGK, concerning an issue which came to the attention of Arbcom. As the various links and diffs show, many editors saw the recent RFC/U against User:Fae as harassment, at best, and as homophobic harassment, at worst.

AGK firstly stated that he "voted" to ban Delicious Carbuncle, then has "corrected" himself to state that he merely was in favour of the Committee reviewing the case; either way there was opposition on the Committee to either banning Delicious Carbuncle or even reviewing the harassment that Fae was being subjected to.

As an Arb, the community elected you to represent the community for the community. The Committee time and time again pushes on editors who come before it that transparency is essential in our editing; in fact, transparency is one of the key tenets of this project, however the Arbcom often does not act in the same transparent way that it (and the community) expects of the community itself.

AGK states on my talk page that one can only expect a transparent hearing if a request for arbitration is filed, and states that most Arbcom business is conducted this way. This notion is somewhat correct, but it is also very wrong. As the committee time and time makes a point of stating that community transparency is essential, the community also expects the same of the Committee -- at all times. The Committee also makes many decisions "behind closed doors", and when pushed to explain decisions cites various "get out of jail free cards" to avoid being transparent to the community-at-large. This includes decisions such as banning editors for things done offwiki which can't clearly be attributed to that editor, or unbanning editors with a history of socking, etc, etc.

In aid of this, and in the interests of transparency to the Community at large, I am asking that you answer the following questions:

  1. Did you discuss the harassment of Fae on the Arbcom-l mailing list?
  2. If you did discuss this on the mailing list, were you in favour or against the Committee reviewing the information?
  3. If the discussion got to anything resembling a vote, did you vote in favour or against banning Delicious Carbuncle?

These are very simple questions which one is able to answer if they are truly for transparency both on the Committee and in the community in general, and I would expect that many in the community would be wanting transparent answers to these questions.

The last thing, it is of course Fae's choice if he wishes to request a case for Arbitration, but these questions are not being asked to have an end-run around the Arbitration process, but are being asked in the interests of transparency on a specific example that the Committee was aware of and refused to act upon. I would expect Fae and other editors (especially LGBT editors) would be wanting transparent answers here now, before deciding if they wish to act. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 07:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Others have replied on your talk page; I'll do so there. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

Arbcom Case

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 18, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Guerillero | My Talk 19:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to events in June and July: bot, script, template, and Gadget makers wanted

Hersfold, I invite you to the yearly Berlin hackathon, 1-3 June. Registration is now open. If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, then please register by May 1st and mention it in the registration form.

This is the premier event for the MediaWiki and Wikimedia technical community. We'll be hacking, designing, teaching, and socialising, primarily talking about ResourceLoader and Gadgets (extending functionality with JavaScript), the switch to Lua for templates, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Labs.

We want to bring 100-150 people together, including lots of people who have not attended such events before. User scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data, templates -- if you are into any of these things, we want you to come!

I also thought you might want to know about other upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC and our other events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 21:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much, but I'll be rather busy this summer and won't have the time to leave the country. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Hersfold. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 12:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

ACC backlog

If you have a moment, it would be appreciated, thanx Mlpearc (powwow) 21:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Please respond

Could you please respond my post, in which I mentioned you directly. While responding, could you please provide specific details and publish all emails and other communications between members of the Committee concerning this case? If for some reason these emails cannot be published, could you please provide the exact reasons why not? The most important thing I'd like to get a response for is why Mbz1 was not notified that the Committee was considering blocking her. Also could you please specify how each arbitrator voted? Thanks. Broccolo (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I will not publish private emails, as they are private and were sent with the expectation that they would remain so. We blocked Mbz1 because, as I stated, she was refusing to drop her campaign against Gwen Gale; a number of arbitrators individually emailed her asking her to stop, however she refused and continued to email those arbitrators individually. I do not believe there was an official vote on the matter of a block, simply a general agreement that Mbz1's vendetta was incompatible with Wikipedia. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I am not asking you to publish private emails. I am asking you to publish email-discussions concerning Mbz1 reblock.Please review Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Transparency_and_confidentiality and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Requesting_arbitration, and if you could please name a valid reason that prevented arbcom to hear the case here on English wikipedia or in an open case, and now preventing you from publishing emails. Also your allegations about Mbz1 emailing individual arbitrators and getting responses from them contradict this post made by your fellow arbitrator "... there never was a massive Arbcom investigation. Everyone Mbz1 mailed it to looked at it and said "can't see it myself" and left it at that, often I suspect without emailing their response back to Mbz1." It proves that Mbz1 was refused in dispute resolution. Broccolo (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
You have apparently missed or are ignoring the line in the policy you're throwing at me that states "The Committee treats as private all communications sent to it, or sent by a Committee member in the performance of their duties." If you really really really want to see all these emails (keeping in mind that many of them were sent directly to individual arbitrators and not to the mailing list), then I suggest running for a seat on the Committee next election. Good day, sir. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Bot policy / editing rates

Regarding the section "Rich has violated the Bot Policy repeatedly" in your arbcom evidence. A while back a different way to manage bot speed was introduced, the so-called "maxlag" parameter. Bots that use that do not have a maximum edit speed as long as they only have one process performing edits at a time. I think that 10 edits per minute is within the range of possibilities for a bot that uses that system; the speed varies some with server load and connection speed.

Betacommand had a specific edit restriction that limited his editing rate more than the basic bot policy would, but R.F. does not. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

10 edits/min is fine for a bot, yes... the problem is that those edits were being made from his main account, not as part of an approved bot task. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Apologies; I didn't realize from the subsection header that the argument there was that the tasks should have gone to bot approval. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
No problem, I'll be sure to clarify that when I finish things up. Thanks! Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

In case you don't see it...

[1].

I can't be arsed to put that comment at the proper place, so mentioning it here will have to do. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've removed it. Somehow I missed that on the genfixes list. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Trying to follow WP:DENY, but thought you should know about my block log @ 20:48, April 11, 2012. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Meh. Happens all the time. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

ConfirmAccount extension

Hey :). You're being contacted because you are involved in the ACC process, or participated in the original discussion in '08 about the ConfirmAccount extension. This is a note to let you know that we are seeking opinions on switching this extension on, effectively making the ACC process via the Toolserver redundant. You can read all the details here; I would be very grateful if people would indicate how they feel about the idea :). Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You have mail on an account creation request

Probably should be considered by a checkuser. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

Complaint or question (not sure which) on Cirt circumventing edit ban through posting on Wikimedia Commons

Hi, noticed you were arbitrator on [[2]].

Have been editing Rush Limbaugh-Sandra Fluke controversy , which has been WP:BLP (obvious), and at some point noticed annoying graphics on side, with blatant POV "Republican war on contraceptives", etc. Went to edit to NPOV, and could not be edited on WP page, as are in Wikimedia Commons, ie on the WP page but via two clicks, not one. Edited the file descriptions to get to NPOV, thought no more. Did an unrelated edit on Endometriosis, non-controversial, just to get better logical flow, and get a nasty, official looking warning, threatening sanctions. Immediately assume am inadvertently in an edit war, post proposed edits on Talk page instead, think nothing more. Return MUCH later, find no action on proposed edits, look at History, find no great action on page, meaning no edit war, therefore warning seems suspicious. Warning editor, Cirt, at first glance, doesn't seem controversial, since few political edits. Notice POV garbage back on WP page via Commons, go back to Commons, find that the source of the POV commentary is same as attacking editor. Several weeks later, find the reason there is no political editing by Cirt, namely the edit ban.

Question is, seems sensible that evading a clear ban using the Commons would violate the WP sanctions, am unsure if it does; the two are obviously linked, not sure of authority question.

BTW. Reverted the Cirt comment on my Talk page when POV discovered. The files have been taken down, but allegedly for copyright reasons. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:209.6.69.227#March_2012 --209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee only has authority on the English Wikipedia; thus, the restriction you note above only applies to his Wikipedia-based activities. If he is editing pages on the English Wikipedia in violation of his sanction, then that's something that can be brought to Arbitration Enforcement; if it's strictly Commons, the matter should be raised at Commons to see if the community there feels it's a problem. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Abuse Filter on the Article Feedback Tool

Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.

For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Evidence Phase

Just a friendly reminder that the evidence phase has closed. If you would like to add evidence please speak to a clerk or one of the drafting arbs. Thanks, --Guerillero | My Talk 04:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm done, thanks though. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Questions to the parties

Your attention is requested here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough/Workshop#Questions_to_the_parties Thank you. (Noted you have replied) Mlpearc (powwow) 05:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

Question

I don't recall how I came by your user page, but you seem like a person who could/would answer a question about improving an article (if you don't mind). The article is Resident spy. I have brought it to the attention of help desk and I left a comment on it's talk page, but so far... nuthin'. I'm not asking you to fix the article yourself (unless you want to), I'm just wondering if you could give some suggestions? I would then know what to do with any future articles I come across that need major fixing. I will look for your reply here. Thanks. - thewolfchild 00:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the main thing is the need for reliable sources to support the information you've provided. Key points that should be referenced (IMO) are your definitions of the legal/illegal terminology, and your assertions that the named spies were "illegal residents." That previous link includes information on what is and isn't reliable; this one explains how to include the citations once you find them.
Aside from that, this looks like a very well-written stub; it could use some expansion, perhaps on why countries would favor one type over the other? Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
First, thank you for the response and the info. However, I wanted to clarify something, your comments included; "...information you've provided...", "...your definitions..." and "...your assertions...". This isn't my article. I had nothing to do with it. I just found it and thought it needed attention. - thewolfchild 18:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Right, sorry about that. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hersfold/Archive_64_(April_2012)&oldid=1139000791"