Hersfold

Page links: (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Hersfold (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Hello, everyone; my name is Hersfold, and it is my honor to stand before you as a candidate for the CheckUser tool.

For those who do not know me, I have been active on Wikipedia for two years and seven months now, and have been an administrator for over a year and four months now. My RfA passed on March 17, 2008 with near unanimous support. I may be somewhat unfamiliar to many of you, as I tend to be a WikiElf rather than an active content editor, working in the background in administrative areas, most notably with CAT:RFU, CAT:CSD, WP:RFPP, and various other areas as the mood takes me. Despite this, I do hold two DYK's, for Carcross Desert and Hood Mockingbird. Most recently, I was named a trainee clerk for the Arbitration Committee in April.

As I mentioned, I work mainly in the backstage of the Wiki, so I regularly come across issues that haven't been given the attention they need. Most common are the regular unblock requests we receive from users who have been caught in a rangeblock. More often than not, these affect relatively new accounts that have not established themselves well enough on the project to be immediately given an IP Block Exemption. The Checkuser tool would allow me to quickly deal with these, rather than trying to find a CU. Of course, the tool is mainly intended to help stop disruptive editing, and there it would be an increased assistance in deletion discussions, incident reports, and in my work with the ArbCom. While I have not been very active at WP:SPI of late, I have checked in on occasion, and plan to become more active there soon regardless of the result of this election.

I'll close out with a short FAQ, since I know there will be many questions asked of me:

Thank you for your consideration. Should you have comments or concerns, I'm always open to constructive criticism, and I hope to be able to alleviate any worries you may have. Best of luck to the other candidates as well! Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments and questions for Hersfold

Sorry if I'm a bit long-winded... tl;dr versions can be provided on request. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The Edit (aka Abuse) Filter has several filters in place that are aimed at known modus operandi of some known socking vandals. If a user were to repeatedly trigger one of these filters, the filter may prevent the edit from being made (hence no actual disruption), but would still be logged. Depending on how accurate the filter was and the nature of the vandal, a CU could find an underlying IP address or sleeper accounts and stop the vandal before they get around the filter. Similarly, new user accounts with names similar to that of a recently-blocked sock can be checked to see if they are the blocked user, and a large series of similar improper account names can be CU'd to temporarily block the underlying IP address. The CU policy allows for a check to be run if there is reasonable suspicion of abuse, preferably documentable (i.e., I can point to a diff or log and say "this was a red flag for me). The cases I've covered are likely most of a very few cases in which this could happen without any prior disruption, however.
  2. Any sort of widespread attacks using multiple accounts could use Checkuser assistance; the Grawp attacks are evidence of that. In his "prime," Grawp would create (or have created) dozens of sleeper accounts which he would quietly nurse into autoconfirmed status, so he could use them one-by-one to move random articles to vandal titles. Protection and simple blocking proved ineffective, as he'd switch accounts and IPs and carry on. Once a checkuser got involved, they could identify sleeper accounts, block them before they got used, and in some severe cases issue a short-term hard rangeblock to stop the attack while the rest of the accounts were ferreted out. Less severe cases could involve a banned POV pusher who repeatedly attacks a certain set of articles; they may fly under the radar for a time, and it could take a Checkuser to connect the accounts if the banned user is particularly clever.
    That said, a good portion (probably most) of socking issues in mainspace can be handled simply by comparison of edits and other public evidence; CU is simply used in these cases as a verification when it's not 100% certain.
  3. Anything involving a long-term editor or administrator should probably go to the checkuser mailing list. Not to say those users have any particularly special status (since they don't), but starting an SPI on them can lead to unsightly amounts of drama which can complicate investigations. By handling it privately, a CU is able to email the user directly saying (more diplomatically) "you got caught, I've blocked your accounts, stop it now, we're keeping an eye on you, if you'd care to explain please do" in low-key cases, or forward the matter to ArbCom for more serious infractions. For administrators, ArbCom involvement is probably necessary anyway due to the "Administrators using a second account in a forbidden manner risk being summarily de-sysopped" line in the socking policy.
    Other issues, of course, include cases which could, for one reason or another, potentially harm one or more users through the release of their IP address (since many SPI's are of the form "Are this user and this IP the same?"). The most obvious case I can think of would be dealing with Sensitive IP Addresses (gov't IP addresses and the like); there are certainly others, but I can't think of any that would make particularly good examples. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That RfA was quite a mess. I can't say that it was entirely anyone's fault, but it probably could have been handled better. Were I the crat there (I should note I am not one), I would have contacted Enigmaman privately as soon as possible, without taking any immediate action on the RfA. He stated within the RFA that had he been contacted, he would have withdrawn. Further, since this did not appear to be an ongoing issue but rather a one-off incident, giving him a chance to step back with the understanding that it was NOT to be done again, and noting that avoiding scrutiny of this manner is against policy and could result in further steps being taken, probably would have been best for everyone. Enigmaman could have claimed some RL issues preventing him from continuing, and the community would not have needed to know unless it happened again. That could have spared everyone the drama resulting from the strange issues with deleting edits and the release of the IP address. If he failed to respond or refused to withdraw, then I would have discussed with other CU's, crat's, and potentially Arbs about what to do; most likely, it would have ended up trying to note that the logged-out editing had taken place in some way while trying to keep the IP itself private (which would have been difficult, as we saw). The unfortunate thing about that RfA is that there really isn't any good way to handle it; this is what I would have done, but it could have spiraled out of control just as easily as it did for Deskana. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You caught me just in time. :-) These may be the last questions I'll be able to answer due to the awayness mentioned above.
  1. There very probably could and should be more female functionaries (or editors in general), although as you mention I think it's more than likely a result of most people on Wikipedia being men anyway. I believe this is starting to slowly become more evenly balanced, and for the better. (So the short answer is, yes, both)
  2. If I should find a case like that, I'd treat it the same way as we would for a potential RL celebrity impersonator. Block them, and refer them to OTRS so they can verify their identity. As a checkuser, I'd offer whatever assistance I could to OTRS, which would likely include making a check, finding a general location for the user with geolocation tools and whois reports, and forwarding what information I'd be able to provide to the OTRS list. After that, it's in OTRS's hands. Checkuser (unfortunately) doesn't allow us to see who's on the other side of the computer screen, so unless I was very lucky I'd be unable to verify the person's identity myself.
    Of course, should I find other vandalism edits coming from the IP and/or similar impersonation nonsense, I may not bother with OTRS and just leave them blocked. There's no sense in wasting everyone's time for something that obviously isn't worth it; even if it is the real person in that case, if they're not here to help, they don't need to be here.
  3. I do appreciate having the community provide their input into the selection process. These tools should only be given to those users who can be trusted to deal with them appropriately; being trusted by ArbCom is one thing, but being trusted by several thousand others is quite another. I can think of two main disadvantages, though; elections like this do have the tendency to attract grudge holders who will oppose for no reason other than that the candidate blocked them, argued with them over an article, or some other perceived slight. This has been helped some by placing restrictions on who can vote and disallowing comments to distract from the main purpose. The second disadvantage is that which I just mentioned, the commenting. I understand why ArbCom has asked us not to attach comments to our votes, but at the same time it leaves those among us who are not getting much support wondering why they're being opposed, and what they can do to improve themselves. A few editors have publicly provided their rationales, but it's only a handful. In general, though, I do like the election process as not only does it get the community involved, it helps keep the community aware of who has these tools in the event they require assistance with them.
  4. I am ready for IPv6. :-)
I hope this answers your questions; as I said, this will be the last time I'll be online for some time, possibly until the elections have ended. Sorry for the inconvenient timing, but I will try to check in if I can. Best of luck to all of the other candidates! Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of Hersfold

  1. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 00:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Vicenarian (T · C) 00:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. — Aitias // discussion 00:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. iMatthew talk at 00:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. —harej (talk) (cool!) 00:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. (X! · talk)  · @060  ·  00:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --Aqwis (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Prodego talk 00:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Chzz  ►  00:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Res2216firestar 01:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Mixwell --Mixwell☞TALK☜STALK!!! 01:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. ThemFromSpace 01:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Skinwalker (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. (reasoning) The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 03:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Jehochman Talk 04:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. JavertI knit sweaters, yo! 04:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. — Σxplicit 04:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Daniel Case (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. ➲ REDVERS Buy war bonds 06:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Heimstern Läufer (talk) (rationale) 07:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Euryalus (talk) 09:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. - Dank (push to talk) 11:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Trust! bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. AGK 12:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. --Until It Sleeps Wake me 13:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oniongas (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Splette :) How's my driving? 14:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. -- Mentifisto 14:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. – B.hotep •talk• 14:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. LittleMountain5 15:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. MuZemike 16:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Davewild (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. JamieS93 18:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Ian¹³/t 18:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Masonpatriot (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. RP459 (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. --Ipatrol (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. FASTILY (TALK) 19:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. —MC10|Sign here! 21:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. -Drdisque (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 01:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. NW (Talk) 01:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Unionhawk Talk E-mail 02:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. BrianY (talk) 04:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Bilby (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. — Kralizec! (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Chris (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Toddst1 (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61.  Cargoking  talk  14:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. PhilKnight (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Alexfusco5 19:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 20:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. → ROUX ₪ 21:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Aye, but weak ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 23:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Cubs197 (talk) 05:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 06:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Tryptofish (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Nev1 (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. See here. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 22:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 00:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Ineligible voter. Hersfold (t/a/c)[reply]
  75. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Ysangkok (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Atamachat 00:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support ≈ Chamal talk 09:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Pmlineditor 13:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  81. --Giants27 (c|s) 19:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 21:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Wikireader41 (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  84. McJEFF (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  85. — madman bum and angel 04:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  86. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 07:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Sceptre (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Malinaccier (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  90. StarM 19:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Stephen 00:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  92. PerfectProposal 02:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Joe (talk) 02:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  94. yousaf465' 04:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  95. bonadea contributions talk 09:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Martin451 (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  97. βcommand 13:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Graham87 01:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Tiptoety talk 05:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Master&Expert (Talk) 07:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Poltair (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Cbrown1023 talk 17:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  103. -- Banjeboi 19:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  104. GDonato (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Aaroncrick (talk) 08:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  106. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  108. hmwitht 05:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Use it wisely, or else--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  110. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 21:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  111. snigbrook (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    --k33l0r (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Sorry, not eligible to vote, fewer than 150 article edits before June 15. Risker (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  112. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  113. —Terrence and Phillip 12:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  114. –Megaboz (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  115. AlexiusHoratius 20:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  116. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 23:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Steven Walling (talk) 03:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  118. -- Bishonen | talk 09:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  119. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  120. billinghurst (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Alio The Fool 14:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  122. — JamesR (talk) 04:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Otterathome (talk) 13:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  124. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Whitehorse1 20:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support --StaniStani  22:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  128. BJTalk 23:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in opposition to Hersfold

  2. Majorly talk 00:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Caspian blue 00:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    --Fox1942 (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election - SoWhy 11:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  4. -- Goodmorningworld (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Crafty (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. -- TharsHammar Bits andPieces 18:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Cynical (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More