Jump to content

User talk:Hammersoft: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Precious anniversary: a little longer version of "don't"
Line 208: Line 208:
::*:*:*:Hammersoft, I have to genuinely ask because your position has confused me somewhat and makes me curious, how do you reconcile your conservative position on holding admins to account with your views that the community is at the top and admins merely serve the editors? [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 13:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
::*:*:*:Hammersoft, I have to genuinely ask because your position has confused me somewhat and makes me curious, how do you reconcile your conservative position on holding admins to account with your views that the community is at the top and admins merely serve the editors? [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 13:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
::*:*:*: "Don't" is perfect. I agree. (Before I forget, you two may want to read the top of the talk of Drmies, for an essay - yes by RexxS - about indenting.) My story was like this (short version): I liked the new infobox opera, and spread it, and met opposition, and a friend called for arbitration (to help us!), and the arbs found that they had to do something, so restricted a few people on the side of the new design, admonished some on the other side (no idea where they actually looked, one of them proposed to ban a friend, citing a diff that was uncollapsing an infobox), and asked to fight it out on each article's talk page, the perfect way to make the conflict perennial. This was in 2013. I was taken to AE (you can probably guess by whom) in 2015, had enough, dropped my pride, appealed and was set free. We have now 2021, and some still are sure I drove them away from Wikipedia. The formerly new design is now in all operas of note, and the old design [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 February 16#Template:Schubert operas|is dying out]]. Those were years and accusations and lasting animosities for nothing. They could just have listened to me in 2013 ;) - If you want to listen today: withdraw the case request, and talk among colleagues. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 13:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
::*:*:*: "Don't" is perfect. I agree. (Before I forget, you two may want to read the top of the talk of Drmies, for an essay - yes by RexxS - about indenting.) My story was like this (short version): I liked the new infobox opera, and spread it, and met opposition, and a friend called for arbitration (to help us!), and the arbs found that they had to do something, so restricted a few people on the side of the new design, admonished some on the other side (no idea where they actually looked, one of them proposed to ban a friend, citing a diff that was uncollapsing an infobox), and asked to fight it out on each article's talk page, the perfect way to make the conflict perennial. This was in 2013. I was taken to AE (you can probably guess by whom) in 2015, had enough, dropped my pride, appealed and was set free. We have now 2021, and some still are sure I drove them away from Wikipedia. The formerly new design is now in all operas of note, and the old design [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 February 16#Template:Schubert operas|is dying out]]. Those were years and accusations and lasting animosities for nothing. They could just have listened to me in 2013 ;) - If you want to listen today: withdraw the case request, and talk among colleagues. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 13:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

{{od}} {{ping|ProcrastinatingReader}} The problem is that ArbCom is a failed process. I could go on for a while here about that if you would like. The very quick summary; I spent years digging into this and what I found was absolutely appalling. The gross incompetence and, at times, outright malfeasance is absolutely shocking. ArbCom is wildly out of control, routinely ignores policies the community has established including [[WP:ARBPOL]], dramatically tilts cases against named parties, and ignores evidence in favor of private deliberations. I am not subservient to ArbCom and will never be as long as it remains as failed as it is. Sure, they could place sanctions on me up to and including banning me from the project. But, I would never attempt to defend myself at an ArbCase. To do so is legitimizing them, pointless, and would be dramatically tilted against me. I will not consent to that. With apologies to Ghandi; ArbCom can throw a case against me and ban me, but they can never imprison me. The absolute reverse is true with regards to any concerns the community would raise regarding my administrator actions. I don't have a conservative position on holding admins to account. As an admin, I am completely subservient to the community. I [[User:Hammersoft/Recall|have a recall process]] and would follow it to the letter if ever an editor felt the need had arisen.

On the current RFAR that you started; I understand your motivations in bringing the RFAR. However, you have doomed RexxS to a completely unfair trial. There is no possible way in which RexxS can hope to have a rational and fair outcome to this, and this case will have a significant, negative effect on the project. You could have made an attempt to talk with RexxS on their talk page. You have had multiple interactions with RexxS on their talk page that were quite amicable. Why you chose to take this to ArbCom rather than attempt to talk to them leaves me quite befuddled. My advice to you in the best interests of the project (and in agreement Gerda) is to withdraw your RFAR and begin a discussion with RexxS. This is what should have happened in the first place. --[[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]] ([[User talk:Hammersoft#top|talk]]) 14:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

{{ping|Gerda Arendt}} That's an excellent point about : and *. Web accessibility is an important issue that is often paid lip service. Arbitration isn't about helping anyone. Paraphrasing Reagan; the most terrifying words an editor can here on Wikipedia: I'm from ArbCom and I'm here to help. --[[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]] ([[User talk:Hammersoft#top|talk]]) 14:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


== Regarding content deletion ==
== Regarding content deletion ==

Revision as of 14:05, 24 February 2021


    Talk page of deleted article

    Thank you for acting on B Major (Music Producer). This is just to let you know that the article's talk page is still around. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hammersoft, do you think it's worth adding their site to the blacklist? They're definitely a persistent spammer. Pahunkat (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Pahunkat: Not as yet. WP:BLACKLIST is a last ditch measure to prevent continued spamming. Right now, their socks have all been bagged and tagged. Further, their page creations and drafts have all been deleted and salted. Let's see if this puts a lid on it, and we'll go from there. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Hammersoft! Thanks for clearing up this mess :-) Pahunkat (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

    Guideline and policy news

    Technical news

    Arbitration

    • By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
    • Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.
    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin

    That's good news, nice to see unanimity too! All the best: Rich Farmbrough 08:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

    Congrats on the promotion!!! I thoroughly enjoy watching the wonders of the wikipedia editing process when you and Buffs collaborate on article improvements. 2600:8806:4802:2E00:78C9:C4B4:CC17:84F3 (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Lil Kei

    Hey I lost touch I was blocked by a user for only editing my article I didn’t have time to learn about anyone else Jaleelpick (talk) 07:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    A kitten for you!

    Thank you for looking into my block req :)

    -- KindCowboy69 ☮ 03:24 AM January 7, 2021 03:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Corey Worthington Comment

    Draft:Corey Worthington
    Just wanted to acknowledge your comment on the Corey Worthington draft. I was aware of the previous AfDs, but not aware of the discussion you linked to, so I appreciate that. However, both of the things share a common element in that the discussion and all of the AfDs are from over a decade ago. As such, it's probably a time for a revisit. Typically when I review drafts I look for reasons to accept, our standard is simply "likely to pass an AfD", so I find looking for any reason to publish a page is the best approach. However, in consideration of the previous AfDs I approached this draft differently. I in fact attempted to find reasons not to accept it. However, I think a compelling enough arguement can be made that there is WP:SUSTAINED coverage to put away any WP:ONEEVENT concerns. For example, there was coverage around him in 2017 on whether there would be a 10 year reunion party that was covered by prominent media outlets such as Vice and the Herald Sun. And then coverage again in 2018 by the Sydney Morning Herald about him being on Australian Ninja Warrior that goes beyond just the routine "he'll be on this show" sort of bit. Again, I'd love if you can help me find a reason for this not to come to mainspace, but I'm just not seeing it. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I do think that if it goes to mainspace in its current form, it is very likely to go AfD, and not without good reason. Many of the sources that are on the draft were from back at the time of that party, and fail to sustain notability as pointed out in the multiple AfDs. I'd also like to point out that this source is from a press release website. I.e., it's likely written by the subject themselves or by someone acting on their behalf. This is not a reliable source. Also, the 10th reunion party didn't happen and Worthington likely wasn't involved. I don't see how that makes him notable on the face of it. That there continues to be some places that are writing about him might help sustain it. Also a movie "rumored" to have been "based" on his actions isn't much of a support for notability. If it truly were based on his actions, it would be well known as the studio would have paid for the rights from him to make the movie. "Inspired" is the word that is used in the reference, and the draft should be changed to reflect that. I don't think being a contestant on the Ninja Warrior show makes him notable. Out of 80 top contestants on the four seasons, only three of them have articles on them (Olivia Vivian,Eloni Vunakece,Cian Maciejewski) and those three are notable for other reasons, not for being on the show. Worthington appeared on one episode, and that's all. I don't think that makes him notable. I haven't investigated every reference. I am also mildly concerned that the account that created this draft appears to be a single purpose account. There's a lot of problems here. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Hammersoft, Yeah that's all fine by me. I'm just going to let it sit. I think another reviewer will probably push it through eventually and they can have it. I have zero interest in defending that page in an AfD. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

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

    Arbitration

    Miscellaneous

    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Live event photos

    Hi Hammersoft. Perhaps you can help me sort something out? If I take a photo at a live event (e.g. a concert, public appearance), then it seems for that the photo should be OK (for the most part) to upload to Wikipedia/Commons under a free license of my choosing, right? What if, however, the photo I take is of a live video feed of the event (e.g. footage of a performace shown on video screens or monitors)? In other words, I'm in attendance and the event and video footage of the event is also being shown live within the same venue. Would such a photo be considered a derivative work? For reference, I'm asking about this because of WP:MCQ#File:Peters NIU shooting.JPG and I'm trying to figure out whether that file should be treated as non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible COI

    Hi Hammersoft. I'm wondering if you'd mind taking a look at User talk:Aabrahamsen2018#Conflict of interest editing? Brevity isn't one of my strong points and I just want to make sure I'm not overwhelming this new editor. You seem to have had success in the past helping editors who might have found themselves in a similar situation; so, maybe you could offer some advice to this one as well. Their now removed quasi-COI declaration from their user talk page seems to imply there might also be some PAID issues which need clarification. There were also a bunch of images uploaded to Wikipedia like this which I tagged with npd which have just been reuploaded as non-free, which might also indicate some connection (note the watermark removal). It seems this editor means well, but might not be aware of the hole they might be digging for themselves; so, I guess I'm trying to help them sort things out before they dig too deep. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just for reference, I stumbled upon this via WP:MCQ#How to license/upload images with fair use restrictions?. — Marchjuly (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a clear COI. But, that said, this isn't a for profit company trying to advertise its products. It's almost like they are a Wikipedian in residence. Even so, they need to comply with WP:PAID and I would place the standard warning template on their talk pages to that effect. I would also carefully watch their edits to make sure they are neutral. They should be making them to the respective talk pages. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for taking a look. They haven't responded to my latest post yet on their user talk page, or the posts on the article talk page yet. Perhaps it will be easier to figure out a plan to help them once they do that. If they can be convinced to declare and stick to their current account (if they were using more than one), then the rest shouldn't be to hard to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Ranko Kumović

    Thank you Hammersoft! I corrected the draft page. Could you please approve it? LK coach (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Beagle 2 SOFT landing

    If Beagle 2 hadn't made a soft landing on Mars, then it would have been splattered all over the surface! The recovery images from the MRO show otherwise. I've re-edited the Tianwen-1 article to reflect this fact. If you think the article should read 'the third nation to successfully operate a lander on Mars', then maybe that edit would be more helpful. There again, this calls into doubt the success Mars 3 as both it and Beagle obtained data but failed to successfully transmit anything useful. You know the procedure by now, so make your intentions known at the article's talk page first.

    CrackDragon (talk) 05:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Rip wikipedia notability

    Hi I feel Sad today when I see your wiki admins are getting paid for those articles who are not notable and who have done anti national works if you think to become a software developer or app is notable than everyone is notable have a look on Zeyan Shafiq this guy pay admins to get page up and start getting verified on social media (Very sad) and when someone talk about it they automatically get banned 😆😆😆 RIP notability and wikipedia. K hope you will check this and if you want us to trust wikipedia have a close look and see about it. Pibotindia (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Pibotindia: I'm very unclear about what it is you are asking me to do, or claiming has happened. As can be seen from the history of the Zeyan Shafiq article, it wasn't started by any administrator. It's hard to see how any claim that administrators were paid to get this article on Wikipedia. An administrator did approve the draft, thus moving it to article space, but still there's no evidence to suggest @Fences and windows: was paid for this. Please note that per this policy, making serious accusations without providing proving evidence is considered a personal attack. Undisclosed paid editing, which you are claiming Fences and windows has done, is a serious breach of our policy on paid editing. Please stop making this accusation without providing strong evidence supporting this claim. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok if these are not paid why those accounts are getting banned who talk on this page why those are getting banned who sayd delete this promotional page? Have any answer Pibotindia (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This fench is paid administrators 😂😂😂😂 my account is going ban soon because now I talk about the zeyan 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 Pibotindia (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Forget about it, Hammersoft--it's just a sock. DMacks (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I opened an SPI on the creator of the Zeyan Shafiq article after another account recreated Hums4r's deleted autobio, possibly as a setup. This other SPI is related: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sardar Nadir Ali, which Pibotindia may be connected to - and which explains the animosity towards Hums4r. I first got involved when I responded to this BLPN thread last month. I've stopped trying to mentor him as there's far too much drama involved and I felt I was being used as a shield rather than for advice. There's clearly a lot of rivalry, COIs, and sockpuppetry in articles related to Kashmir at the moment, but I'm not sure what exactly is going on. There's a current ANI thread about this. I don't know why you've been dragged into this, but I'd appreciate your views and commenting at ANI about this comment being left here. I'll drop at note at SPI too. Fences&Windows 02:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hammersoft I did that, i named all of them, i even put up a warning on my user page, but i was blocked. they plotted an conspiracy against me and they succeeded, they all belong to kashmir and they have been trying to use wikipedia for their promotional works and it all started when i started reporting them. They are dragging all my mentors into it just because these mentors helped me. Fences and windows and TheAafi are being dragged into this for absolutely no reason, They completely impersonated my act's to make everything look as if it was me doing sockpuppetry so that they could get me blocked. They first started by targetting my article's (Zeyan Shafiq) and (Stalwart Esports). they registered an SPI case against me, even when the CU didn't show it was me, they blocked me on basis of same geographical location. i appealed as well (https://utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/public/appeal/view?hash=be616eaac191f3c950758d94acfe7fc2) but it got declined as well, i emailed as well but no response. i did everything. Even Fences and windows thinks that i used him as a shield when i never intended to do that, i always asked for his help to learn more on wikipedia. i even wrote to him on his talk page explaining things using friend's mobile but it was removed as well. I don't have a platform to prove myself, i get blocked automatically, I am not trying to do something disruptive by creating new accounts, i am just trying to prove myself. I don't care even if the article (Zeyan Shafiq) or (Stalwart Esports) both get deleted because focusing too much on these article's ruined my relationship with all my mentors, please help me with the unban, i am assuring that i won't even ever touch any topic related to kashmiri people because it is all too much drama and hectic. I have always admitted to all my faults on wikipedia and i never kept them hidden. i have always been honest. i don't deserve this. I don't know who to appeal and where to appeal to prove myself. This will be removed as well i think, but if you see this please help me please tell me what should i do. Humssssss (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Precious anniversary

    Precious
    Three years!

    - Thank you for your comment in the arbcase request. I better don't go, thinking that "inept" might just be a factual description, no insult. I see a different problem. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Gerda Arendt: It is easy to become cynical :/ Paraphrasing, and with apologies to Mr. Thomas, "Rage, RAGE against the dying of the optimism!" The stage ArbCom is setting, should they accept this case, is that at the first sign of trouble an administrator will have a case opened about them. Given that it is impossible to avoid sanctions if a case is named after you (and yes, based on a study covering years of ArbCom cases, that is true), an admin is pretty much doomed if anyone brings said administrator to ArbCom. Yes, RexxS has been decidedly uncivil. Yes, RexxS has threatened the use of tools while involved. But, not one bit of effort (that I can find) has been made to approach RexxS regarding these issues. It's 0 to 100 in 0.1 seconds. That's a very dangerous precedent, and a very chilling moment for all administrators. To me, like with your situation linked above, this is blatantly obvious. It is not so to others, and perhaps we are blinded by our own perceptions. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you, and I have no language problems with any of that ;) - in my linked case, I'd love to approach the editor in question but am banned from his talk, and can't speak up for the other because I have been warned about proxy-editing for a blocked user, - how about uninvolved you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hellebore, Lorch
    Thank you for having done that for us. I saw something coming when BWV 53 appeared on my watchlist again and again, with a talk page growing to a few times what the article was initially. I said I don't want to be between the fighters (which included Nikkimaria), - and perhaps that was too easy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Helleborus orientalis
    yes, flower as promised - the wild one is pictured by me, the flower of the month of February, and the other - of course not by me - was TFP on 17 February. I am happy that the user whom you helped first on my request - remember? right after your RfA - is still with us and sent me a gorgeous pic from Alaska. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Beetstra: Yep. Chilling indeed. I'll possibly make a comment on that RfC later. I see...so many problems. It might be hard to succinctly make a statement. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Hammersoft, just wanted to say I found your flow chart and comments at the desysop RfA illuminating. Thanks! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's very kind of you! I was quite surprised...4 other people did a 'thank' on it as well. I didn't expect that! --Hammersoft (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Hammersoft, I thank you for your clarification on the requested arb case (as explained also above). This wouldn't be the first time that I tell Newyorkbrad that he is the only arb representing me. I bet you know the ultimate guide to arbitration, - if not, see my talk, also about picking your battles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have a much simpler guide to arbitration. After spending many months working on it, cutting a word here, finessing a phrase there, I finally arrived at the final version. Here it is, the Ultimate Guide to Arbitration: Don't. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          Hammersoft, I have to genuinely ask because your position has confused me somewhat and makes me curious, how do you reconcile your conservative position on holding admins to account with your views that the community is at the top and admins merely serve the editors? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          "Don't" is perfect. I agree. (Before I forget, you two may want to read the top of the talk of Drmies, for an essay - yes by RexxS - about indenting.) My story was like this (short version): I liked the new infobox opera, and spread it, and met opposition, and a friend called for arbitration (to help us!), and the arbs found that they had to do something, so restricted a few people on the side of the new design, admonished some on the other side (no idea where they actually looked, one of them proposed to ban a friend, citing a diff that was uncollapsing an infobox), and asked to fight it out on each article's talk page, the perfect way to make the conflict perennial. This was in 2013. I was taken to AE (you can probably guess by whom) in 2015, had enough, dropped my pride, appealed and was set free. We have now 2021, and some still are sure I drove them away from Wikipedia. The formerly new design is now in all operas of note, and the old design is dying out. Those were years and accusations and lasting animosities for nothing. They could just have listened to me in 2013 ;) - If you want to listen today: withdraw the case request, and talk among colleagues. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @ProcrastinatingReader: The problem is that ArbCom is a failed process. I could go on for a while here about that if you would like. The very quick summary; I spent years digging into this and what I found was absolutely appalling. The gross incompetence and, at times, outright malfeasance is absolutely shocking. ArbCom is wildly out of control, routinely ignores policies the community has established including WP:ARBPOL, dramatically tilts cases against named parties, and ignores evidence in favor of private deliberations. I am not subservient to ArbCom and will never be as long as it remains as failed as it is. Sure, they could place sanctions on me up to and including banning me from the project. But, I would never attempt to defend myself at an ArbCase. To do so is legitimizing them, pointless, and would be dramatically tilted against me. I will not consent to that. With apologies to Ghandi; ArbCom can throw a case against me and ban me, but they can never imprison me. The absolute reverse is true with regards to any concerns the community would raise regarding my administrator actions. I don't have a conservative position on holding admins to account. As an admin, I am completely subservient to the community. I have a recall process and would follow it to the letter if ever an editor felt the need had arisen.

    On the current RFAR that you started; I understand your motivations in bringing the RFAR. However, you have doomed RexxS to a completely unfair trial. There is no possible way in which RexxS can hope to have a rational and fair outcome to this, and this case will have a significant, negative effect on the project. You could have made an attempt to talk with RexxS on their talk page. You have had multiple interactions with RexxS on their talk page that were quite amicable. Why you chose to take this to ArbCom rather than attempt to talk to them leaves me quite befuddled. My advice to you in the best interests of the project (and in agreement Gerda) is to withdraw your RFAR and begin a discussion with RexxS. This is what should have happened in the first place. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Gerda Arendt: That's an excellent point about : and *. Web accessibility is an important issue that is often paid lip service. Arbitration isn't about helping anyone. Paraphrasing Reagan; the most terrifying words an editor can here on Wikipedia: I'm from ArbCom and I'm here to help. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding content deletion

    Hello Hammersoft,

    I think, I mistakenly deleted discussion copy. I was trying to clean up Sanjay Govil article since it was rejected. Got advice to request a deletion and start fresh writeup instead of editing exiting one.

    Thank you for restoring previous content.

    Thanks, Monir1975

    Monir1975 (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Feedback sought

    Hi Hammersoft. I was just reading your comment. I've tried to make clear that I'm voting to accept the case because of concerns beyond the GS template situation. That situation comes nowhere close to being sufficient for a case. Obviously given your concern I haven't been successful. I would welcome any feedback you have about how I could have made my thinking and intentions more clear. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Barkeep, thanks for your comment. The problem that I have is to my knowledge there has been absolutely no attempt to raise issues with RexxS' behavior with regards to WP:ADMINCOND. Accepting this case provides an extremely chilling precedent for all administrators. All it will now take is a simple allegation, and that's it. An administrator will be dragged before ArbCom. That is deeply disturbing, and effectively voids WP:ADMINABUSE. ArbCom does not have the power to void policy. That power is with the community.
    • I am also very cognizant that this case will be named with RexxS in the title. This will provide a basis for cognitive anchoring. I've long argued this is abusive towards participants in cases, as there is no possible way for a person such as RexxS to get a fair hearing. Indeed, I did a study of cases from 2009 to 2015. Across 46 title named cases, such as RexxS would be, a title named party received 11 times more sanctions than non-titled named parties. Further, no title named party ever escaped an ArbCom case without sanctions against them.
    • There is no possibility of RexxS getting a fair hearing here, and the deliberate breach of WP:ADMINABUSE policy is abusive by ArbCom. I am not suggesting RexxS did nothing wrong. Rather, what ArbCom is doing is disgustingly wrong and violates established policy.
    • @RexxS:; asking you to comment here as to your perception of the veracity of the above intro statement in the first bullet. RexxS, I know this is all stressful for you, and I'm sorry for dragging you into another conversation. A simple yes/no (yes, there have been attempts, no there haven't been) response on that point is all that I am hoping for. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's okay, I'm used to dealing with stress – not always successfully of course – but I can give you a reply. An example of where I received criticism for my admin actions was the Citation bot affair (ironically in an ANI thread I started myself for review), but I believe my position was eventually fully vindicated. Even so, I did learn from that. It's also a clear example of how such criticism can be perniciously manipulated to support a later complaint by the "mud-throwing" mechanism. Any active administrator or long-term editor will have made "enemies" over time, which is why it's so difficult for long-standing editors to successfully run for adminship, and why experienced admins like Kudpung and BrownHairedGirl got such a raw deal when dragged before ArbCom. If ArbCom want to review my administrative actions seriously and dispassionately, I'm willing to discuss and try to learn any lessons. But if they want to simply provide a forum for everybody who has ever disagreed with me to sling mud, and then take on the role of civility police, it's not a game I'm willing to play. --RexxS (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      On case naming, I raised that point on list a few days back (when I was leaning towards declining this case) but for now there isn't enough support on the committee to reconsider that practice. As for the attempts to previously resolve, thanks for the extra thoughts. I'll just say, for myself, that I viewed some of the noticeboard/talk page discussions as past attempts to resolve this issue. I think given that ArbCom is the only place that can remove sysop that ArbCom needs to consider cases where "many small things add up" and not just "here's one large mistake" as reasons to take a case. Of course taking a case doesn't mean that desysop (or even any sanction at all) will or should be the right solution. Again I appreciate hearing your thinking and hope my thinking was of some value to you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Advice, please.

    Since you are familiar with Francis Schonken, I hope you won’t mind me asking for advice about the best way to move forward to resolve an impasse with that editor. Full disclosure: I had a similar experience with FS on another article and my solution at that time was not well received. Will you please point me to a better approach? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • There's an essay at WP:BRD. It's not policy or guideline, but it's good advice. You made a change to the guideline, you were reverted, you then should have initiated discussion on the talk page of the guideline and invited editors (via ping) who disagreed with your edit to join the conversation. That way, a discussion can ensue that would hopefully arrive at a consensus. Further, the page where the revert was made remains in its original form until there's a consensus to change it. Sometimes this can be a bit trying on your patience. I've waited for over a month sometimes before I've gone ahead and continued a change that was reverted after I started discussion. As an example of this in action, I made a change [1] at Tianwen-1. This was reverted [2] a couple of days later by another editor. Discussion continued at Talk:Tianwen-1#Third_country_for_soft_landing, where I am waiting for a response right now. And so it goes. Also, be careful to avoid carrying on conversations in edit summaries. Edit summaries are useful to describe what is being done in a particular edit, but are poor tools for communication. See WP:REVTALK for more on this. Hope this helps, --Hammersoft (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. In the future I will resort to talk pages more quickly. With regard to my immediate problem of an impasse resulting from Francis Schonken not engaging on the WP:Redlink talk page, should I (a) do nothing, wait a few weeks, and then restore my edits, (b) ping FS again after a few more days, say it appears he/she is no longer objecting, and then wait a couple weeks and (if FS does not re-engage) restore my edits, or (c) something else? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I appreciate your help. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hammersoft&oldid=1008677006"