Jump to content

User talk:Hammersoft

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Scientelensia (talk | contribs) at 10:34, 29 December 2022 (→Please could I have some Advice?: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Recent ANI

    It was archived[1] without any ruling. There was no consensus for Grutness categorization method. So I am going back to the colossal mess they have made. There could easily be a 1,000 pages that need fixing....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI, Grutness abandoned his work leaving somewhere between 750-1500 articles overcategorized....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Another update. I grossly underestimated how many messed up articles there are because of Grutness. Sportspeople from St. Louis alone had over 150 articles that needed fixing. The cities I have done other than that, average 2 to 3 dozen each. Multiply that by how many Sportspeople from categories worked on, we're talking three thousand or more. Some of them include good articles. Is this WP:DISRUPT? This editor is going their merry way editing elsewhere and leaving all this carnage around. Kind of a small scale Neelix. Remember that editor and his redirects?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oof! That's rough. I don't know; given the circumstances I think I think I'd leave Grutness out of it now. If Grutness continued...that's a different story. But, if they're not making it worse anymore at least there's a starting point to work from. You might inquire about getting help from related projects. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Some cookies for you

    Cookies!

    For protecting the Stuart Attwell page just as I was about to head over to WP:RFPP to request it. Thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yeah, it was on RFPP already, but I only headed over there to see if it was there after tripping over the vandalism while doing user creation log patrol. I initially set it to one day, but after looking at all the sockpuppets and prior protection record, I've decided to up it to a week. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

    Guideline and policy news

    • Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

    Arbitration

    Miscellaneous

    • The functionaries email list (functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Hgbb

    Hiiiii can we talk? 24.188.140.194 (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Obviously didn't want to talk. I wish you a very happy and prosperous year in 2022, Hammersoft. --ARoseWolf 14:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ARoseWolf: Yeah I kinda figured it was a drive by, though I've no idea why. No matter. I hope you have a great 2022 too! --Hammersoft (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    How we will see unregistered users

    Hi!

    You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

    When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

    Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

    If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

    We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

    Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

    18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

    Page move edit restrictions

    Hello, Hammersoft. Regarding this AN/I closure and the WP:Editing restrictions listing, it may be worth noting to the editor that moves can be requested via WP:RM/TR or WP:RM in lieu of the restriction (if appropriate, and my understanding is correct). Recent moves seem to be in good faith and fall outside the discussed issues, but some users under similar restrictions utilize this method. (Anon report since I welcome his overall contributions to the encyclopedia, but this was one of those restrictions difficult, but seemingly important, to enforce.) -2600:1012:B1B2:F48D:2985:E1C4:1C5D:F9DF (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for making me aware they have been conducting page moves. I've left what is in effect a final warning on their talk page. Some admins would have blocked them right off for it. I chose not to do so. But, I will be monitoring their edits. I've made the recommendation you suggested as well. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    in friendship

    January songs
    in friendship

    Happy new year! - Today I show yesterday's snow (if you click on "songs") and today's music in memory of Jerome Kohl, a friend --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    2022 began happily with vacation. I uploaded images but stopped at 22 January - click on songs. 30 January means 10 years of Precious. It's also the birthday of a friend, - I'm so happy I mentioned his DYK on his 90th birthday when he was still alive. I have a great singer on DYK whom I heard, Elena Guseva, and wait for a Recent death appearance of Georg Christoph Biller whom I saw in action. WP:ITNN --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    update: we have now Guseva pictured, Biller picured better (but still not on the Main page, WP:ITNN, marked ready on 29 Jan, - is that an area you might look at?), and one more day of my pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    February songs
    frozen
    Precious
    Four years!

    remember: my joy, music was pictured on your talk last year - more on my talk, RexxS pictured twice - The Biller RD was eventually resolved - for 9 hours, and when I complained, for about one more, - I try to forget that, - he, too, is still pictured on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    ps because you looked into Francis Schonken, he reviewed "my joy" for GA and failed it, another reviewed the second round, Francis intervened, and the reviewer soon had enough pf that and gave up, and then Francis nominated the third round, this time successful ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I took a pic in 2009 that was on the German MP yesterday, with the song from 1885, in English Prayer for Ukraine, - do you happen to know a language to translate to? Italian and French are short. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I pinged you to a related RfC, - it's over. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion at Talk:Keiji Nishikawa § Date format

     You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Keiji Nishikawa § Date format. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    A belated Happy New Year to you and your family Hammersoft. Would you mind watching this for a bit? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

    Guideline and policy news

    Technical news

    • The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
    • The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

    Arbitration

    Miscellaneous

    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:AFC Helper News

    Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

    • AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
    • The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

    Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – March 2022

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

    Guideline and policy news

    Technical news

    Arbitration

    Miscellaneous

    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Happy First Edit Day!

    Happy (late) First Edit Day, Hammersoft, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! --Isro! chatter 19:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you :) --Hammersoft (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    25 March: Bach

    March songs

    Today: Bach's No. 1 today. - The FAC was difficult. I'd like to thank Francis anyway for improvements but don't need another revert. I nominated now BWV 56. - Sad record: I brought three articles to the Recent deaths section, - not at the same today but still ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Sunday flowers and sounds, don't miss the extraordinary marriage of the beginnings of the theme of Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1, and Prayer for Ukraine - here! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – April 2022

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

    Guideline and policy news

    Technical news

    • Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
    • When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

    Arbitration

    Miscellaneous

    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    New administrator activity requirement

    The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

    Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

    1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
    2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

    Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

    22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

    Mathsci (again)

    I created the article Double group. Then, User:mathsci added two sections which are, in my view, irrelevant. There followed what is in effect an edit war after I removed the added sections. I renamed article as Double group (magnetochemistry) in order to clarify what the contents were about. The talk page shows that mathsci has contested the changes, even making threats. The sections that he added and I then removed are irrelevant to the topic of the article. Specific issues:

    Wrong edit of formula

    to .
    Reason: is ambiguous

    Wrongly removed

    =See also="
    "Product of group subsets"
    "Direct product of groups"
    Reason for inclusion: These articles are relevant since a double group is an example of a direct product of two groups. They are too technical to include in the article.

    I cannot continue with this atmosphere. Having read your previous contributions, I suggest, with great reluctance, that the time has now arrived to consider placing a lifetime banning order on this user.

    P.S. Double groups are a specialized topic in Group theory. I first became acquainted with Group Theory in 1964 and was a lecturer in Chemistry (Leeds University) from then until retirement. Petergans (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]

    Extended content
    • Parenthetic comment. I've given lecture courses in Parts I, II and III of the Cambridge Mathematical Tripos over a long period, starting in 1990. The header = See also = breaks WP:MOS; the representation theory of SU(2) gives the correct character formula for , the th symmetric power of the 2-dimensional vector representation evaluated on an a diagonal matrix with entries ; setting and gives the usual quantum mechanical formula; and so on. On en.wikipedia.org, there is an incomplete mathematics BLP on me in which I have had no involvement; it lists some articles on mathscinet concerning projective unitary representations and character tables of binary finite subgroups. The article "double group" was listed for speedy deletion and then for deletion by D.Lazard. I mentioned my own knowledge of that topic at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double group. The 1929 article of the physics Nobel laureate Hans Bethe was also mentioned; in "Applied Group Theory" by Arthur Cracknell, there is an English translation; later Bethe made his own independent translation. The topic has since been covered by numerous physicists using the term "double group" (cf references to books of Cracknell and Bradley & Cracknell); for example, here is a 1956 article by physics Nobel laureate C. N. Yang et al, "Strange Particles and the Conservation of Isotopic Spin", where the character tables of the "double groups" are treated, in particular for the binary tetrahedral group, binary octahedral group and binary icosahedral group. Other physicists like Wybourne and his collaborators have also worked out branching rules, tensor product rules, etc. In algebraic combinatorics/representation theory, mathematicians like Tonny Springer, Ian G. Macdonald, Bertram Kostant, Robert Steinberg, et al have explained systemically why the character tables of finite binary subgroups fit into an ADE pattern, including branching rules: that was first observed in 1969 by John H. Smith, who studied graphs of Perron-Frobenius eigenvalue 2 or less (cf Smith graphs); the character tables are the suitably normalised eigenvectors of the adjacency matrix of the Smith graph — the character ring of the subgroup has a basis consisting of irreducible characters and tensoring by the character of yields an adjacency matrix corresponding to an ADE graph. Mathsci (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Petergans: @Mathsci: What I am seeing here is a content disagreement. If either of you can highlight behavior issues, I can help address that. I haven't read through everything, but what I'm seeing suggests discussion is happening. That's a good thing, and is part of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Keep discussion positive; comment on content, not on each other. If you need me in a more direct role, let me know. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    You are quite correct that this is a content disagreement following an AfD discussion, hence the parenthetic comment. The OP has not been mentioned here. The standard rule "comment on edits, not editors" has been respected. Mathsci (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The tag "expert needed|Physics|talk=Resolution|date=April 2022" is clearly was removed again. I have given my credentials on the article talk page, but my attempt to remove the tag have been reverted. It is obvious that the tag has no relevance to the topic, which concerns the magnetic properties of specific chemical compounds, not the physics of paramagnetism. Please remove the tag. Petergans (talk) 10:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hi. As you see, I have been continuing discussions, adding sources and in particular the applications to (a) Carbo 60 fullerene and (b) quasicrystals. Both of these rely on the symmetry of the icosahedron. D.Lazard complained that there were no definitions in the article; at the AfD and on the talk page, I had sketched what was needed. In the text, I provided a summary of that, which, as a first approximation, others seemed to like. Having worked through sources in mathematics (~1900), physics (~1930) and chemistry (~1970), I decided to write a brief summary that would match up with Petergans' material. I started on 7 June adding character tables and am continuing slowly. Charles Matthews is familiar with the material and saw what was going on, indicating the content was not contentious. This is one of the rare occasions where I write in my area of expertise; it is still true that the mathematical theory has to be interpreted by physicists, chemists or materials scientists. That is beyond the scope of pure mathematics. Given that Charles Matthews sees nothing contentious (nor do I), what do you suggest? Mathsci (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't suggest anything. This is outside of my own area of expertise. I think the AN/I thread is likely to conclude with a site ban unless you come up with a reasonable explanation for your actions, humble acceptance of what you did wrong, why this time will be different, and how you plan to act moving forward. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which actions do you mean – creating mathematical content? Mathsci (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, nothing to do with content creation. Everything to do with how you manage yourself on this project. You have many IBANs in place. I blocked you for three months for breaking one of those IBANs. You have many AN/I threads about you over these many years. People keep on having issue with how you are editing and interacting as opposed to what you are editing. A great deal of introspection is needed here. I especially turn you to the advice I gave you in the 6th paragraph here. I strongly recommend you put yourself on a permanent WP:1RR restriction. You don't have to tell anyone. Just do it. You've got to invert your standard behavior here and strive exceptionally hard to work in an extremely collegial manner with others. The edit warring you committed over the removal of the 'confusing' template on the Double group article was absolutely unconscionable. I mean come on, 4 removals of the tag in less than 5 hours? You've been blocked for edit warring in the past, yet here you are at it yet again. There is no possible rational argument to sustain such behavior. What you did was wrong. You know it was wrong. If you didn't know it was wrong, then there is a serious WP:CIR issue that I can't imagine could exist, given you've been here over 15 years. What you are doing is begging people to site ban you. I don't understand it. I didn't understand it with Francis Schonken either. I'm at a loss as to how to communicate to you the serious nature of what you have been doing. Do you want to be site banned? Like with Francis Shonken, I can't draw any other logical conclusion from the evidence at hand. Even if you do manage to turn your standard behavior here around, it might be too late at this point. You've got to come up with a plan of action that seriously addresses Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mathsci_at_Double_group and appeases the community. As is, I don't see a reason to not support a site ban. Prove me wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mathsci: pinging you just to make sure you see this. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC) [reply]
    • You've previously mentioned WP:ARBR&I; I don't know why. Because of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Mikemikev, a recently registered account wrote that they wanted to edit my user talk page, but had no access; subsequently they were indefinitely blocked. But, apart from checking for sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, ARBR&I remains as it is – there seems to be no interest in modifying anything. A Benedictine wikipedia sometimes handles edits with a racist agenda, often in consultation with Doug Weller. In 2013 D.Lazard made an AE posting about ARBR&I which was removed with a warning.[2] Mathsci (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I've ever mentioned that Arbitration proceeding. I also don't think any of this has anything to do with modifying your conduct on this project. If I'm missing something, let me know. My concerns expressed above in my 13:11 comments still apply. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't have an easily accessibly archive, but clicking through [[User talk:Hammersoft]], I found the list without too much difficulty. Because your user talk page is on my watchlist, I'd seen it before. Mathsci (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I did mention it. I don't remember. I've slept since then. It still doesn't address your reasons for blatantly violating WP:3RR, nor provide any basis on which to trust that moving forward you're going to operate here in a collegial, cooperative manner. You're not addressing the core issues here, nor really should you be on my talk page. It's the people here you need to convince. That slippery slope I warned you about a long time ago has become essentially untenable. Either you convince them, or you're likely done here. Your choice. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    blue and yellow

    April songs

    Ukraine day today: Maks Levin DYK, expanding Kyiv Symphony Orchestra (have tickets), and creating Anthony Robin Schneider, the bass who could be heard opening the singing in Beethoven's Ninth twice on 10 March 2022, live in Frankfurt, Germany, and recorded in Auckland, New Zealand, singing "Freiheit!" (freedom) instead of "Freude" (joy), in a tradition started after the Fall of the Wall. In case of interest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    May 2022

    Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is WP:ADMINCOND of Hammersoft. Thank you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Hammersoft, thank you for speaking "truth to power". When one can be prevented from becoming an admin solely due to their support of a major political party candidate in a major nation, much less an elected president, that is unacceptable. If Wikipedia or the Foundation wants to only allow supporters of one political party or persuasion to become admins, that is its right as a private organization. However, it should make that clear to everyone so that those of us who oppose such political oppression can make an informed decision about our contributions to such an organization. Until then, anyone who supports such a policy shouldn't be in a position of authority. Thank you for standing up for the rights of others who have political points of view that may differ from that of the ruling clique. This is a dangerous viewpoint for an admin to hold, and you are right to oppose such candidates. BilCat (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It may have been right to oppose, but it was wrong of me to attempt to make a distinction between a view and the person holding it. I've withdrawn my oppose for generating far more heat than light. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Request

    In User:Hammersoft/Recall, you provide a 5 step process to your recall. The first step is "Communication is key; if you feel that I have acted inappropriately, discuss the issue with me first. As with all things, I will be responsive," has, in fact, happened. You responded here. The complainant found your response inadequate, and went to the second step 2 "If that does not resolve the issue, elevate the issue to WP:AN/I. I will participate in the discussion." The discussion, in fact, is the one mentioned above. It was closed here. Given that you were almost certainly not active during the hour and a half it was available, you were technically unable to respond. As such, the complainants are unable to progress further down your recall procedure, not because they are no longer aggrieved or because the procedure has dismissed their concerns, but rather, because "Irrespective of the merits of the complaint [Abecedare] do[se]n't believe further discussion at this venue will be helpful or has any chance of reaching a resolution."

    As someone who is personally currently against your stepping down as an admin, but who believes that recall pledges should either be adhered to or demonstrated as the joke that they are, I'm going to ask you to fulfill your pledge. Please reply to the ANI thread opened pursuant to your recall conditions here, and acknowledge that step 2 has been completed, and you will rule on step 3 ("If during that discussion it becomes apparent that I have acted inappropriately and violated the community's trust in using the tools, I will likely voluntarily step down without further action,") which would permit the complainants to move on to step 4 if they felt it necessary. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not initiating or currently joining a step 4 5-person list. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hipocrite: Hammersoft's criterion #3 reads, If during [an ANI] discussion it becomes apparent that I have acted inappropriately and violated the community's trust in using the tools, I will likely voluntarily step down without further action (emphasis mine). Though WP:ADMINCOND was cited at ANI and Hammersoft's first two criteria do not mention that the dispute has to be over administrative actions, I would say that the wording of #3 makes this case ineligible to trigger Hammersoft's recall process. I would like them to retract one of their statistically misleading comments as well as reword insensitive language; however, I would not support any recall petition. — Bilorv (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, but Hammersoft's criteria 2 states that he will respond to the thread. Given that he is unable to respond to the thread in question, Criteria 2 cannot be fulfilled. If Hammersoft wants to waive criteria 2 and skip directly to ruling if the discussion made a thing apparent or not, that would be fine, as it would allow petitioners to proceed to criteria 4, the creation of the 5 person list, if they so choose. Hipocrite (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not feel that the recall process is appropriate in this case. In making comments on the RfA, I in no way used, expressed desire to use, or made reference to anyone else using tools. My actions on the RfA are as a member of this community. The recall process I crafted for myself isn't a recall process in terms of my membership in the community. It's about whether the community no longer has confidence in my ability to use the tools appropriately. If that trust has been violated, I am all ears. Since tool usage is not part of this, I don't see how it could have been. Also; to clarify, no I do not feel that step 1 has been satisfied. We are doing step 1 right here, now. At an RfA it is inappropriate to do so.
    • As to my comments made on the RfA; as I tried (apparently poorly) to express, I was not making a personal attack on Tamzin, but rather on their approach to evaluating other people. I don't know Tamzin. I've never interacted with them before. I was responding to their assertions in regards to evaluating people, and that alone. It's a distinction that was lost in text. I'm sorry it was lost, and I'm sorry my incapability with words made it such a problem. It's a lesson I learned the hard way once years ago, and apparently I needed to learn it again.
    • @Tamzin: I'm sorry to ping you to this. But, if my words mean anything to you at this point, please accept this apology. I never intended to make any personal attack against you nor would I ever do so. I know my words came off that way, and for that I am sorry. I do find your approach to evaluating people to be deeply, deeply problematic and incompatible with being an administrator. That does not mean that I hold you in contempt. It does not mean that I find you despicable or disgusting. I realize I failed in making that distinction before, and perhaps I am failing again. For what it's worth, I have withdrawn my oppose on your RfA and subsequent comments by me on it. My apology is sincere, and I am quite sorry for badly fumbling words in an attempt to show where the problem, from my view, lay. As a human being, a person with thought, feeling, and rationale, I hold you in respect. I do apologize. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for this comment (00:19, 2 May), Hammersoft. I think it shows fantastic strength of character. I know I have previously let an emotional oppose at RfA stray into a personal attack, and later regretted it. It is easier to dodge the topic or double down, but I think the retraction and the apology here—without wavering in your opposition—is the correct response. — Bilorv (talk) 09:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for withdrawing the remarks. Though I am still concerned about the impact this has had, both emotionally & physically on Tamzin, and upon the justifications used by some of the voters, I thank you for reconsidering what was written and withdrawing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I echo these remarks. I don't think I've ever been as disappointed in a fellow administrator. Once this RfA is over I will be working through User:Hammersoft/Recall, so do yourself a favour and withdraw resign — TNT (talk • she/her) 01:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      As it is nearly over now, I have no objection to it beginning now. I'm quite happy to engage in discussion, as per point #1 of criteria. I've withdrawn my opposition to the RfA. I've attempted to clarify where I think I went wrong. If I haven't, please tell me. Most importantly, I've apologized to Tamzin and also tried to make it clear I was not personally attacking them. If I haven't made this clear, then please tell me. I state unequivocally that I was wrong for attempting to state my feelings on the candidacy. Further, as I noted above, this wasn't about my role as an administrator nor any use of tools. More abstractly, if you feel that this singular error since I was granted the privilege to serve as an administrator is enough to fully undermine faith and trust the community might have in my abilities as an administrator, then there might not be common ground for us to discuss this. If it is enough, then my participation on the project as a whole is what we should really be discussing. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      It is patently laughable that you think you can dodge this by stating you were not using your tools — I couldn't give less of a damn. You attacked a fellow editor, incredibly publicly, harassed them into withdrawing and were referenced by multiple other voters. Your actions contributed heavily to that RfA becoming a shitshow. Take some damn responsibility. Do you honestly believe your behaviour "model[s] appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editor[s]" as stated at WP:ADMINCOND?? Resign. — TNT (talk • she/her) 02:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I made it very clear I had no intentions of personally attacking Tamzin. I'm sorry that you think I did. I will not resign for making one mistake that I have withdrawn, apologized for, and attempted to clear the air about. If you think this isn't taking responsibility, please tell me what is. As I've noted, if you think making this singular error that I have withdrawn and apologized for is enough to undermine faith and trust of the community for me to be an administrator, I don't think we have common ground for us to further discuss this. If you are aware of other errors I have made since becoming an administrator, I am welcome to hear them. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      (talk page watcher) If what Hammersoft posted at the RFA about the candidate withdrawing was considered by many to be "bullying", then how isn't the above comment telling him to do himself a favor and resign as an admin also not considered "bullying". Just trying to understand the logic here. Is there anything further to be gained by announcing one's intentions like this? If such a thing was inappropriate to do at an RFA, then it would also seem to be inappropriate to do here. It's also odd that "withdraw" would intentionally be stricken through like it was, unless the intent was either the mock Hammersoft's stricking of his comments at the RFA or otherwise to try and equally "hurt" his feelings in some way. He did apologize and acknowleged the harm his comments caused. At some point, trying to always have a tat for every tit isn't going to lead to anything productive and allow the situation to cool down. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      As far as I can see, I've not called him "despicable or "disgusting"... could you please provide some diffs of where I did, or strike your accusation. — TNT (talk • she/her) 02:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      And I did strike my "despicable" and "disgusting" comments. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm asking Marchjuly to substantiate their accusation. The fact you, as an admin, even made those comments in relation to another editor because of a fucking political belief is beyond the pale. And is contrary to UCoC § 3.1 - the more you know eh! — TNT (talk • she/her) 02:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok, let's say it's beyond the pale. Do you believe one mistake is sufficient to undermine the faith and trust of the community? --Hammersoft (talk) 02:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      No, probably not Hammersoft, though classifying that as "one mistake" is a little disingenuous.. you replied multiple times to your vote, and had multiple chances of stepping back instead of doubling down. You're asking me if the faith and trust of the community has been undermined, and I'm saying the only way to find that out for sure is to inform the community (not just those who bothered to read your oppose) and re-run the gauntlet yourself. You must have forgotten the horrific stress placed on candidates during even a straightforward RfA, let alone that. — TNT (talk • she/her) 02:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @TNT: My post wasn't about you calling anyone "despicable" or "disgusting", and I didn't use those words at all in my post. Please provide some diffs showing where I did use those words if you believe that to be the case. I simply posted that if Hammersoft asking (demanding?) an RFA candidate withdraw is considered to be "bullying", then how is asking him to do essentially the same thing not also "bullying". I also didn't get the point of your strikingout of "withdraw" in your OP. I'm assuming it was intentional, but just don't understand why it was necessary. Given the speed at which replies are being added here and my speed as a typist, I apologize if this post in out of chronological order in some way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Calling a candidate those names is bullying. Pinging them demanding they withdraw, with that context, is bullying. My demanding Hammersoft resigns their tools is not bullying. I hope that helps. — TNT (talk • she/her) 03:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Calling me disingenuous is effectively calling me a liar. That of course would mean that you are every bit of in violation of UCoC § 3.1 as you state that I am. You apparently believe that this incident by itself is enough to warrant me resigning. I remind you that at WP:ADMINCOND it says "Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect." You're expecting me to be perfect. I've done everything I can to make amends for what has happened. I don't know what else to do here. I am trying to engage you in some common ground to work this out. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hammersoft: I'm going to drop this, because it's fairly clear it won't go anywhere constructive and is a waste of my time 🤷‍♀️ I don't wish to interact with you other than as strictly necessary by policy. — TNT (talk • she/her) 03:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry to hear that. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @TNT: Let say I agree to disagree with you on that. Posting on someone's user talk page is essentially the same as "pinging" them; moreover, demanding someone resign as an admin because you feel they're undeserving in some way doesn't seem very civil (at least not to me) and seems to me more like trying to pressure them into doing something they might not want to do. Even at different degrees of wrongness, two "wrongs" don't make a "right" (again in my opinion). There must be some process for getting admins desyopped, and it seems simply be better to start that process if you feel Hammersoft or anyone else is unsuitable as an admin than demanding that they resign on their user talk page (again in my opinion). Anyway, I'm going to remove myself from this discussion now since there's not really any more I need or want to say, and I'm simply too slow of a typist to keep up with the pace of posting at the moment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Administrator Sphilbrick has a differing opinion[3] so far as whether calling on an administrator to resign as being civil or not. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If I have just a brief moment I wanted to share something here. Hammersoft is a human being and I may not agree with his tactic in the discussion but it his initial oppose opened my eyes to a concern I had not seen about Tamzin's responses and it still concerns me because it hasn't been addressed and got drowned out in all the discussion about political beliefs. But that's something I'd like to discuss at a later date with Tamzin if she is willing, not now and not here. He can be chastised for his tactics but he can't be questioned when it comes to his genuine concerns about the libre mission of the encyclopedia and his understanding of the role an admin plays in the community. So much was made about how the discussion turned after Hammersoft opposed the RfA. Perhaps that is the case, and perhaps the majority of them are politically motivated, idk. I can't speak for those individuals. But I also know we have had horribly stressful and contentious arbcom cases over the last few years involving admins that overstepped their boundaries due to their inability to set aside their personal beliefs. Whether we agree they should have been removed or not is irrelevant. The fact is that it happened and it was brutal for those involved. I'd rather flesh this out during the RfA and make sure a candidate understands the correct definition of what an admin is and their role in regards to the community to hopefully avoid situations like have been encountered the last few years. I don't believe Hammersoft should resign. He struck his comments after realizing the harshness of the wording and has done everything to make amends, but I honestly believe his intentions were purely focused on what he felt was best for the community and fell in line with the original intentions of the encyclopedia because that's how I have ever seen him react, even when that involved telling me to move on because I was becoming too emotionally attached to a situation. There is nothing disingenuous about Hammersoft. In fact, the complete opposite is true. --ARoseWolf 13:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you know exactly where they stand, which is what I like about Hammersoft. Sometimes that comes across a bit rough, and sometimes a bit petulant when things don't go his way. I agree with him more often than not, but always respect his opinion. Ironically, I also appreciate Tamzin for standing up for theirs in the face of a ton of pressure. We need them both as admins. Jacona (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Apologies

    My tone above was fuelled more by emotion than sense, and was not called for. I apologise — TNT (talk • she/her) 14:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @TheresNoTime: I appreciate your candor and apology. None of us are perfect, least of all me. It's something I lost focus on. We are all human. I've taken a few days away from Wikipedia just to separate from the emotions. I've received a significant number of communications in email. For days I've been agonizing over what to say, how to respond, what to do. I start crafting a response and get stuck. I just haven't been able to compose a response separated from emotions for anything I've received, positive or negative. Your message here is the first one I've responded to in days. A heartfelt thank you to you. We might not agree, but at least we can be human to each other. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – May 2022

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).

    Guideline and policy news

    Technical news

    Arbitration

    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Rick Day All Players.jpg

    Hi Hammersoft. What do you think about the non-free use of File:Rick Day All Players.jpg in Rick Day#Career? It could be seen as an example of Day's photography style, but there's really nothing the particular cover anywhere in the article and most of the content about his style seems to be quite general. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    May June music

    May songs

    I like my talk today (actually mostly from 29 May - I took the title pic), enjoy the music, two related videos worth watching! - Would you have time to look into a discussion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok so I reviewed. I don't feel strongly about it one way or another. I lean towards including the infobox. I don't think I'd like to voice an opinion there. I know you didn't canvas me for a particular opinion, but just to get my eyes on it. Still, given that I don't have a strong opinion one way or another, I feel a bit awkward commenting. I know that doesn't help resolve the issue. But, I don't think my semi-ambivalent position would help resolve it either. :/ Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right about not asking you to voice an opinion about the question, but I have an opinion about the personal comments. For an opinion on ibox or not, and if yes which, I could have asked you months ago. What bothers me is a recent comment by a user whom I like a lot as an editor. I don't want to prompt you because I like your independent thinking. The question ibox or not was labelled a war in 2005, and it still went on in 2013 when I was caught in it, so I was sentenced by the arbitration committee, but all restrictions were rescinded in 2015. (I added infoboxes to operas in 2013, DYK? - yes, many, replacing the side boxes they used to have. I can't show you the side boxes because they were all deleted in 2021. So I guess I won the portion where I had interest and "warred".) Cosima Wagner was written by Brian Boulton, whose name was mentioned in this discussion a few times, but the one who wrote oppose obviously didn't read the discussion, just came with the language and prejudice remembered from times of war. I'd like peace. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    June songs
    Ukrainian peace music is "on" today, with the conductor! - Pentecost (on last Sunday and Monday in Germany) brought a rich harvest of great music in two church services (one with me singing in choir) and two concerts with my brother in the orchestra, - four pictures I took besides the symphonic one. - In the above matter: I think I'll just add the ibox, because the oppose is nothing that matters, 1) "rotten idea" is no argument, 2) is has been said in the discussion that the principle writer was open, in 2012, 2013, and still when he died, 3) it's simply not true that an ibox is there to "summarise" the article, 4) the subject wasn't even one of the people allegedly needing an exception because they are an "art bio", - she ran a festival, like Wieland Wagner and Michael Herrmann. (This is ignoring all references to my wrongdoing past and present, which would need some citation. - I haven't been active in iboxes since 2015, - it proved bad for my health. But once labelled by the arbs, it will probably stay with me ...) - I see two choices: that infobox will stay, or - if not - we'll have a RfC. There was none in 2022, and those (3) in 2021 were all in favour of an ibox (or its uncollapsing), last example Stanley Kubrick, all three without me taking part. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you follow? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm sorry I didn't :( --Hammersoft (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you try to explain to the reverter that the infobox wars were proclaimed over in 2018 (Yay!), and the language of "rotten idea" and "campaigner" have died out, and it made me happy? I am a campaigner for accessibility, yes, and for giving information also to the "idiots". It takes nothing away from a FA. I have never understood why there even was a conflict. - my day today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe, but it can't happen right at the moment. Maybe later today. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, what I'm seeing is a lack of consensus to include or exclude the infobox. If I were you, I would just drop it and walk away. Not the answer you want, I know, but it is a good one I think from the abstract position. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear you, but the assumption given there that I don't respect the wish of the one and only major contributor, Brianboulton, who died in 2019. hurts me personally. I don't care about the box. I had a bet open in 2013 that Richard Wagner would have an infobox by 2020, and then 2020 came and I didn't care any more. Do you understand the difference? Brianboulton was open to discussion in 2012, and wrote that Signpost essay, and invented the identibox, both in 2013, began infoboxes for operas Arianna, Percy Grainger, did not oppose any infobox to "his" articles while he lived (Carmen, ...) - I see all this as his way towards compromise. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's been occasion here where I am too involved in something, and can't let go. It's a hard thing, but sometimes you just have to let go and walk away. De-watchlist, respectfully disengage if anyone brings up the subject to you, and walk away. Ten years down the road, you won't care. Life's too short. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I hear you, and I think I am able, and have proven that many times. Just take Richard Wagner (Pierre Boulez, Giuseppe Verdi ...). But (again): this is not about the box, but what arbitration did to my name and reputation, and to my relationships with editors. (Did you know that Messiah was written by Brianboulton, Tim riley and me whom they invited when I was a noobey?) I would like that to change, and you - proven to know best how damaging arbitration can be - seemed to be able to mediate. I said in 2013, trained by RexxS, that I dream of the infobox being a simple tool of accessibility. An other words, I dream of the day that when an IP adds an infobox they are not reverted. That's how it started for CW. I don't think that Brian - if alive - would have reverted, and that is what makes me not walk away easily. - All this doesn't matter much, of course, in the light of Ukraine and this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to say that there, but wish I'd feel more secure in wording such matters. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you could just help me with understanding English (if you don't want to be remembered as the person who was instrumental in ending the infobox wars). The latest comment says: "We've discussed above how the proposal does a poor job of providing a summary of what is truly key about who she was". I believe the key facts in her life are covered, and if a subject has complex history not easily put in one "fact", that should not exclude readers from finding at a glance other key facts. (On top of that "we" standing for exactly one user. ) The question seems to be if an infobox has to be a summary of the subject's life, vs. a summary of key facts from the subject's life. How do you see it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Frankly, I don't even understand why there's a dispute about it. I would say that saying "We've discussed..." when there is only one is misleading. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Look now we are together. For 10 years now I have not understood where the problem is. I met that infoboxes are a problem in 2012, for Samuel Barber (still on that talk including my oppose at the time, - I was converted by a comment in that discussion), and the following year Cosima Wagner, and the friend who had added an infobox for her a day after she appeared as TFA on her birthday in 2012 was planned to be banned by the almighty arbcom in the infobox case, - so yes that particular article carries some personal connection). - This kind of we, in German (or rather Latin) we call it pluralis majestatis, the plural of the majesty ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the opposers was Mathsci, and without saying a word about the topic, you (better than I) might hint at the fact that his voice shouldn't not have weight (on top of the comment not at all to the point of the particular article). I'm not happy that he is banned, but also was not ready to defend him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been an extremely long history with Mathsci. When I blocked Mathsci for 3 months, I received a lot of comments that it should have been indefinite. The behavior evidence since coming back from the block did not show any improvement in behavior. That's been the pattern with multiple long term blocks with Mathsci. I don't know why there is a communication gap that prevents behavior modification, but there is. Community patience was shot. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever (and I don't care much), he made an unfounded comment at the CW discussion) and someone (not me) should say that it should not carry weight. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    today: a song about getting through the night, after plenty of music over the weekend --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – June 2022

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).

    Guideline and policy news

    Technical news

    • Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
    • The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.

    Arbitration

    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you help?

    I'm posting on your talk page because of some advice you gave Mathsci after returning from his last ban. He refuses to leave me alone, and is pretty clearly hounding me [4]. I've already had one admin intervene twice here. But, he won't stop and frankly, I wasn't aware of how long his history problematic behavior has been (and I suspect that @Liz was not aware either). Can you help with this mess? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Wheelchair_bound Smasongarrison (talk) 03:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. That's my hope that it'll resolve itself that way. I suspected that there would be a huge time commitment if I were to formally escalate this. (Frankly, the fact that other people have found him problematic is reassuring. I was really starting to doubt myself.) Smasongarrison (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not really involved in any of this, Smasongarrison, but because I happen to be wheelchair bound, I made a neutral observation on that thread and it has been on my watchlist since. As a former admin I have a good grasp of policies and this appears to be Harassment. What no one seems to have noticed is that the Words to watch talk page is under DS, as plainly warned in its header notice. I don't know what the current ruling is on DS (the policy seems to be constantly under debate), but as far as I can see, there is a possibility for invoking it in the case of Mathsci. I have not investigated further and I don't intend to, but I hope this helps. Although I loathe the place, I might make a similar post at the ANI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Smasongarrison: I was reviewing things on my talk page and was reminded of this situation three months ago. I'm glad to see that you decided to continue editing, despite all that happened. As I noted back then, we can't fix what's in the past, but we can prevent it from happening again. I think we've done that, and I'm pleased you're moving forward too. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Former radio station logo questions

    Hi Hammersoft. Do you think the two former logos being used in WMTX, WDVI, KRPT, KLOU, WBZW, WHQC, WKYO, WHNZ and WYLD (AM) are simple enough to be converted to {{PD-logo}}? I'm pretty sure most of them are, but not so sure about File:KRPT logo.jpg and File:WKYO logo.jpg. If all or some of these need to remain licensed as non-free, then I'm not sure that any of them meet WP:NFC#cite_note-4. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok logo by logo:

    --Hammersoft (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for taking a look at these. A few were actually files from Commons already licensed a {{PD-logo}}, but I converted the other ones you mentioned. The ones you felt were too complex or weren't sure about are pretty much the ones I wasn't sure about, which means they probably should remain as non-free or at least be further discussed somewhere. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – July 2022

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).

    Technical news

    • user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

    Arbitration

    Miscellaneous

    • The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    July songs

    July songs

    How are you? - I heard a great concert by Voces8, pictured. - I have a FAC open, in case of interest. Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    more July songs, from Swiss Alps and a funeral - how is it for you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think I need a funeral just yet :) I remember soaking my hat in a cool glacier stream. Later on, I had lots of tiny pebbles in my hair. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I like you smile, and imagine the pebbles. I meant that the music (middle movement from Bach's Concerto for Two Violins) should be soothing whenever heard. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    My talk page

    As we discussed, seems like my "fan" is back to pestering me again, so dropping a line as we discussed. Any help or advice welcome. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes please! Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Arcahaeoindris: Done. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Hammersoft

    I can't write everyone. I wish I could. It wouldn't be proper to do so as Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia, not a goodbye tour. However, as I sat here working a little on my supply lists for the approaching winter I realized I would be remiss not to write you and thank you.

    The principles on your user page tweaked my philosophy on Wikipedia. Before that I had formulated a generally negative view of Wikipedia after falling into my very natural warrior spirit role in life. I realized something when reading those principles. I can have my opinions and I can even express them in regards to how I view the implementation and interpretation of policy and guidelines but ultimately consensus rules. I learned that I can keep my opinions and follow consensus without lingering too long in discussions which tends to only lead to heated exchanges. I learned that my opinions do not constitute a fundamental misunderstanding, just differ from the understanding of others and there is no violation of policy by expressing it within the context of the discussion when done with civility and respect. Sometimes my opinion is that of the majority, sometimes not. And that is okay.

    I have tried, often times with perhaps too much fervor, to advance civility in discussions because it is often times the first thing that leaves, the last thing to return and almost always overlooked. If that is a fault then I accept it. I care about Wikipedia, deeply, and the editors I have met here along the way, new and experienced. Everything I have said or done was always with the intention of easing new editors into the often tumultuous waters that is Wikipedia while also helping them gain an understanding and respect for the frustrations experienced editors face. All this while trying to help any editor navigate Wikipedia to be successful. The credit for any of this and all changes in the way I have edited in discussions over he last two years goes to you and the principles so eloquently written on your user page, also forever on my user page.

    There is more I wish I could say but I think you understand my appreciation for you. So, my sincerest thanks to you and I wish you all the best, Hammersoft. --ARoseWolf 16:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Asareel, you are too kind. Thank you, thank you. I am very sorry to see you go. Wikipedia is just a thing, though, and you are not really gone. I will always think of you standing by the edge of the woods, miles from any scars on the land of human habitation. Please feel free to email me any time through the "Email this user" link on the left. I'd be happy to chat. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Lee Kuan Yew

    This new account is doing that Lee Kuan Yew photo switch that Manwë986 was fiercely engaged in on numerous occasions and going against consensus (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). Manwë986 previously served a 6 month long ban which from the Lee Kuan Yew article for this very reason. You're the admin who are more knowledgeable in regards to their behavior as you've dealt with them previously and handed them the ban, so I'd leave the judgement to you if there's some sockpuppetry involved. 58.190.52.39 (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Rollback at ACN?

    Did you mean to rollback Laundry's comment there? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Premeditated Chaos: how ironic hahaha :) --Hammersoft (talk) 03:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – August 2022

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

    Administrator changes

    readded Valereee
    removed Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

    Guideline and policy news

    • An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
    • An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

    Technical news

    • The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
    • Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

    Arbitration

    • The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

    Miscellaneous

    • You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
    • Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
    • Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Cleveland Guardians

    Please go to my talk page to view and to respond to my new comment.

    2603:6011:7501:7862:89C9:6959:8C6A:FE84 (talk) 11:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – September 2022

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

    Guideline and policy news

    • A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
    • An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

    Technical news

    Arbitration

    • An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
    • The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

    Miscellaneous

    • The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
    • Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.
    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Björn Türoque

    He's listed twice now, I didn't edit the target article quickly enough. I suppose it's still a case of WP:NPERSON? Mapsax (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Mapsax: Very much so, I'm afraid. Usually we don't include someone on a list such as this unless they have their own article. Of course, such an article has to be supported by reliable, secondary sources and also pass WP:NPERSON thresholds. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, as I understand DAB page general policy, independent target articles are not necessary as long the subject is overtly mentioned on the respective target. In addition, I personally think that with the vetting that major book publishers do should be enough for author notability, even with a single release, so it would be a case of WP:IAR, though I know the latter is a weak argument. However, I understand that WP:BLP is more stringent so I accept the revert. With the additional material I just added (I apologize for not editing the relevant pages in inverse order), the name should show up with more frequency in the search bar, and that's fine with me. Mapsax (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh, toss up. I don't feel strongly about it either way. I just think having an article about the person makes it ironclad. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It was just ironic that I could find out more about this person on Wiktionary than Wikipedia. At least they've run even now more or less. Mapsax (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Page reviewer

    Hello!

    I am wondering how I would become a page reviewer, I've learnt from the first time I asked in February, but only now have I got the idea of becoming a page reviewer again, since I think people deserve to know which pages are more helpful than others, etc.

    Keanu Venter (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Keanu Venter: Information regarding this is available at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers. As of now, you do not qualify for that privilege, as you have only 4 edits to main space and 500 are required. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    ScottishFinnishRaddish RfC

    I appreciate the comment on the RfC regarding what he said to me. I felt bad about what I told Nableezy, and I apologized to him for it, because I misinterpreted the userbox on his talk page, I misinterpreted what I thought was him accusing me of supporting Israeli war crimes, and I misinterpreted Wikipedia policy. I clearly made a bad mistake and will try to never repeat that again, but all ScottishFinnishRaddish did was inflame the situation, because instead of explaining policy or warning me, he insulted me and ranted on my talk page, which simply made me more annoyed. Bringing up "shit" and "bullshit" and "you should be ashamed" will not improve anyone's behavior. Instead of apologizing for the way he stated things while standing by the fact that I was in the wrong, he simply defended his actions, which shows even more why I think he should not be an administrator. Bill Williams 12:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • I want to highlight "...will not improve anyone's behavior." To me, that goes to the core of the WP:CIVIL policy. I agree that SFR should not have responded in that way. What's equally troubling, if not more so, is defending that response in the RfA. It simply isn't defensible. I don't know what you said, or the situation in question. I've taken SFR's comments isolated from the incident in question. What provoked the situation is not pertinent. WP:CIVIL doesn't make allowances for that. The policy doesn't say "It's ok to be uncivil if you're provoked" or anything of the sort. I appreciate your self reflection. This is precisely what was lacking in SFR's response. SFR will shortly be promoted. The crat chat currently stands at 8-4, with 3 bureaucrats who have indicated they intend to respond who have not. Thus, the closest it could get is 8-7. I recommend you WP:DISENGAGE in all respects with SFR, not because I think SFR will do something, but it will only serve to fan whatever flames might still be burning. Just ignore them. There are a few editors whom I always ignore and never respond to. It's inevitable that you will have interactions like that where it's just best to not engage. It's not that the other person is bad, but rather the interaction between you will almost certainly be negative. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, I wont engage, and I definitely wont say the things that resulted in the confrontation, since what I said was uncivil. As you said, he had no right to respond uncivily to me as well, or defend what he said, but it is what it is, and we will move on. Bill Williams 13:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (talk page watcher) Extremely sound advice and I've taken this advice on multiple occasions. When discussions go from civil to uncivil it's time to disengage and move forward. What is and is not on Wikipedia is not the end all and things have a way of coming full circle eventually. As I have said before, Wikipedia is not my truth, it's the collective view of published sources about notable subjects, but my attitude in discussion reflects directly on me. --ARoseWolf 15:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (also watching:) I noticed that RexxS was mentioned in the crat chat talk. What do do think? I will "ignore" it in the sense that I won't respond, but I can't ignore it. Or how would I? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Something's are hard to ignore, especially on subjects you care so deeply about. I have no doubt I will "die on a hill". Most likely that "hill" will have something to do with civility which is largely overlooked these days. We have no issue saying that being uncivil is a human response, yet we block people all day long for human responses that have far less affect on the encyclopedia than incivility. Words typed on an article can be undone, as annoying as it is, even revdeleted. But words and comments made which cut at the heart of a fellow human being can not so easily be removed. Sure, from the pages of this community but not the heart of the one they are directed at. That's why I leave a discussion once incivility becomes too comfortable a response. I will not partake in that. I want nothing to do with that. The only reason I may continue is that I see redeemable qualities where others may not. A flaw? Possibly. A curse? Most likely. But it's mine and I own it. --ARoseWolf 16:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to hear about that, and I agree, if there's any degree of opposition this large, someone should not be promoted, but they seem to want him promoted and therefore made it occur. I don't think there's such a dearth of admins that anyone above 65% should be promoted. Bill Williams 13:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that just the numbers are math, and not enough, so a chat is better. If we stick with numbers: I believe that someone who finds more than 200 supporters who are unimpressed by the opposes, should rather be promoted. But now I am one of those ;) - In this specific case, most opposes were based on assumptions, feelings, interpretations, - nothing to impress me, not even if they come in high numbers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying it's critical on this project or in this case but my assumptions, feelings and interpretations, otherwise labeled intuition, has saved me many times. I don't dismiss it so easily. In regards to SFR, I think concerns are legitimate but do they rise to the level to keep them from being a good admin? I guess time will tell and it is mostly dependent on them and their actions. They haven't had the chance to prove anything one way or another but I think we should all hope they succeed. Again, Wikipedia is not my truth as I formed my philosophies and views on life long before I ever came here. Wikipedia won't change any of those even though it has had a mostly positive impact on me. I'm just an editor with no ambitions other than to contribute in my own way. I think my last statement is true for most of us. --ARoseWolf 14:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you don't get me wrong: intuition is great! If I had the intuition a candidate wasn't fit for the job, I'd stay away from the RfA. I support only with a positive feeling, which I gained looking at SFR's contribs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you

    Hello Hammersoft, I hope you are doing well. I was just viewing your undoing of the unreliable source edit from an IP on the page Principality of Sealand which led me to your account. I just wanted to say that you have one of the most unique and interesting user pages I have seen on the project, and I just felt it was necessary to say thank you for taking the time to put so much thought into making a really great user page, which was a really interesting read. The best towards you, Johnson524 (Talk!) 03:18, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – October 2022

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

    Guideline and policy news

    Technical news

    • The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

    Arbitration

    Miscellaneous

    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – November 2022

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

    Guideline and policy news

    Arbitration

    Miscellaneous

    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, can I report copyright violation for article Defense Supply Center, Columbus by DLALandandMaritime (talk · contribs) please. They have copy/pasted from https://www.dla.mil/ Thanks, Knitsey (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Since the content comes from a .mil site, it likely public domain, as most content from the U.S. federal government is. Taking a look, I don't see any copyright statement on their site. While the material might be inappropriate, there's no reason to suspect it's copyrighted. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi, another admin has dealt with them now as there was also a COI. I did look at the website for copyright and there is a section that mentions not using the information but it's dealt with now. Thanks so much, Knitsey (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanksgiving

    November songs

    Thanksgiving in the U.S. - Bach said it in music for peace. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

    Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

    The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

    If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – December 2022

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

    CheckUser changes

    removed TheresNoTime

    Oversight changes

    removed TheresNoTime

    Guideline and policy news

    Technical news

    • A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

    Arbitration

    Miscellaneous

    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    BLP?

    Hi Hammersoft. Hope you're doing well. What do you think about Jim'll Paint It? Is it an article about a blog? Is it a BLP about the creator? Is it sort of a combination about both? For reference, I stumbled across this why checking on some non-free files being used in BLPs. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Kinda both. The article needs help, but I don't know what to suggest to improve it. I'm not even sure it's notable enough for an article. Ok, some minor coverage, but really not much. I don't know. Kind of a dusty corner of Wikipedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for looking at this. I was mainly concerned about the inforbox image, but as you say the article isn't one of the all time greats. Even though I'm sure this type of "quasi-BLP" has been around since the very beginning of the project, it seems as if more of them being created in recent years (particularly about YouTubers and social media influencers) where the focus seems to be split between being an article about a YouTube channel or social media account and an article about the individual in question. In such cases, the channel's or account's logo or the individual's chosen avatar is often used in the main infobox even though the article is also categorized as a BLP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Happy Adminship Anniversary!

    P-22 photo

    There are other pictures of P-22, sure. But that is the picture, the famous iconic picture! All the eulogies going up today include the National Geographic picture, and for good reason. He's in front of the Hollywood Sign, epitomizing him as the Hollywood Cat! There's no other picture like that, no equivalent.

    If you insist on using the other photo, though, you should at least update the caption on the infobox. Eievie (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I want to create a gallery section with the murals of him.
    These images aren't specifically specified as free to use, nor as copyrighted. How do I proceed here? Eievie (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eievie: I think it can be argued to include the image within the article instead of the infobox per NPCC#8, as is it a very iconic photo of P-22 that help bolster his prevalence in Los Angeles, though Hammersoft is correct that there are multiple images uploaded by the National Park Service/Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area that serve the article well. There is potential to contact the photographer and get them to release it, therefore making it free to use, but that's another thing. For the murals, if you're in Los Angeles, you could possibly take photos of them yourself and upload them onto Commons. See below, freedom of panorama for 2D artworks aren't allowed.
    @Hammersoft: also, I replaced your upload with mine since they're essentially the same, but I had uploaded it earlier before Eievie replaced it with the Hollywood Cat photo. Either tag on the photos should be fine anyways. reppoptalk 04:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eievie: Also, if images don't specify that they're free to use, you probably shouldn't upload those photos. They are most likely copyright of the photographer (unless you get them to release their work into things acceptable on Commons). reppoptalk 04:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Eievie:

    • It doesn't matter if it is the photo of him. If a photo is iconic, it will have reliable, secondary sources attesting to it being iconic. Think; Raising the Flag at Ground Zero. That's an article dedicated to that image because it is iconic, as attested to by the various sources on the article specifically about the image. Here, we have an image that is of the subject, but there's no particular discussion about the image (much less reliably sourced discussion). That pretty much firmly defines the image as unnecessary to the article, per WP:NFCC #8. I also don't think the image should be included anywhere in the article unless reliable, secondary sources are found attesting to be it "iconic" in some way that we have to have it in the article to understand the article about P-22. If the image is so iconic, it should perhaps have it's own article.
    • As to the murals; respectfully disagreeing with Reppop, no, you can't take photographs of the murals and upload them here. 2D works of art in public locations enjoy copyright protections. Any such work is automatically copyrighted since it was created within the last several decades, whether it has a copyright notice on it or not. See Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Summary_table and look up United States. You can't take a photograph of them and upload them here under a free license. They would have to be used under WP:NFCC. It's possible you could craft an article about the murals of this artist, but creating a gallery would be a non-starter; see WP:NFGALLERY. Even a stand alone article about the murals wouldn't permit images of all murals, but maybe allow two. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Shoot, I forgot about freedom of panorama. Amended my comment. I also agree with the rest of your comment as well. reppoptalk 04:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliable, secondary sources attesting to it being famous and iconic:
    Eievie (talk) 07:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to review each of those sources. However, if you feel you can wrap some prose around those sources, then it might be appropriate to include the image in the article about him...just not in the infobox. Put it in the section about the photo. Alternatively, create an article about the photo itself. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Shenyang J-15 revert

    Regarding your revert here, of course it needed a source, but there's another reason to revert it even if it had been sourced: The costs parameters have been removed from Template:Infobox aircraft type! Thanks. BilCat (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Seasons Greetings

    Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}} [reply]

    Donner60 (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Please could I have some Advice?

    Dear Hammersoft,

    I recently found new developments to a recently archived case (Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 132) which is detailed below and was identified by Butwhatdoiknow (talk). It seems the user hasn’t begun to be civil or not disruptive yet. I’m not really sure what can be done here but Butwhatdoiknow (talk) recommended me to ask you owing to your experience and helpfulness. Is there anything to be done?

    (N.B. The post by Butwhatdoiknow (talk) starts at “Hey all” and ends at “Hope this helps” and my addition owing o new developments starts at “I agree,”)

    __________________

    Hey all, good morning.

    I'm concerned by Sparkle1 (talk · contribs) and the tone they use in edit summaries. This has been in the back of my mind for a while, and I've stopped myself from making a big thing about it, but I think maybe we've got to a point where a little advice is needed. I'm not an admin so my actions are limited.

    1. . Use of the phrase "stupid new inclusion" and "cancerous" here - [5]
    2. . Removal of a large amount of content without a summary here - [6]
    3. . A run of edits on Leeds Council election articles using somewhat theatrical language here [7] which I did mention in the project page here [8] where I tagged Sparkle1 without their input to date.

    At the beginning of the month they had some back and forth on their talk page with very harsh and uncooperative language ("I am completely not interested") here [9].

    I would like to ask if I'm right to be concerned by their tone and language, whether I am being too "soft" in being concerned here? They seem to be very constructive editors in some ways but there are moments of conflict and temper that I now think might need guidance in dealing with. Once I've posted this here, I'll put the link on their talk page. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately, this page isn't for resolving editor issues. I hope to find the time to write an essay collecting all the recommendations for dealing with "disruptive" editors. Unfortunately, I've only gotten as far as collecting links to some of the "how to" pages. Here's my list:
    ● https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_requests/Guide
    ● https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_requests
    ● https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Resolving_user_conduct_disputes
    ● https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Dealing_with_disruptive_editors
    ● https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Competence_is_required
    Hope this helps. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, this should be dealt with. The user in question has many notices on their talk page for changing an article to suit their opinion, especially on LGBT rights articles. In talk pages, the user uses lots of biased information and is ready to start edit wars on purpose in order to get their way.
    The user also has been known to swear on talk pages and threaten people while editing in the edit summaries, and seems to think that they are always correct and they have the power to accept others’ contributions.
    • 14:19, 4 December 2022 diff hist  −2,318‎  Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill ‎ →‎Opposition to the bill: lets not play the spin game these are just anti-trans groups not women's rights groups they can call themsleves women's rights groups but the fail the duck test also tone town the JRK pushing
    • 12:44, 9 October 2022 diff hist  −818‎  User talk:Sparkle1 ‎ Undid revision 1115006426 by Sahaib (talk) Please do not interact with me on this platform again unless it is in relation to content on an actual discussion page of an article, Think first before making such absurd comments, as you have just come across inflammatory and a hypocrite.
    • 10:13, 9 October 2022 diff hist  −636‎  User talk:Sparkle1 ‎ Undid revision 1114921452 by Sahaib (talk) Don't waste my time complaining then do the exact same thing I did you bad faith wally
    • 15:26, 16 December 2021 diff hist  +83‎  2021 Batley and Spen by-election ‎ Shove your shitty formatting, shove your two decimal points and shove your New up your backside. Have some respect for how is should be done and not some bastardised lay criminal way Tag: Reverted
    • 01:33, 12 December 2021 diff hist  +14‎  North Shropshire (UK Parliament constituency) ‎ →‎Results: Fixed formatting which was criminally bad and eliminated the horrendous use of New instead of N/A
    • 22:26, 2 August 2021 diff hist  −2,007‎  User talk:Sparkle1 ‎ →‎August 2021: You are using bad sources and stop trolling and making rubbish up do not post here again or i will report you for POV pushing and failing to use reliable sources Tag: Manual revert
    • Bias and swearing in talk page: Talk:Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill#Proposed changes “You clearly want reasoning here so here goes. First of the only lack of neutrality is in your head, there isn't actually any, you are seeing a lack of neutrality because it goes against what you want to be portrayed in the article. You hammer on about this 'revolt' crap; 7 I repeat 7 members of the SNP out of 64 voted against it. Leave the hysteria in the Guardian, the Scotsman and other news publications. This is not a news site. This is an encyclopaedia. Calling it a revolt is POV pushing and that is not going to happen in this article. The group you mentioned, such as "for women Scotland" and "Fair Play for Women", have a single purpose of removing the rights of trans people and excluding them from society. LGB Alliance calls itself an LGB group but in court revealed it is mainly supported by straight people. They are also well documented in pushing anti-trans agendas, and in Australia were recently designated an anti-trans hate group. So they get called what the are Anti-Trans groups. The duck test says they are anti-trans Wikipedia is not for their propaganda. trans-exclusionary is just a fancy term for anti-trans. These are groups who bring lawsuits to try and exclude trans people from society and try and remove the rights of trans people in court.”
    • On user talk page: “Please don't remove talk page posts that other editors have replied to. You may be able to collapse them or archive them.” (Sparkle1) “It is perfectly acceptable to remove posts that are off-topic, against Wikipedia rules and are vandalism. Using the Hubbard talk page to push transphobia is perfectly fine to delete. Wikipedia is not a forum and talk pages are not a sanctuary where anything posted is never subject to deletion. the rules are strict and the bar is high but pushing transphobia and intentionally misgendering is grounds for removal. Please fully read the rules on talk pages.”
    • On user talk page: “Hi Sparkle1! I noticed you keep re-adding a change to Abigail Thorn that I have removed with the justification of MOS:OVERLINK. This is edit warring as you are not attempting to discuss your changes, either through edit summaries or talk pages. Note that edit warring can apply to any number of edits over any time period. If you would like to respond with a reason, I can bring this explanation to Talk:Abigail Thorn to see what other editors think. Otherwise, can you please remove the link? Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)” “It is a standard explainer and not an overlink. Nothing more to say about the content. Now turning to you as an editor, stop acting like you own the lede. You are also going on about edit warring, when you are doing the same. Pot Kettle Balck stinks. Please do not post here again. You are not the owner of any article or space on Wikipeida. You are free to start any discussion you like but I am not going through you as a gatekeeper. You do not own the Abigail Thorn article or any other article, you are not able to gatekeep any other editor and you need to cease with this kind of softly-softly patronising, lording it over, and article ownership by the above gatekeeping ludicrousness of 'if you would like to respond with a reason, I can bring this explanation to Talk:Abigail Thorn to see what other editors think". If you want to start a discussion go for it but I am not giving you my replies for you to then offer them to others. Get stuffed and grow up. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)”[reply]
    Scientelensia (talk) 12:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 132 Scientelensia (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a lot to go through here. I've gone through some of it. First piece of advice; don't ever...ever...do something that results in an edit history like this again. If any admin had been aware of what was happening on that article over those days, it's likely you both would have been blocked for extensive edit warring. In regards to Sparkle1, I would encourage you to refrain from interacting with them if possible. One of the best but least used means of dispute resolution is disengagement. I'm not suggesting you stay away from articles you enjoy editing if Sparkle1 happens to be there. I am suggesting you don't revert them as it will likely spark another edit war. Attempt to start discussions on article talk pages as appropriate, and ping Sparkle1 if needed. Be clear, succinct, and polite. It never pays to respond to incivility with more incivility. Fire + fire ≠ peace. I'm not suggesting you have responded in such a manner, just that doing so will be counterproductive.
    I'm going to @Johnuniq: due to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1087#Potentially uncivil edit summaries and [10]. Johnuniq, not asking for a block here but to bring your eyes back to this for your input. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That year-old ANI archive has me saying I left a warning for Sparkle1. That warning was 21 December 2021. I'm submerged in off-wiki difficulties and so have not evaluated the above lengthy report. However, just the last example (at 17:42, 14 December 2022) is enough, given the ANI report, to warrant a week-long block IMHO. @Sparkle1: Your days of making obnoxious comments are over. Please re-read my warning linked in this message and the polite message above from Hammersoft. If you are unable to recognize how toxic your comments are, you should be contributing at another website. Johnuniq (talk) 05:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Scientelensia (talk) 10:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hammersoft&oldid=1130266975"