This page contains discussions dated during the month of January 2013 from User talk:Hersfold. Please direct all current discussions there. Thank you.

{{You've got mail}} Hi, Hersfold, and thanks for your help with the Butterbumps (talk · contribs) problem. This user has now moved on to a new account, Shagwells (talk · contribs) (account creation date) and I am receiving the same type of homophobic emails. Since I'm a heterosexual who works on countercultural articles that often have LGBT articles as part of their scope, I'm not personally offended by the emails, but I am concerned that this same person might be targeting Wikipedians who self-identify as LGBT and have not spoken up about the harassment. Please look at your email inbox in the next few minutes (or days as you get a chance) as I'm forwarding all emails, including full headers. Thanks for helping to deal with the problem. Viriditas (talk) 05:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Gotta love those disposable email addresses. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Unfortunately the email headers aren't of any use - since they're sent through Mediawiki (and on top of that with a throwaway email) I can't get any useful technical information from them. Do please keep reporting any accounts sending these emails to SPI, but I don't think it'll be necessary to send the emails themselves. Fortunately, you seem to be the only person they've emailed (through wiki). Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Does it look like this person is using a Kindle on the Sprint network? Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't answer that. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 16:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. I'm assuming, based on the original SPI, that Amazon proxy users are on a Kindle via a Sprint connection. I don't know, however, if that is true. Viriditas (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't provide specific information about what sort of device someone is using, and in some cases I'm not even able to tell all that well. In the case of the Amazon proxy, I can't tell how they're connecting to the proxy; I got that information from the IP WHOIS data. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't see it - are you sure it was sent to me? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

What was the reason for deleting several ANI diffs on 1/1/13? Just curious  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone had reported a minor's self-disclosure of identifying information, and in the process posted some of that information themselves. I had to nuke a rather large set of revisions to make sure it was completely removed. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Following the drama at BN, I'm trying to come up with a statement all Crats could agree to. Please take a look, below. I am quite content to do this onwiki -we have always worked transparently, except where secrecy is essential (ie RTV). I think we should be able to wordsmith a statement acceptable to all, and I think it's an important thing to do.

1. In my opinion, this issue has come about through an unfortunate proliferation of documentation: policy, guideline, how-to etc
2. I am not convinced that there is community consensus on all of the points encapsulated in those various pages
3. I am unhappy at what may be described as some or all of: inconsistencies, inaccuracies or lack of clarity in that documentation
4. I do not believe that any of the issues we have faced have been caused by Crats trying to widen their powers
5. I would like to see the issues clarified, based on consensus, and for the documentation to be updated accordingly
6. I'd like to thank Griot-de for generously withdrawing the rename request

Signed [crat sig] Lmk what you think. Many thanks, --Dweller (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been offline for most of the past few days, so I've honestly no idea what this is about. I'm coming down with a bit of a cold now unfortunately, so I don't anticipate that I'll be much more active in the coming days either, so I'd rather abstain from all this. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I wish you better! --Dweller (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Hersfold. No big emergency. I just wanted you to know that I'm considering an unblock here based on the user accepting your unblock conditions. I'm in no rush so just post a note there or on my user talk if you need me to wait for any reason. Thanks Tiderolls 14:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the well wishes - fire away when you're ready, everything looks good to me. Glad we got this worked out. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

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

- McMasterdonia (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Replied, awaiting your response. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You said at A/R/C that "if the RFCU determines a user is disruptive, and the user continues that same behavior, an uninvolved administrator would be well within their authority to block said user for disruptive editing". However, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing says "all participants must agree at the RfC/U talk page on which summary to use", so as far as I can tell RFCUs can not "determine" anything about a user without that user's agreement. For this reason, my (fortunately for me) very limited experience with RFC/U is that it is not useful for dealing with an editor who is, in the end, unwilling to change some behavior voluntarily. Does RFC/U ever play out in some other way? HaugenErik (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

What I meant was that an RFCU can serve to illustrate what the main concerns with a user's conduct are, and what the community's thoughts about those concerns are. Yes, an RFCU does require mutual consent to be officially closed in a certain way. However, if there is a clear consensus amongst others that there is a problem, especially if the only real dissent is the user themselves, that's still something that can be used a proof of misconduct, making it easier for an admin to say "The community finds this disruptive and asked you nicely to stop. You didn't, so now my block button is asking you not-so-nicely to knock it off." You are correct, though, in that it is not binding, and so it is not useful in bringing an immediate stop to the misconduct unless the user in question is willing to listen. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Check into that when you get home. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 19:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, would you consider suppressing this speculation at the entertainment ref desk? The section was created here and after hatting the subject's name redacted here. Thanks. (PS I am addressing you here since I don't use IRC.) μηδείς (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The best place to request oversight is by emailing the oversight list. You can see how to do that here. The reason for this is because everybody watching this page can see the edit before it is suppressed if they see it (including me). Vacation9 23:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Revdelled. — foxj 23:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hersfold. I seem to recall reading somehwere that you were involved in the development of the UTRS system, so I though asking you might provide a quick and easy answer to my question. I've run across a request which makes what seems to be valid case for their block being invalid - however, having reviewed the case, I'm convinced that the blocking admin's actions were entirely correct, given the information they had available. In the case of a regular unblock appeal, I'd simply discuss it with the blocking admin per the usual process, but with UTRS I'm really not sure to what extent - if any - I can do that. Obviously I'd avoid revealing any of the data covered in the privacy policy, but do you know if there's a precedent for holding discussions with a (non-UTRS) blocking admin in such circumstances? Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 10:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

If it's private data, the user should be contacting Arbcom. However, in most cases, if you place the ticket on hold and contact the blocking admin with "This user has revealed something to me that makes me thing your block was invalid, though correct at the time given the information available, and I'd like to unblock them" that you would get a favorable response.--v/r - TP 16:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

If absolutely necessary, the blocking admin can request an UTRS account and then they'd be able to see whatever it is you've seen. But yes, TParis's approach is likely the best one to follow. Unfortunately, due to the UTRS Privacy Policy, we are restricted from discussing most of the information in appeals on-wiki. It's based on European privacy laws (which have to be followed on the Toolserver), which are much stricter than those in the US (which we follow on Wikipedia). Isn't internet jurisdiction fun? Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 17:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. In the event, a wiser admin than I got to the request whilst I was dithering and dealt with it. Useful pointers for the future, though; much obliged. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I did?--v/r - TP 13:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering if you could review a discussion re: the exclusion of the National Women's Soccer League on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues and provide your feedback? Discussion is available here. I'm seeking some impartial feedback from an administrator. There is a little bit of additional discussion on my Talk page. Thank you for your consideration. Hmlarson (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Has there been any discussions onwiki about bugzilla:32234 - it appears to have languished a very long time. We probably need to nudge the shell group. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Saw this on my watchlist, I replied at my talk just so you know, Hersfold. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. I know there's been a push lately to throttle emails, especially for new accounts, but I don't recall anything recent about accounts themselves. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)