User talk:Hammersoft: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:26, 10 May 2021

Old content

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]

@Modussiccandi: Yep, working on cleaning up the mess. I wanted to bag and tag the articles first. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:24, 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).

Administrator changes

Hammersoft

Andres • Brion VIBBER • Rkitko • Thatcher

CheckUser changes

Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek • Primefac

Oversight changes

Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek

Joe Roe

Guideline and policy news

Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.

Technical news

You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.

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]

Thank you! I was as astonished as I possibly could be. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:06, 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]

Thank you for the congrats. However, as you are well aware, the remainder of your comment is facetious. Please stop. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to the non-logged-in editor: Didn't you mean "congrats on the demotion"? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 22:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phew! For a second there I thought you might have been talking about a bunch of these rats. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Am a bit behind the times, but congratulations from me too. FWIW, I found out about this from seeing your RFA while browsing through Wikipedia:Wikipedia records! Carcharoth (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know I'd made it on that list...or even knew that list existed :) Thanks or the congrats! --Hammersoft (talk) 14:53, 12 April 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]

Responded on your original account at User talk:JabrielAtOmoMusicGroup. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:37, 19 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).

Administrator changes

Hog Farm

Mattflaschen • Nandesuka • Savidan • Wangi

CheckUser changes

Berean Hunter • Xeno

Oversight changes

Someguy1221 • Xeno

Arbitration

The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.

Miscellaneous

Voting in the 2021 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
Wikipedia has now been around for 20 years, and recently saw its billionth edit!

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]

I've commented there. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:24, 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]

One can hope. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:09, 7 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]

Responding on your talk page to keep conversation together. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:54, 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]

@Pibotindia: Would you care to highlight what accounts you think have been banned because they talked about Zeyan Shafiq? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forget about it, Hammersoft--it's just a sock. DMacks (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just trying to understand the situation a little better. He's obviously on about something. I just don't know what. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:09, 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]

I think Hums4r needs to do as you suggested; name the accounts they believe to be a problem. I think it's incumbent on Hums4r to act. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:46, 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

- 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]

@Gerda Arendt: I am having a look. I don't want you to think I'm ignoring this. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, appreciated. Drmies looked but didn't see it all first. He replied on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)\[reply]

I left a comment on FS' talk page regarding this. See User_talk:Francis_Schonken#Your_IBAN_with_MathSci. I am continuing to investigate. It appears this might not have been isolated. There are other issues as well. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: I've left a strongly worded message on FS' talk page. After looking into this over the last couple of hours, the situation is rather grim, to say the least. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Sometimes there are situations where it's best to let someone else step in, if they are available and willing. I had the time. I wish I had it back :) but I had the time. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Do you mean Tsistunagiska? Whomever it was, we desperately need more coverage in Alaska. I've done a couple of articles on things Alaska, and could greatly use some help if they are local. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
go ask, yes, look for Alaska on my talk, piped name to ARoseWolf which is the translation I believe - it says "spotty involvement" on the talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I met another user from Alaska, Zaereth. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent. I need to compile a list of things that need help. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Hammersoft and Gerda Arendt: but that is the stage we are going to set in general, quoting Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Desysop_Policy_(2021): "at least one thread at a community forum such as AN or ANI that closed within the last 6 months where the closing statement indicates that there was consensus that the administrator behaved inappropriately". "[A]t least one" .. one strike is enough. "[A] community forum such as AN or ANI" .. WP:ELN is also a community forum, albeit rather obscure, an AfD? "[T]he closing statement indicates ... behaved inappropriately" .. WP:TROUT is enough. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:48, 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]

On the first paragraph, you've been around for a long time and say a lot of sensible things, and I don't really consider myself knowledgeable enough to refute anything you've said about ArbCom's shortcomings. You have quite a generous and fair recall criteria, which is unsurprising, but what about admins that don't? What about admins who do misbehave, particularly popular ones and perhaps in severe ways (think harassment etc)? You've also opposed a community desysop process (with very good reasons, but still:) which means ArbCom remains the only route to deal with problematic admin conduct. A forum that cannot actually take any actions against an admin is as useful as NACs closing controversial AfDs when they cannot close as delete, or the same logic as WP:RELISTBIAS. Besides, surely an admin unfairly treat by the committee can re-RfA and be vindicated by the community? And if they cannot acquire the required community support, are they really subservient to the community and should they be an admin? [nb: this is all generalised, not re the current rfar]

As for the pending case, I should say (again) that nothing in my filing should indicate I have a dislike for RexxS's broader work. It's the opposite, actually, as you indicate. He's knowledgeable, diligent and helpful (see here for example, and optimistically I still hope we can finish that up in the future). My concern is what happens when someone is not in agreement with him? I am not sure what you believe to be fair, Hammersoft, but in my eyes being threatened with tool misuse in the middle of a content dispute and having my character repeatedly questioned with allegations of "deception", by an admin no less, is not fair. It's not the content dispute I referred to ArbCom, it's all the rest and the history, and until there's a competent community forum to be able to deal with these issues I am not sure I had any other options. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: I would encourage you to read WP:ADMINCOND, especially where it says "mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship". I haven't suggested that RexxS has done nothing wrong. I haven't made a comment about their editing in general, as I've not reviewed it. The point is, no admin should be immediately dragged before a tribunal, much less one so incompetent as ArbCom, when no attempt has been made to raise these issues with RexxS. It's as if a person were accused of jaywalking, and to fix the problem society sends the case to the supreme court. RexxS should at least have been given the opportunity to understand they may have made a mistake. But, that olive branch wasn't proffered. Instead, they are being shown a sword on which they must impale themselves in order to solve the problem. You, as the bringer of the RFAR, are the person who should be offering that olive branch. The RFAR needs to be retracted, posthaste. It is true the community can not desysop an administrator. But, the community can and has placed sanctions on administrators before. Since, as you note, RexxS has demonstrated an ability to collegially work with other people, there is no reason to presume that approaching them on behavior issues would fail, and thus the only opportunity to amend their behavior is ArbCom. Even if the effort fails, it is worth trying, even if it only provides a basis of evidence for a future case at ArbCom. I realize it is very difficult for anyone to put themselves in the position of cancelling an RFAR. But, that is unequivocally the right thing to do. What is right is not always popular, what is popular is not always right. Just because ArbCom is on the cusp of accepting this doesn't mean it's a just and correct action. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Hammersoft, it says "occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship". I think your jaywalking analogy should be changed to something like: a policeman has made mistakes (the severity and frequency of which has not yet been objectively decided) in their interactions with the public since they were commissioned. Their latest mistake towards a commoner caused the rest of them to be revealed and said commoner, instead of discussing the issues with the policeman who threatened them or filing a complaint at the police station, decides to refer the issue to the Independent Office for Police Conduct. I believe Allie's statement is correct in that moving this to AN would just burn even more community goodwill and patience, certainly at this stage, and probably just be kicking the can down the road. The Committee has some good people on it, and they did good work on the Kurdistan case imo; I trust them to diligently assess the evidence and come to fair conclusions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom has a track record that is distinctly opposite of that. Further, presuming that WP:AN is incapable of addressing this at this stage is just that; highly presumptive. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Separately, and again not related to this, I am still curious about the first paragraph though and would like your thoughts. It's come across my mind a few times in the past, and something (to me) doesn't seem entirely correct about the logic but I've never quite realised which part the logical gap is in. If you start with the premise that the community is at the top, and that admins serve the community and are subservient to it, and also the idea that the community is entitled to decide who mops for it. Then surely it follows that the community can turn down the services of anyone for any reason, and that a person mopping is not entitled to their mop? With this logic, I think there's no such thing as an unfair RfA result. Where's the flaw here? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with all of that. The "any reason" part would need expounding. I do agree that an administrator is not entitled to be an administrator. I do think there needs to be a community run de-adminship process. In fact, despite the contrary statements of many, I support there being such a thing. I have long stood against ill-advised attempts (and there have been many) to create such a system. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, philosophy #2 here is It is only an agreement to do additional work for the project on behalf of the community. Does the community have to give a 'valid reason' to deny someone's request to do additional work on its behalf? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the results of various RfAs can answer that rather accurately. People can support without giving a reason and there's no consternation. If someone opposes with out giving a reason, there's usually discussion against it. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I don't think I expressed my question clearly, but I'm finding it too awkward to speak plainly in the present circumstances without seeming like I'm referring to the pending case, so probably better for me to try this again later. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:50, 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 hear on Wikipedia: I'm from ArbCom and I'm here to help. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

quoted from my talk, with emphasis aded (from earlier today, to not send readers back and forth too much, and a shorter version of what you explained):

request, two people I like request investigation of one of my friends, - however that ends, it will not improve kindness, nor any article. - Yesterday, a saw a user name on my watchlist that I hadn't seen for a long time, and was happy - until I saw what she said.

I like today's featured article about a musician pictured, Aza24's first TFA (and I wonder if Wehwalt scheduled it on 24 February to honour her user name), and we have a composer in the DYK section, a GA, a composer with an infobox ;) - Beethoven has one. I created it in the workshop phase of our case, and one of the arbs who wrote the case implemented it as the community consensus. I confess that I felt more than absolved then ;) - I am sure that RexxS is here to help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The vast, vast majority are here to help. Else, we wouldn't be here :) The devil is in the cooperative engagement of it all. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
agree, and see, sometimes even an arb is able to help - the case request was declined, imagine! - "Green" DYK today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Outside of a couple of distinct cases (one of which involved an active arb leaking confidential information...yes, that happened, which is why I don't trust ArbCom), I don't hold any particular arb in any particular negative or positive light. It's ArbCom in toto where the significant issues lie. No, it's not monolithic. But, it's behavior can be dealt with as such. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  (remember indenting?) For the last election, I wanted to ask the candidates if they could point me at one instance that arbcom did something good. Perhaps next year. My first such question would have been hilarious if it hadn't been about banning a productive editor for having helped me. Ever since, I know what to think of arbcom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  yeah I do, but I fail to understand how :*:*: is more accessible than ::::*??? <confused stare /> Anyway, I would have to think about it to come up with a case where ArbCom did some good. Not in emergency actions, but cases. I can't say there hasn't been cases where the outcome helped the project in some way. I've never looked at it that way, in part because it's subjective. It's sad that there is no oversight over ArbCom. I'm not saying a court of appeals or something like that. Right now, the only way to change ArbCom is by voting in the next elections. But, that never really does anything. Enacting new policy that ArbCom is supposed to follow is meaningless, since ArbCom has shown a willingness to ignore policy. They're doing it now with the current RFAR. WP:ADMINCOND is effectively void as soon as they accept this case (and they're going to). WP:DR is also void in so far as it pertains to administrators. These are policies established by the community. They are to be followed, not ignored. But, that's of no concern to ArbCom when it comes to administrators. Indeed, ArbCom is treating administrators like some sort of uber-user that can't be held to account by the community. That's just patently, and provably false. What I would like to see is the ability for ArbCom members to be subjected to recall. There have been cases of gross misconduct on the committee before. The only reason ArbCom members left ArbCom in those cases was under extreme pressure for them to do so. They were not required to do so, and could have kept on serving in their ArbCom capacity until their term ended. This is wrong. But, what can be done? Nothing. In the current RFAR, Bilorv mentions "unblockables". The true unblockables are ArbCom. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  (For the indenting, see the essay which I copied to my talk. - I did it "wrong" for years. RexxS explains better than I could.) I was so tempted to go around telling some new arbs: "I voted for you!!", but instead I gave flowers to those who voted for me, - less work also ;) - They didn't listen to those from the community who commented, - the majority said decline. (I didn't count but noticed how many flowers I passed to those.) - I try to ignore Teh Case: not good for my health. - You will know that all I did when I was sentenced was singing in defiance (which I made a DYK). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Today, we have Doris Stockhausen on her 97th birthday ;) - See my talk: in today's service, my song of defiance was played ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  
  We lost my friend. I tell myself not to get too upset but it doesn't work yet. --- BWV 53 again, and this nailed it. Stabat Mater. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Noted. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Shylock (Fauré), - talk page shows "despair". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  I've been watching. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:03, 8 March 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]

I'm not clear if you're asking a question? If you are, could you rephrase? Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:08, 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]
Barkeep49, RexxS' comment above demonstrates a profound level of comprehension. that goes beyond the comments of some of the non-involved individuals and starter OPs of Arbcom cases. It seems to me that (without casting aspersions) there is some parallel between ProcrastinatingReader and user:Chris.sherlock who both claimed to have to have settled their differences with the accused parties, but then went on to comment extensively on all the case pages. Taking a case doesn't mean that desysop (or even any sanction at all) will or should be the right solution, but it usually ends that way by Arbcom giving the community the outcome it most loudly demands. Yes: ...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. Let's hope that what appears to be a breath of fresh wind in this current iteration of the Committee will fare better for those subject to this and future cases. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:03, 22 March 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]

Not a bad course of action, but do ping them again prior to making the change to give them a chance to respond. I would do the same for Walter Görlitz too. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

An update: I've memorialized your advice here. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice :) Thanks! --Hammersoft (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More advice, please.

Sorry to bother you, but I once again need advice regarding how best to resolve an impasse with Francis Schonken.
FS has recently implemented a program of (a) reverting my changes with a meaningless edit summary ("WP:Revert, ignore"), (b) with one exception, providing no further explanation on talk, and (c) then not engaging in discussion on the talk page. Here are FS' "WP:Revert, ignore" reverts:

1. Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus", March 30 (mass revert).

This was a mass revert of three months of edits, including the edit that added my memorialization of your advice above. FS' edit summary said nothing more than "WP:Revert, ignore." However, for this revert there was a talk page explanation: FS didn't care for the use of the phrase "'no consensus' revert" in several places in the reverted text.
Later on March 30 I proposed an alternative phrase. FS replied with silence.
On April 4 I went ahead and implemented my proposal. So far, FS has not reverted back, suggesting that - at least in this case - FS' silence was meant to convey no objection to my proposal.
FS's mass revert to express an objection to a single phrase seems contrary to the wp:FIXFIRST behavioral guideline.

2. Wikipedia:BRDISCUSS, April 4 (revert restoration of original re-direct target).

WP:BRDISCUSS is a re-direct page I created for the "Don't revert due solely ..." work. I set it up to point to the Consensus "Through discussion" section. On March 30, with an edit summary saying "less confusing," FS changed the re-direct to point to the entire wp:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle article.
On April 4, with an edit summary of "Restore original, more specific, target," I restored the original target. FS promptly reverted with a "WP:Revert, ignore" edit summary.
On April 6 I responded with a talk post asking FS to explain how the original target was "confusing." FS has replied with silence.

3. Wikipedia:Consensus, March 30 (remove {{shortcut}}), and Wikipedia:Consensus, April 4 (revert restoration of {{shortcut}}).

On March 27, I added {{policy shortcut|WP:BRDICUSS}} to the Consensus "Through discussion" section. FS reverted, saying only "WP:Revert, ignore." On April 4 I restored the shortcut with an edit summary saying "Restore original, more specific, location for shortcut that was moved with a substance-free edit summary." FS promptly reverted again, once more saying only "WP:Revert, ignore."

4. Wikipedia:Red link, April 3 (revert removal of "be allowed to").

I proposed a change to this editing guideline and FS objected. After lengthy discussion, the crux of which starts here, three editors (including me) found FS' objection unpersuasive. Nevertheless, I offered a test of FS' objection. FS replied to my offer by saying "there is no reason whatsoever to change my view." This was not responsive to my offer to run a test. I again asked FS to address the offered test. FS replied with silence.
After waiting a few days I went ahead and made the change, referring to the talk page discussion. FS promptly reverted with a "WP:Revert, ignore" edit summary.

5. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, April 7 (revert change of "stops" to "has the effect of ending").

Another situation where I proposed changes, FS objected, and a lengthy discussion ensued. The relevant discussion starts here: On March 20 FS registered opposition to the change as it then stood. On March 22 I narrowed my proposal and asked FS to comment. On March 25, with an edit summary of "no," he answered: "Continue my oppose." Later that day I asked "why?" FS replied with silence.
On April 1, I started a new subsection to clarify the current proposal resulting from prior discussion. I concluded with "Any substantive objection to this change?" There were no objections (FS continuing in silence).
On April 6, having previously obtained the support of one other editor (at [3] and [4])., I made the proposed change. FS reverted with a "WP:Revert, ignore" edit summary.

Please tell me how you would recommend I break free from the cage that Francis Schonken has built for me? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not ignoring you; thinking about best course of action. I will get back to this. @Francis Schonken:; in the meantime, could you please explain your actions? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have never found any of Butwhatdoiknow's actions w.r.t. guidance pages remotely useful. I've asked them, after around two dozen of their edits throwing around and maiming phrases at the WP:CREEP page, what their actual objective was with all these changes. They had no answer to the question, even after I had re-iterated the question, in various wordings, a few times. After some time-consuming discussion at the WT:CREEP page, nobody found their changes to the guidance useful, and all was duly reverted. At that point, I'd have been prepared to consider them some sort of troll, who shouldn't be fed any more (see WP:DNFTT). Then they started similar actions on other guidance pages, and you insisted I should take them serious. Still, none of their changes to guidance pages seem remotely useful, and their discussions, in which they insist I should take part, are as time consuming as ever. So, on your insistence I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt (WP:Revert, ignore is a technique that assumes good faith on the editor one is reverting), but hope you understand their apparently quite counter-productive attitude is not very inviting to engage in discussion with them. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft, please let me know whether you want me to reply to Francis Schonken's explanation. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Butwhatdoiknow: I do. Both of you seem to hold the other in the same regard. I'd much rather see a dispute such as this hashed out somewhere other than in edit wars. So, please do continue here. @Francis Schonken: Please continue to monitor this discussion and respond as appropriate. Please keep in mind that disparaging remarks regarding any editor are not welcome. Comment on edits, not on the person. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because FS' explanation of their actions seems to amount to "Butwhat made me do it," I'll first respond to FS' comments regarding my behavior. Then, at the end, I'll propose an alternative approach FS might consider going forward.

> FS' judgment that none of my policy/guidance/essay edits have any value.

With regard to my general bona fides, I offer my reorganization of wp:Layout from June 2008 through December 2008. The basic structure I set up remains in place to this day.

More recently, and using FS as the judge, I point out that FS did no further reverts after I swapped out the offending phrase from wp:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". This suggests that, in actuality, FS found the content of the three months of edits FS had reverted the week before had value.

Finally, I note that FS is the only editor who has employed mass reverts to my edits. I have been editing well watched pages (wp:CREEP - 136 watchers; wp:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" - 65 watchers; wp:REDLINKS - 274 watchers). Why does FS stand alone in finding all of my edits on these pages totally without value?

> FS' statement that I did not articulate an objective for the wp:CREEP changes FS reverted.

As a preliminary matter, I note that each of my edits that FS mass reverted was accompanied by an edit summary explaining the rationale.

My conversation with FS regarding CREEP began with me asking "Did you find nothing worth keeping in all the edits made in the past month and a half?" FS did not answer this question and, instead, replied with a new question: "Please explain first *why*?" Feeling that a generic "to improve the article" would not be meaningful, I suggested we look at each of my edits individually and, starting the first one, I explained my rationale for that edit. FS gave a two part response. I followed up regarding one of the parts.

FS replied with silence. I pinged him and he responded by repeating "Please explain first *why*?" I replied:

You reversed a month and half of edits. There is not a single "why." Instead, there are separate whys for each edit. Hence, I responded to your "Please explain first *why*?" post with "Okay, let's start with my first edit. The answer to your question as to that edit is ..." In short, my November 17 post was a continuation of our first *why* discussion. I look forward to your substantive response.

FS responded: "If you want to discuss one by one that's OK for me. I replied to that one. But the rationale for a single edit doesn't answer my over-all "why" question ..." I replied:

Why did I make all of those edits over a month and a half period? Because I thought they improved the article. You disagree. I don't see how we can resolve our differences if we don't look at whether each edit did or did not improve the article.

FS was evidently satisfied that I had articulated an objective at that time as we then resumed our discussion of his two part response to my explanation for the first edit. I don't know why FS now thinks I failed to honor their request that I explain why I was editing wp:CREEP.

> FS' summary of the wt:Avoid_instruction_creep discussion.

FS's first mass revert took place before any discussion on the talk page. The discussion that followed ended as far as FS was concerned when FS went into silent mode. You can pick up the rest of the history here. (And yes, I now understand that I should not have reverted on December 16. And, for what it is worth, I did not revert again when FS promptly reverted my revert.)

Bottom line: There was no discussion of "changes." Only the first one. And that discussion ended when FS began ghosting the discussion. If and when I am released from FS's "revert and don't discuss" cage I intend to initiate discussions regarding the other edits I made on that page.

> FS' complaint regarding "similar actions on other guidance pages."

I'm not sure what FS means by "similar actions." Editing is what editors do. I try to make small edits to give other editors a chance to revert. That is what I did on wp:CREEP for a month and half before FS arrived on the scene, what I did on wp:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" for three months before FS arrived on that scene, and what I did on wp:REDLINKS for three weeks before FS arrived on that scene. Each of those edits is supported with an explanatory edit summary.

> FS' complaint regarding time consuming discussions.

I think FS has hit on something upon which all three of us can agree: trying to reach consensus through discussion is a royal pain in the posterior. We all wish that every one of our edits would pass without objection. Or, if they raise an objection, that the objecting editor will quickly see the wisdom of our approach. But that is not reality. If you sign up to be a Wikipedia editor you sign up for time consuming and sometimes frustrating discussions in search of consensus.

> FS' characterization of me having a "counter-productive attitude."

I'm not sure what this refers to. I'm human and not perfect, but when I am in discussion with another editor I try to see their point and respond to it. In fact, I have done just that with respect to FS concerns. For example, changing the objectionable phrase in wp:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" on April 4 (despite FS ghosting my March 30 talk page post proposing the alternative phrase).

> How to proceed?

FS believes I have nothing remotely useful to contribute to policy/guidance/essay pages and I'm wasting everyone's time. In that circumstance I suggest that - instead of being a one-person judge, jury, and executioner - the proper course would be to take the matter to an administrator (Hammersoft, for example) to give a second opinion and to take whatever remedial action toward me that the administrator determines is appropriate. Of course, the administrator may conclude that my contributions are not counter-productive. In that case I would hope that FS would re-evaluate their approach to determining the merits of other editors' contributions - and their current "revert and don't discuss" approach to dealing with edits that they find valueless.

Sorry this reply is so long but I wanted to support my comments with references to specific edits and actions. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think your edits to WP:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" were useful. I reverted them now, as I see that the fact that I didn't revert them before is now used as an argument against me. Really... --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: FS' revert today removes, among other things, my memorialization of your advice above. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Francis Schonken: And with that you are edit warring...after being blocked for it, again, again, again, again, again, again, and again. This isn't the first time since I gave you a final warning regarding edit warring either, as you did so with this and [5]. After that final warning and this warning I gave you, the only conclusion that I can draw from this is that you want to be banned from the project. The why escapes me. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I self-reverted to decrease tension. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft, I renew my request for guidance. In your most recent post you asked FS why he reverted again during this conversation. FS did not provide an explanation. Instead, FS did a single self revert "to decrease tension." FS has not self-reverted any of the other "WP:Revert, ignore" reverts that led me to reach out to you. What do I do now? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would invite commentary on the talk pages of the places in question, and ping FS to them. Attempt conversation. If none is forthcoming after some days, then reinstate. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taking issue with these edits by Butwhatdoiknow: [6] and [7]. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, the first of these edits does not conform to WP:TALKHEADPOV, third sub-bullet. But more general I don't think it very wise of Butwhatdoiknow to go around commenting about me on other users' talk pages. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the history of edit warring that has happened, I think it appropriate and prudent that editors discuss issues with other editors in the edit war rather than continue to engage in edit warring. I'd far rather see than that than continued edit warring. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "... discuss ... in the edit war ..."? Seems like you were trying to say something else. I assume that "... see than that than ..." has to be read "... see [than] that than ..." (just for clarity). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok six words: Discussion is better than edit war. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but that general principle doesn't say anything about the issue at hand. Editor behavior on talk pages can be counterproductive too, even if, as I agree with you, it is not as bad as an edit war. Butwhatdoiknow's edits on that user talk page were imho counterproductive in that sense: as far as I can tell they did not prevent an edit war, but supported the editor whose talk page these comments were posted on in the idea that it is OK to split a content discussion over several talk pages, and that comments on editors are a normal component of content discussions – I disagree on both points, and feel supported by behavioral guidelines and policies on those points. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on editors actions is a normal part of the productive process of creating this project. I have directly commented about your actions on a number of occasions recently. I will continue to comment on any editor's actions as need arises, and will encourage others to do so as well. It's how we resolve conflict. If, on the other hand, you feel someone is personally attacking you, WP:NPA applies along with how to handle such situations. Please let me know if someone is personally attacking you. I'll be happy to look into it and take appropriate action as needed. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't deform my words. I said "comments on editors", not "comments on editors' actions" nor "comments on an editor's actions"; which is indeed the distinction made in behavioral policies and guidelines. And my comment above on two of Butwhatdoiknow's edits are in line with such guidelines and policies. If you only minimize what I said about these edits by comparing them to edit warring (which is a quite inappropriate comparison), and then say I should redo what should be done per policies and guidelines (no, I'm not going to repeat myself: I already did what I had to w.r.t. to these two edits by Butwhatdoiknow), we're done here I suppose. Thanks for the time you've given to this, but I'm currently not planning any further steps about these edits by another editor, which were, afaics, counterproductive on several levels. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making no attempt to deform your words. I'm quite frankly very unclear about what you're trying to say here. From my chair, it appears you are taking issue with a person commenting on your actions. I've tried to respond to that to make it clear that this is appropriate behavior. On the off chance you are talking about someone commenting on you personally, I referenced you to WP:NPA as a means of addressing that issue, if it is indeed the issue. If I'm not getting this, then please clarify it for me. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was taking issue with an editor commenting on me. The section header introduced by Butwhatdoiknow reads "== Francis Schonken ==" not "== Francis Schonken's action ==" nor "== Francis Schonken's edit ==", nor was the content Butwhatdoiknow added to that section about a specific action or edit. I linked to the relevant guidance which says that, bar exceptions on some noticeboards, "Headings may be about specific edits but not specifically about the user." --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the former case, I don't see an issue; it's one editor notifying another editor about an ongoing discussion about another editor's actions. There's no personal attack, and no direct comment on you. In the latter case, for better or for worse it is routine that people name sections of talk pages after an editor. Further, this is reinforced by ArbCom naming cases after editors, rather than their actions. There's nothing actionable here, and I don't see an issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at the talk page of the REDLINK guideline

@Butwhatdoiknow: it is likely an understatement that all known arguments regarding the "... should be allowed to remain ..." phrasing have been stated twice over at Wikipedia talk:Red link#Rationale for Francis Schonken reversions? – please stop trying to fix what isn't broken. In wikispeak, Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. I asked you not to ping me to discussions in which I'm active. In this case, even worse while there is no new contribution to the discussion, just asking me to rehash what has already been said at least twice over. Again: me not longer reacting indicates I have not changed my opinion: pinging me to reconfirm that, as you did here is wasting my time, and my time is my most valuable asset for improving Wikipedia, so don't waste it. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Francis Schonken:; Butwhatdoiknow is making a good faith effort to get a response, as you haven't responded to his queries on this point before. If you don't want to receive pings anywhere from Butwhatdoiknow, you can set this in your preferences under the notifications tab. @Butwhatdoiknow: If Francis no longer wishes to participate in that discussion, if you find consensus with other editors in the discussion then proceed with the change. WhatamIdoing may be the person to approach to help achieve that consensus. --Hammersoft (talk) 10:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again

Another mass revert from Francis Schonken, this time at Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling. This mass reversion includes undoing my first edit on that page, which changed

This is an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and Wikipedia:Gaming the system.

to

This is an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and Wikipedia:Gaming the system behavioral guidelines.

The sole explanation on that page for the mass revert is an edit summary saying "revert a series of unhelpful changes." (Compare wp:OWNBEHAVIOR: "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it 'unnecessary' without claiming that the change is detrimental.") However, at Wikipedia_talk:Red_link#Status FS explains "Butwhatdoiknow, I have reverted your changes to Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling – they seemed particularly unhelpful, merely intended to support your failing views on how WP:CONSENSUS works."

In a prior post on this page FS said "I have never found any of Butwhatdoiknow's actions w.r.t. guidance pages remotely useful." In an earlier post on another page FS told me "I think all your edits to guidance pages can be reverted on sight, unless there's a strong preliminary talk page consensus for them."

In short, FS continues to indiscriminately target my edits for reversion - acting as a self-appointed administrator to block my contributions to WP: pages. I hope you will advise me regarding how best to respond to this treatment. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would raise this issue at WP:AN/I at this point. Be polite, provide diffs, and be concise. People reading WP:AN/I don't want to read pages and pages of material to try to figure out what's going on. Make sure you inform FS when you make the post. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I have proceeded as you have suggested: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Francis Schonken Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Butwhatdoiknow: Just to clarify; I wasn't trying to shunt you off. I haven't had a lot of time or energy for Wikipedia in the last while. Life's in the way. I see that Cullen328 has indefinitely blocked him. I likely would have reached the same conclusion, but taken hours to get to the same conclusion as I am sometimes too thorough, if that makes sense. I just didn't have the time. The only thing that I would add at this point is that the indefinite block should be proposed as a ban from the project, and if consensus achieved have the account added to Category:Banned Wikipedia users. You might consider starting a subsection to the AN/I thread to that affect. Again, concise wording is helpful. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Between too thorough and not thorough enough, I'll go with the former every time. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've never been involved with an AN/I matter before and am not well versed in the distinction between an "indefinite block" and a "ban from the project." Nevertheless, I'll give it a try. But first, unless you counsel me otherwise, I'm going to wait a day or two to see whether there is more reaction to the indefinite block. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      My position: banned or indeffed doesn't make much of a difference. - I had hoped to win Francis for collaboration for a FAC for my song of defiance, but his reaction was not promising (euphemism for chilling). - I think more of Mathsci whom I'd like to see unblocked. Is that too plain a request? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Butwhatdoiknow: The difference might seem semantic, but it isn't. The indef block was placed by a single administrator. Granted, it's backed up by support from others, but it's just one person. It could be undone fairly quickly. A ban from the project is something that the community, via consensus, agrees is necessary. A ban from the project is not lightly undone, and usually requires a consensus. If you would like, I can generate the proposal. I've accumulated information regarding this situation. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: Yes, rather chilling. On Mathsci; I really, really, really did not want to block Mathsci, but the situation demanded it. We can't just let a years long debate keep simmering and negatively affecting the project. I am immensely hopeful that Mathsci will be returning to editing next month with a new found sense of responsibility over their edits and how they intersect with FS. If FS is permanently banned from the project (which seems likely at this point) then this is a moot point. But if not, then Mathsci must take this responsibility seriously. The three month block was the absolute minimum I could realistically apply in that situation. Hopefully it's the absolute maximum that needs to be applied to bring home the seriousness of the issue and where Mathsci is on the slippery slope. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Case Opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQL ^{Query me!} 04:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

missing RexxS

(Gerda stole this from Bish 4 March)

And of course the case is named after RexxS, which means RexxS can not get a fair trial due to cognitive anchoring. It will be impossible for RexxS to escape significant sanction, if not outright desysopping or potentially banning from the project. The official lynching has begun, and ArbCom has invalidated WP:ADMINCOND and WP:DR. Those policies are now utterly meaningless now, in so far as they apply to administrators. "Wikipedia:Arbitration" says "The arbitration process exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia conduct disputes that neither community discussion nor administrators have successfully resolved." That too is invalidated now, as the community was never given an opportunity to resolve this issue. Way to go ArbCom. How many more processes and policies are you going to ignore and/or invalidate? @RexxS: I'm very sorry, but you're screwed. @SQL: I know you're just the messenger, but I don't know how you could in good conscience work for a group that is clearly so abusive and willfully dismissive of policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very well said, and I applaud you. Thank you for this very accurate response. — Ched (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellently put. I am starting to see that ArbCom's way of dealing with "conduct disputes" is by driving editors away from the encyclopedia, into death or into relative obscurity. The process is unnecessarily arduous and places undue stress on individuals who are already stressed enough. They rarely start from a place where those involved in the process are not also intimately involved with the accuser or the accused meaning it can not be a fair hearing for either party involved. They never look at the root causes of the disputes and rarely look at the impact their resolutions have on the broader community. Now, let me say, I don't believe the absolute intention of every member is to do any of the things I mentioned were the result of their decision but one can not ignore the results either. --ARose Wolf 16:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Mammootty flare-up

Hey there, just a heads-up in case you don't notice it that there's been a minor anti-Mammootty flare-up from this person. This edit seems an odd call since Mammootty appears on the film poster and his character's name ("Mammootty", of course) appears in like 6/7 of the plot summary paragraphs. They've scrubbed Mammootty from mention as a lead here, although he appears on the poster and seems to be a significant plot point. I could go either way on this one. Regards, --Cyphoidbomb

Thanks for the heads up. It's astonishing to me that the anti-Mohanlal and anti-Mammootty groups are still at it after all these years. The dispute will never end. So pointless. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021

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

Administrator changes

TJMSmith

Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.
A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
There is a discussion in progress concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with Pending Changes protection.

Technical news

When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.

Miscellaneous

Following the 2021 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AmandaNP, Operator873, Stanglavine, Teles, and Wiki13.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March flowers

Today: Carmen for TFA (on my request), with Bizet's music "expressing the emotions and suffering of his characters" as Brian worded it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

today (IWD): MMMM with a reference to Carmen again --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... and today Bach's cantata composed for today, - perhaps listen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... and the first performance was on a Palm Sunday which is today, and Yoninah's obituary with the beginning of Passover today - putting some little ego-battles in perspective --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can this user be blocked?

Hello, can user InvisibleWoman11 please be blocked as soon as possible? Clearly WP:NOTHERE. --Ashley yoursmile! 12:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashleyyoursmile: Done. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Hammersoft. Can you please remove the edit summaries from public view? Ashley yoursmile! 12:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done as well. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Ashley yoursmile! 12:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Impact

Impact
Thank you for your impact

in saying clearly "Don't!" when it comes to "arbitration" instead of communication

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) --Hammersoft (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You look into corners so probably know already that I found a contrib that really tried arbitration in the sense I understand, in 2013: consensus -- advantages of infoboxes -- seeking common ground. Imagine the two users addressed had accepted. What a load of infobox "discussions" could have been avoided, including the failed attempt of arbcom to deal with them. I wonder what would have happened if I had ignored that case. "seeking common ground" - we could use more of that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was idly thinking just now about a feedback mechanism for ArbCom. Like, a 'reception' figure from Rotten Tomatoes or something, and do it by case. No debate or anything, just an up/down sort of thing, following closure of a case. This will never happen. But, it's interesting to think about. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I can yet follow, - "for arbcom", what does that mean? You know probably how I received arbcom. Eric Corbett told me "chin up", but I didn't need that ;) - I sang a song. It says - paraphrased a bit: "do what you want, I stand here and sing". It was set by Bach, and the first word of the stanza in question is "Trotz" (defiance, but sounds much better in German), and it stands alone, followed by a rest, and is repeated, immediately, and a few times more, Trotz, Trotz, - then "tobe, Welt, und springe" (rage, world, and leap), followed - firmly! - by "ich ---- steh hier ---- und siii-i-inge", and then all in unison: "Ich steh hier und singe." I repeated only this last line in my reply to the decision. The beginning is pictured here, if you read music. - More background: I sang the piece the day before my grandfather was buried, and that was the first death in close family. At the time, it was believed that Bach composed it for a funeral, - we are are not so sure anymore, but it would work. Defiance of death, and fear. I nominated the article for GA, on Bach's birthday 2020. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is, take a given ArbCom case, say Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan. Following closure of the case, the community would vote that the decision was good, or the decision was bad. No debate about it, just an up/down vote. Like I said, it will never happen. I do read music, by the way :) --Hammersoft (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now I get it! That indeed seems so unlikely that I failed to think it. In arbinfobox, there was a lot of down already before the closure, and no up that I saw. But the poor arbs, what could they do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, I think Hammersoft means one of those 'up/down' features like they have on many websites where people comment, such a Quora for example. The problem with such a system however, is that the voting, like it is on RfA, would be largely subjective and from a large section of the community who don't really know what it's all about. It might not be so easy for cases concerning multiple editors, such as on Kurds and Kurdistan|, but it could be appropriate for the upcoming conclusion to the RexxS case. While Ched was absolutely right to request the infobox case, the whole thing turned into a fiasco.

Hammersoft's idea would still need to be a two part vote: One on the overall handling of the case, and one on the outcome. It's a nice idea - perhaps with some refinement it would be worth suggesting, and one never knows - it might just happen. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that I'd really like an up/down or non-comment support/oppose function for many wiki-discussions. (and thank you Kudpung for the ping.) I apologize for taking so long to respond, but I really didn't know what to say beyond that - but I'll try.

I'm not ashamed of bringing the infobox situation to Arbcom. I tried first to host a discussion in one of my talk pages, and it didn't help. It was obvious (at least to me) that the situation had gotten beyond what the community could handle. There were disruptive threads all over the wiki, and the situation needed to be dealt with. I tried to be honest about where I stood (in support) of infoboxes, and I tried to be fair in my presentation. I fully admit that I should have been more assertive in those I listed as involved parties, and a couple editors who should have been listed continued to battle against infoboxes for years. (IMO). I also admit that it hurts a bit that there's a thought that perhaps some harbored a bit of resentment towards me for bringing the case, but I was aware of that possibility at the time I listed it. Still, I felt it was something that needed to be done, and I felt it was a burden that an admin. should shoulder, so I picked up the albatross.

The one thing that I've learned and am painfully aware of now is that Arbcom often achieves the opposite of its intended purpose. Far too often Arbcom fails to review the core of the issue, and limits its eyes to only the specific diffs presented (even when they are misleading). That is to say that all too often it's the antagonist who is willing to wallow in the mud and muck to dig out and cherry-pick any and all shortcomings of individuals who walks away unscathed at Arbcom. Those who choose to take the high-road and attempt to deal with only the issue(s) at hand, are often doomed to be sanctioned. I'll stop there as I don't care to sully myself with past events, or mud raking aimed at individuals. Thank you Kudpung again, and thank you Hammersoft for hosting this weighty discussion. — Ched (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ched, see the thread below at RexxS case participation. I've already stated that I would be prepared to work offline with anyone on this. In earlier times I would have included WTT and Tony but I'm not quite sure how they stand on issues like these nowadays (or even a possible collaboration with me on the team). Suffice it to say that Tony would have been a huge assert to the Committee but unfortunately he withdrew, and WTT still is - when he doesn't recuse himself. On another note: While I can partly understand the votes of Beeb and SoWhy, (both for very different reasons but which I'm not allowed to mention), I'm disappointed at the contributions of some of the newer Arbcom members, but I am much heartened by NYB's vote as the most experienced genuine 'arbitrator' and a prominent and highly respected lawyer in RL to boot. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A10 question

Hi Hammersoft. Would you mind taking a look at WP:THQ#Film / TV Poster. As I explained there, that's how I stumbled upon C-3PO & R2-D2, which I tagged it for speedy per WP:A10 because it seems to have no potential to be anything more than a duplicate of the two stand-alone articles about each character. Perhaps it has some value as a redirect instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another admin has already deleted it so I guess this is now a moot point; I'm still kinda wondering though if it might've had some value as a redirect. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The A10 Warthog is a rather brilliant ground attack/support plane which saw development beginning in the 1960s. Oh wait, wrong A10 :) Seriously, when I saw "A10 question" that's what popped into my brain first :)
I don't see any particular value as a redirect. Redirects are cheap, but I don't think anyone searching for C-3PO & R2D2 would get lost. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I also thought of that A10 when I typed that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 March 15 § File:Peters NIU shooting.JPG

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 March 15 § File:Peters NIU shooting.JPG. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Hammersoft, whenever I see a comment made by you, I read it several times because sometimes it's hard to really understand what you mean, but once I understand what you mean, I almost always agree with every point of your comment. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Singh Rissam

The page sandeep singh rissam has been wrongly deleted. Even when the page had enough of references and moreover the hindi newspapers mentioning him were not considered. Why ? A notable person means a someone doing a work which is notable and not someone who keeps on going to media and news for hype. Also it was wrongly mentioned in the discussion that the references have his name as passing name whereas most of the reference news had him as main person. Moreover to check the so called ' notable ' as per you for profile of sandeep Singh Rissam can also be checked by simply googling his name. Sunny50888 (talk) 13:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunny50888: I disagree with your interpretation of the references, as I noted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandeep Singh Rissam. That said, and without meaning to sound hostile, why are you contacting me about this? I participated in the deletion discussion, and thus I'm in no position to overturn the decision of Stifle, the closing administrator. Further, I don't see any reason to do so. The article was badly WP:REFBOMBed, and most of the references that were not dead barely mentioned him in passing and duplicated each other in content. Wikipedia does not care if he's making a difference in the lives of people around him. It's not for Wikipedia to decide that is the case. We rely on reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject to sustain information on the project. While there were a couple of references that did this, most of it was simply passing mentions. It's not enough to sustain notability per WP:GNG. Nevertheless, if you feel the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandeep Singh Rissam was done in error, you are welcome to place it for deletion review. However, I encourage you to carefully read Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose before doing so. Deletion Review is most emphatically not a second chance WP:AFD. You will need to carefully consider your argument, and bring to light additional references that really focus on this individual and that come from the aformentioned reliable, secondary sources. Trying to get the article undeleted based on the references previously provided will not work. If you have questions, let me know. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Reform proposal

I saw your comments on the Desysop proposal saying that you thought we needed to focus on making it easier to become admin first; I was wondering if you would consider making a formal proposal to lower to RFA threshold to 60% with a discretionary range from 50.00%-60%, to drastically lower the bar for adminship and make it easier for users to become admins. If that bar had been in place in 2020, then 3 unsuccessful RFAs would have been passing at time of withdrawal, and 1 would have been within the discretionary range at time of withdrawal. ( I do not want to make any proposal myself since I don't have much experience or tenure, but if an RFA proposal came from you it would probably be well received due to your tenure. ) Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I don't think I suggested lowering the RfA threshold. I did say that the desysop policy should align with RfA. I would not want to propose lowering the threshold without analyzing lower pass RfAs and how those admins performed over time. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did a brief analysis of admins desysoped for cause; and the majority ( 45 out of 76 for which I could find the RFA) got at least 90% in their RFA. Full rough statistics here ( Based on the former admins page). Based on this there appears to be no correlation between a lower % and being desysopped; at least on the surface. I do agree that there should be a combination of Desysopping and looser RFA standards to avoid a large admin decrease.

Desyopped admins by successful RFA %

100%: 21

90-100%:24

80-90%: 15

70-80%: 6

65-70:2

60-65%: 1

No successful RFA vote in records : 7 Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you VERY much for doing this! You've taken a step that most people don't. I realize this is pain-in-the-tookus territory, but do we have figures for how many other RfAs are in each category? I.e., % of those pools that were desysopped for cause? --Hammersoft (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. I have a hunch that they roughly correspond with the portion of the total pools due to more adminship requests and supports during the "era of good feelings" ; but I don't have the data for that at hand. I asked on the successful RFA archive talk page if anyone had that data; hopefully somebody does. I think 65% might be a better new auto pass than 60%; with 55-65 in the discretionary range, because the 2 RFAs that have passed with 60-65 that I know of have had less than ideal results. ( 1 of whom passed with 61% in 2006 after a prior Desysop and was eventually desysopped again; the other of which is currently involved in an Arbcom case) Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) I think it's pretty cool that you and others would take the time and effort to do this. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS case participation

@Newyorkbrad:, @Primefac:, @Barkeep49: (pinging all three of you as people who commented on the section of the PD I am highlighting) and (@RexxS: courtesy ping to you, as I thought you might want to see this post whenever you return):

At the RexxS did not participate after the Case was opened proposed findings of fact, the three of you have been discussing RexxS' non-involvement in the case. I would like to lay out a few things;

ArbCom IS monstrous. I am very far from being the only one who thinks so. There have been enormous calls for reform over many years with little or no effect. To say the least, the process is abusive. I didn't suggest to RexxS that he not participate. But, if I were in his shoes I wouldn't participate either. There are considerable reasons for refusing to participate, not the least of which are:
1. The refusal by ArbCom to recognize the very serious issues brought on by the cognitive anchoring that results when a case is named after a particular person. This case is named "RexxS". There is no way that RexxS could get a fair trial here, as avoiding the bias is effectively impossible. There is an easy solution to this, but ArbCom has refused to act to fix this serious problem. So let's be clear about this: ANCHORED CASE NAMING RESULTS IN NO FAIR TRIAL.
2. There is also the problem that RexxS is just one person. 42 other people made statements plus 10 ArbCom members. In effect, RexxS is ...as one person... expected to handle the input of 52 people. In total, all the preliminary statements (not including RexxS') constituted 34 printed pages of material. This is unreasonable to say the least. He'd need a team of lawyers to properly respond to that. It's akin to RexxS being put into the stocks, having the entire village throw rotten vegetables at him, and come up with a reasoned response while undergoing this torture. Worse, he has to do this within a short time period not of his choosing, but of the choosing of the person who decided to bring it to ArbCom. This is NOT A FAIR TRIAL.
3. The reality that across two weeks he has to continually monitor the evidence page (which is now another 34 pages (not to mention another 29 pages worth of talk page comments at the case, evidence, and workshop phases) for updates and try to mount a defense against it. This too is not in a window of his choosing, but forced upon him by the person who brought the case. Realistically, he isn't being given an opportunity to defend himself. Not that he could; again he is one person against many. But, even if he could, evidence and responses to it were coming into the evidence page right up to the very end of the evidence phase. I.e., even if RexxS wanted to respond, there is no window after the evidence phase in which he could mount a defense. No defense = no fair trial. Let's be clear about this. NO DEFENSE = NO FAIR TRIAL.
So we have a single person who is forced to respond to more than 100 pages worth of case materials, brought by more than 50 people, and is forced to do so in a time window not of his choosing. You say you want a just outcome? Sorry, that's laughable and impossible. If RexxS refused to participate due to the abject unfairness of this process, I say kudos to him and shame on ArbCom. Why should RexxS put himself through this hell in a case guaranteed to sanction him where it is impossible for him to have a fair trial? What an absolute waste of energy for a person who is a volunteer here. You want a just outcome? Stop looking at RexxS and look in the mirror.
Further the inclusion of the RexxS did not participate after the Case was opened FoF sets an extremely chilling tone. Even if this is not the intended tone, it can and will be interpreted as saying that ArbCom will be harsher in its treatment towards people who refuse to participate. I find it disgusting this FoF would even be included, most especially when ArbCom by its own admission has no explanation for RexxS' absence.
At the Community handling of administrator misconduct principle, you note that "the community retains the authority to use measures for addressing misconduct of administrators". This alludes to the reality that little effort was made by the community to do anything about this case, but ArbCom chose to accept it anyway. I noted in my original statement on this case that ArbCom was voiding WP:ADMINABUSE. I find it quite perplexing that ArbCom would violate that policy, then try to say it's still valid in this principle, and then go on to suggest the community was out of line with Remedies 5 and 5.1. What should have happened is that ArbCom should have rejected the case request while noting that WP:ADMINABUSE is POLICY and effectively remanded it back to the community. The body that was out of line in this case was ArbCom itself. I recommend a remedy be included with wording akin to "ArbCom reminded: Per WP:ADMINABUSE, ArbCom is reminded that disputes regarding administrator conduct should first have other steps of dispute resolution tried, and should not accept cases where this has not been done." I know this remedy would never be added; ArbCom has never censured itself as a body. But, it should be. It's every bit as valid of a remedy as 5 and 5.1.

I have said before that ArbCom is abusive. I stand by that statement. Please understand; I don't mean to call out any one member of ArbCom. The case process is abusive to named parties, and there is no possible way that a truly fair trial can result. This case is a classic example of its unfairness. ArbCom and its process have been a problem for a very, very long time. It's not the fault of any one member of ArbCom, but of the system itself. My strongly held belief (and I am quite positive I am very far from alone in saying this) is that ArbCom is a net negative to the project and as a body should be dissolved. You have an opportunity here with this case to at least have some dawning recognition of your role in unfairly tearing down a long standing editor. Stop ignoring the pleas of the community to reform yourselves and do something about it. As I've said before, I am not suggesting RexxS has or has not done anything wrong. It's immaterial to the serious unfairness of this case. I am not asking you to exonerate or convict him of any wrongdoing. I am asking you to fix the very serious systemic problems plaguing this and so many other cases. I am asking you to at least be cognizant that just maybe...just maybe...ArbCom is as much to blame in this process as anyone else. A good first step would be outright rejecting the RexxS did not participate after the Case was opened FoF as distinctly unfair to RexxS and the community.

Thanks for listening. I know this is long and takes time from you to read. But consider; this is two printed pages. RexxS was facing over 100. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft, I've read every word that is up at the case (and a bunch that were later removed for being too long). My quick skim of the above suggests that this ties into that case in which case I would suggest the best forum for posting those ideas is the Proposed decision talk page where I will definitely read it in full. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Forgive me for pinging you again, as I know you are busy. The above is less about the case in particular and more about ArbCom. I don't know that it's appropriate for the PD talk page. Further, it's definitely too long if it's to be capped at 500 words. It's well over 1000. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: as you know, I am totally in agreement with every word Hammersoft says and I was saying the very same things lor years, long before I was desysoped. A desysoping of this kind destroys all respect even the most hardworking and popular admin ever had from the community, thus it's easy to understand why they have no desire to continue with any non-admin work, or in the case of some, the very valuable off-Wiki work that isn't reflected in an edit count - that's what makes a complete mockery of FoF #11, which as I understand it, is a weak attempt on cases at providing some token mitigating evidence. Some people - and not rich ones - have spent thousands of pounds of their own money over the years travelling to Wikimanias and meetups giving talks and presentations , while users who have done very little for the project throw cheap shots at them from the sidelines at the arbcom cases, or even monopolise every page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also endorse every word by Hammersoft in this thread, and - even more - the one word he said above, about arbcom cases in general: Don't!. I didn't look at the case. I miss Flyer22, Yoninah, and RexxS. See also User talk:Gerda Arendt#spirale, or: 1510 commentary pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Full Support of what Hammersoft says. Aside from a few ABF comments I've seen (not here), I think getting out some thoughts for future reference is a good idea. I may even do so myself in the near future. — Ched (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About the album covers of the Everywhere at the End of Time series

A few days ago, on March 25, 2021, you left a message on my talk page (ignore my reply on it) revealing you had removed the individual album covers that I uploaded for the article Everywhere at the End of Time from it, claiming they broke a rule of the non-free content guidelines about how per-album covers should not be used in discography-type articles and thus would be deleted after seven days. Furthermore, you had said "If you have questions about this, let me know." Question I shall. While I do believe the other image I had uploaded for that article's main infobox, File:Everywhere at the End of Time - Complete Edition Image.jpg, had indeed broken some rules about user-generated montages, these ones specifically (this one, this other one, this other other one, this other other other one, and this other other other other one) can be argued to be exceptions of the discography rule. Explanations below.

The article in question, Everywhere at the End of Time, tackles a series of albums. The three arguments below rely heavily on this.

1 - The term "discography" would usually be associated with simply listing a series of works, right? This article does not simply list each stage. Instead, it explains each individual album on heavy-prose sections, which is the main reason I believe these images should be kept. The article reveals, with a large amount of depth, the style of each individual stage of the series of works, which in turn makes them deserve individual album covers on their own. While I would be completely against presenting the covers for each individual album on the discography page/section of the Caretaker, due to the page simply listing each album and not exploring them deeply, the albums/stages presented in the EATEOT article on the other hand are the main focus of the article.

2 - While it could be argued that, for the images to be kept, we would have to create individual articles for each one of the albums (which are individually notable), I believe it would still be the best choice to keep them in one single article. The reason for this is that several secondary sources, at the time of the series' popularity on TikTok, referred to the series of albums as "a whole album with 6 stages," as opposed to "a series of releases with 6 albums," which consequently makes most readers who search for information on Wikipedia look for a page simply titled "Everywhere at the End of Time" instead of "Everywhere at the End of Time - Stage [n]". It would be less confusing to them; Wikipedia is all about its readers. The secondary sources in question are mainly this NYT one, but also this Quietus one, and this NPR one. Having all of the album covers in one single article makes a reader who knows nothing or little about the topic find them far more easily, and will reduce their amount of Post Awareness Confusions^[sarcasm].

- 2.1 - The artist who produced the series of albums the article tackles has made it available for listening on only two websites: YouTube, on his "vvmtest" channel, and Bandcamp, on his The Caretaker artist page. The Bandcamp one reveals the article's topic as one single, 6-hour long album, instead of 6 multiple, 40-90 minute long albums; its Bandcamp page only reveals the last album cover, the one for Stage 6, which would likely make buyers who gather info from WP search for an article titled "Everywhere at the end of time" instead of "Everywhere at the end of time - stage [n]" (this paragraph merges with my argument above).

- 2.1.1 - "Hey, what about on YouTube?", you might be asking yourself, my dear administrator. It only reinforces the previous idea. While none of the individual albums uploaded by vvmtest on YouTube received even a mere 500k views each (1 2 3 4 5 6), the upload of the whole, 6-hour long album series received over 9,6 million views, and keeps growing at a fast rate. People will likely search for "Everywhere at the End of Time" instead of "Everywhere at the End of Time - Stage [n]", and thus having all of the album covers on that single page makes readers find them far more easily. If the articles are separated by stages, readers will be confused. Additionally, I feel as if creating several articles just for each individual stage would be a kind of... spam? Maybe? Including them all in just one article is more organized I'd say.

3 - On an interview, James Leyland Kirby himself (aka the Caretaker), the very own manipulator of all the music, stated the album covers, painted with oil by his long-time friend Ivan Seal, are, in his own words, "so important to each stage." This statement further reinforces the idea of having all album covers in the same page, as the producer himself wants the listeners/readers to see the album covers for each individual stage and how they fit with the music. Given how the album subsections on "concept, composition, and production" include audio samples, it would be a great way to present Kirby's interpretation of the group of diseases that is dementia. Me personally, I find the incomprehensible noise in the beginning of Stage 5 very fitting with the vaguely-humanoid cancerous mass on the staircase presented on its cover. So do many other people, such as YouTuber Solar Sands who made a video regarding how art can depict mental disorders, stating on timestamp 8:10 "I don't think there's ever been artwork that fits the tone, message, and overall point of the music better than Ivan Seal's work with the Caretaker".

I had asked you about this and presented the above arguments on my own talk page, since I had questions about it, but I waited 2 days and nothing happened. The arguments I presented on my talk page weren't separated or organized anyway so I figured it is best for me to leave a message on yours instead. These arguments might all seem user-generated, but it's basically the users and readers that Wikipedia editors work for.

Now look, I'm not trying to sound angry or something: that's one of the biggest fears I have when writing to others on the internet, people getting my tone wrong, and I don't know why. While there is a WP rule about assuming good faith and stuff, I'm genuinely shaking as I'm writing this lol. I just found the deletion a bit unfair.

In addition to the three arguments above, the very own NFC guideline page says it is just a guideline, and that "occasional exceptions may apply." As stated above, summarized: the article is more than a discography, it is often considered by popular secondary sources as a whole and not as individual parts, and its artwork is important to understand its more experimental, abstract music. And I sincerely believe: these three arguments combined make these images be good exceptions of that small rule, if the article's even a discography in the first place.

Please don't get this message's tone wrong *laughs in extreme nervousness :)*, thanks.

– Wetrorave (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wetrorave: Here's a helpful tip for you; that thing I just did there at the beginning of this line? It's a "ping". It's a template at {{ping}} that when combined with a person's username, and combined with the signature of the person using it, will alert the ping'd person that their attention is requested. It must be paired with a signature to work. I'm sorry I didn't show up at your talk page. It's not always at the forefront of my mind that "hey self, you left a message on that person's talk page, go and check on it occasionally". So, sorry :) Feel free to use the ping template in the future to alert me about something. If you want to experiment with it, try it on your talk page and ping me in doing so. I'll let you know that it alerted me (if it did).
Don't worry about your tone. I'm very much aware of the limitations of text based communication. There's no visual cues to how a person is saying something, and no verbal cues either. WP:AGF is all the more important when taken in that context. Also, you referred to me as "my dear administrator". Please understand; I'm just acting as an editor here. My stance has no more or less weight than yours because I am an administrator. We are equals. We're colleagues on this project. You've been here coming up on half a year. I've been here 10+ years. I'm an administrator, you're not. Some interpret that as meaning we are somehow not equals. We are. As I've said in the very first sentence of my #1 principle at my userpage, the highest position anyone can hold on the project is "editor". You and I are both editors. Anything else is secondary. I respect your opinion.
The term "discography" here suffers from a bit of a difference in definition between off and on Wikipedia. Wiktionary defines discography as a List of all of the releases of a certain musical act, usually with release dates, and often with other information about the releases. Wikipedia takes the bit about "information about the releases" as broadly construed. Thus, when an article appears such as this one that is a body of work of an artist where several albums are included, it's generally considered a discography, even if it has substantial information on each release. So, for example, Grammy Award for Best Recording Package gets regarded as a essentially a discography, even though it clearly isn't. Thus, while Talking Heads discography would be viewed in the non-wiki world as a fairly standard discography, List of RahXephon albums would not be...but on Wikipedia it is. But, honestly, I wouldn't be concerned about whether this is called a discography or not. Using the term to encapsulate a large number of discussions over the years is useful to focus discussion, but it's a loose term.
I agree this is more like a complete body of work in six episodes. I agree with you that it wouldn't be a good idea to split these into separate articles. So then, how do we proceed? Ok, so one of the basic principles we often look to in the use of non-free content is how the content is connected to the article. So, for example, if we had a modern day artist who has produced 47 paintings, we would not include images of all 47 paintings. That would violate WP:NFCC #3a, as we most certainly wouldn't need all 47 paintings to properly convey the style and technique of the artist. Where we also frequently look is WP:NFCC #8. This is an often misunderstood piece of the NFCC policy. You responded to this point of NFCC at the FfD discussion with "I believe that the covers are a very important part of these albums..." From the perspective of someone who has done NFCC enforcement for a fair bit, the phrase "I believe..." reads as a misunderstanding of the policy. It's important to understand that Wikipedia is tertiary resource. If we were a primary source, then a statement such as "I believe.." might be appropriate. But, it isn't in a tertiary source. We summarize (mostly) secondary sources, and follow what they say. Our own beliefs that an image is or is not important to an article are meaningless in this context. So how does this apply in this case then? We have six album covers here. From reading of the article, it appears that only one album cover is actually discussed in the article with stage 6. The other 5 stage covers are not discussed in the prose of the article. It wouldn't do to just add text that mentions the covers; we need sourced text; i.e. someone outside of and with no relation to Wikipedia feels the covers are important to a discussion of the work, and why they are important. Such sources need to be from reliable, secondary sources. It isn't enough for us to say we believe it's important because it's important, which is effectively what we're doing if we say they are important but don't back it up with sourced commentary. This is a hard point to convey. I hope I'm doing an ok job of conveying it?
More abstractly, the issue of non-free content usage is an ever present one on Wikipedia. The sole reason that I ended up at this article is because it showed up at this list of the articles on Wikipedia by the amount of non-free files in use. It had made it into the top 5. Getting so high on that list enters into the territory of 'extraordinary situations need extraordinary explanations'. Removing the individual album covers has pushed it down to tied for 31st. I've not yet analyzed the appropriateness of the audio files, but that is an area of the article that needs to be reviewed. The general rule of thumb I use is how few non-free files can we get down to and still maintain integrity of the article. That, to me, is the essence of WP:NFCC #8. Wikipedia's mission is "...to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." Non-free content usage negatively affects that mission. It's important that we strictly limit it.
Back to more specifically; having the individual album covers and the montage image is completely redundant. We can't and won't have both. The montage image needs to go, due to WP:NFG concerns. So, let's consider the individual images. Find reliable, secondary sources that discuss any particular album cover and then maybe we can include that particular image. Source selection is important here. A blog entry, a youtube video, etc. is not going to cut it. See the links I've made here in this section. Don't worry if one or more images get deleted before we get to this point. I'm not going to delete the images, but other administrators might. If we can support a given image, I'll happily undelete it.
I disagree with a fair bit of what you say, but that is from experience on this project. It doesn't automatically make me right and you wrong or vice versa. So; I think a path forward is the paragraph before this one. Please try to find such sources, and then let's revisit the discussion. Does that work? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, now I am aware of that template. Thanks for letting me know about it. It's better to test it out later with other users, as it isn't the thing we are most worried about right now. I hope I didn't come off as condescending when saying "my dear administrator." While I do generally agree we are all editors on this, I was one of the people who interpreted your admin privileges as somehow making you a more qualified editor or superior editor to me. You are not, neither am I. You know the rules, and so do I.
- I was in a bit of a doubt about the term "discography" as I was writing that as well. Its definition is far broader on Wikipedia, right? Due to this website's whole purpose being a free encyclopedia, it would make sense for the meaning of these kinds of words to be much more loose here. Although I was associating the term with "listing all the works by one person," trying to defend the article as "explaining each album in-depth," the in-depth explanations mostly lack information about the album covers.
- The guy who responded at that discussion was not me. I'm Wetrorave, (s)he was Yatagarasu. That is a comprehensible confusion though, as we have both questioned you about the removal of the album covers. And yes, you conveyed your point well, don't worry. Your point was "reliable secondary sources talking about the covers' significance and importance to their individual albums' styles are needed, rather than personal opinions saying 'I believe yada yada yada.' " That was it. I hope I got your point well too.
- I was mainly surprised with how high the page got on that list, wow. I knew I had uploaded too many audio samples, but wow. In fact, a few days before the covers' removal I was worried about if there were too many audio samples in the article. And yes, the section below WP:TOP100 states an excessive number of samples is unacceptable. Seeing as the main issue is apparently the amount of non-free content, deleting this one, this one, this one, this one, and this one would likely be enough for decreasing it. Perhaps if that was done, the individual covers could be kept?
- Well no, I haven't found too many secondary sources stating the covers were important for the article's topic. I only found this one stating Seal's work offers "a visual corollary to the music," and this aforementioned interview with the creator of the work where he states "Ivan’s work for the covers is so important to each stage," though that is likely not enough, and the latter is not exactly secondary.
I found something that might serve the same principle as these six images, though. I'm considering this as probably the best choice. While all of the 5 individual stage images might not be able to be included on the article, on the label's physical buying page, I found two box-set artworks for the first three and last three stages (1 2, captcha-protected links) which would likely serve the purpose of the message I was going for with those individual album images, which was "I want to show how the album covers get more unrecognizable over time." It's only two images instead of five, and they still correctly convey Seal's style of art which the producer considers important. I think including these box set images in the main infobox, along with deleting the artwork for Stage 6 at Commons (for obvious copyright violation) and re-uploading it here as a non-free file would be the best choice. The artwork for Stage 6 could be the one shown at the top of the article, and the box-set ones as alternative covers. I'd like your input too though, as discussions about files are all about consensus. What do you think?

A lot less nervous than the last time, – Wetrorave (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- - @Wetrorave: Since we are most decidedly equals, if you rickroll me again, I'll have to block you ;) (absolutely said in jest!) Sorry about thinking it was you who made that post and not Yatagarasu. My apologies! Deleting audio samples doesn't make room for album covers. Everything is on its own merit, not a question of how much. That it showed up so high on that list shows there is very likely a problem, but it doesn't prove there is a problem. I think we might best be served by going with the two boxed set images, and refer to them in prose if needed. If we think of this article as a single work in six episodes, then having the two boxed set images would, I think, be appropriate and acceptable. What do you think of that? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes! *gets excited* That's perfect. We have reached a consensus. I finally got to tell you how I'm feeling, had to make you understand. I'll probably put some of those audio samples in FFD still, in order to decrease the article's position even further, and upload the two boxed set images, along with re-uploading Stage 6's artwork here at WP after the other one gets deleted. Keep on considering everyone's edits and opinions equally, whether they be admins or IPs. It was nice talking to you ;)
    
    Wetrorave (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - - @Wetrorave: (scrambles for the ban button) You made reference to the lyrics! Ban! Ban! Ban I say! hahahaha :) The only thing I see as a problem is having the boxed set images AND the Stage 6 image. The stage 6 image in the box set is different than the Stage 6 cover on Commons? Help me out? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        This is what I mean. Found some comedic purpose while editing this image, that's why it is badly done. The cover art for Stage 6 will be at the top of the infobox and the box-set covers will be shown as "alternative covers." I'll wait until the Stage 6 artwork uploaded on Commons gets deleted or moved here, then I'll use it. Wetrorave (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        
        If you could review the audio samples in the context of WP:NFCC, that would be great too. I have no personal knowledge of this topic. I could do the review, but I think you're better equipped now. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wetrorave: I saw this comment, in particular the last sentence. Just a point of clarification; the use of non-free content on the project has rather little to do with copyright. As an educational resource, we enjoy very wide latitude when it comes to the use of copyrighted works. Mike Godwin, while he was counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation, noted this in a comment he made some years ago. We could conceivably use millions upon millions of non-free works on this project under the terms of fair use. The reason we don't isn't because of copyright. It's because of the mission I noted above. We're trying to produce a free as in libre work. The use of non-free content detracts from that mission, which is why we limited it so much...not because of copyright concerns. I hope that helps clarify. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to come back to this discussion but... the case below really made me think about it.

A few days ago, someone requested me to at least add individual paragraphs explaining each album cover, since we were not able to include the covers themselves in the article. While editing it, I noted I had to look for sources of the individual descriptions, as describing them myself would be technically WP:OR. And, while searching for sources, I have found several reliable secondary sources stating the artwork is important to the music, and/or that makes them notable, and/or that compliments them, as you had requested just before I had claimed you knew the rules, and so did I (basically another way of saying I did this to you) (I'm lucky you can't ban me). I'm not exactly expecting you to accept this as "proof" that the individual covers should be included, since I've already added the box-set covers, but y'know what they say, better late than never.

Secondary:

[8] (penultimate sentence of the 5th paragraph and beginning of "Ivan Seal's artwork adorning..." on the 11th paragraph)
[9] (the first whole paragraph was dedicated to describing the album cover)
[10] (10th-11th paragraph)
[11] (last paragraph)
[12] (beginning of "It is meaningless..." on the last paragraph)
[13] (6th paragraph)
[14] (a whole article dedicated to explaining how Seal's work fits with the Caretaker, and their story yada yada yada)
[15] (the end of the 2nd paragraph)
[16] (3rd paragraph)

Tertiary:

[17] (tropes "Design Student's Orgasm," "Mind Screw," "Minimalistic Cover Art," and "Textless Album Cover")

Interviews: (I genuinely have no idea if an interview is a primary or secondary source)

[18] (4th paragraph)
[19] (29th paragraph)

Possibly unreliable, possibly self-published, or in other language:

[20] (2nd paragraph)
[21] (3rd paragraph, automated translation) (I love how this source included an image of the EaTeoT Wikipedia article)
[22] (last paragraph, automated translation)
[23] (automated translation)
[24] (compliment to the album cover on the 1st and 3rd paragraphs)
[25] (13th paragraph, automated translation)
[26] (section "Le copertine," automated translation)

While it could be argued that Seal's style of painting is already demonstrated by the box-set covers, none of the links above talk about the box-set covers but instead, the individual ones, which makes the box-set covers far less notable, if at all. I seriously believe the WP:IAR policy applies very well here, against rule #2 of WP:NFC#UUI, but I could be wrong. Unlike WP:NFCC, the WP:NFC policy does not have legal considerations, and occasional exceptions may be applied to it. While it could be indicated that including the individual covers breaks rule 3a of WP:NFCC, the rule itself states that this is the case only if "one item can convey equivalent significant information," which as highly indicated by the sources above, is most likely not the case. Again, I could be wrong, and I accept it if that's the case.^[1]

^ but hey it was funny rickrolling ya *laughs maniacally*

– Wetrorave (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Ok so looking at the secondary refs; I find the 11th paragraph in the spectrumculture.com ref to be compelling. The refer to residentadvisor.net on archive.org is good as well. The artnews.com ref has some useful parts. The acloserlisten.com ref is really a passing reference, as are any that simply refer to the artwork as "iconic". It's a bit like saying "It's good". Ok, why is it good? Why is it relevant to the music? Think of it this way; you want to build sourced prose. You can't write prose that just says "it's iconic". There needs to be more meat to it than that. So, think of what prose you want to build in regards to the artwork on the album, descendant from the secondary refs you've found, and then source it to those refs. When that prose can be written and sourced, then the appropriate album covers can probably be included. As an aside, right now the article is showing File:The Caretaker - Everywhere at the End of Time.jpg. It's unnecessary to show it twice. Further, WP:NFCC #10c says that each use of the non-free work. There's only one rationale on the image description page. So, right now the image is in violation. I'd recommend removing it from the infobox at the top and replacing it with one of the box cover art images for now. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Also; I just want to say; I'm very impressed and pleased with how much work you're putting into this. I don't want to sound, in any respect, as if I am patronizing you. It's just rare to see someone put this much effort into it. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  An important correction to myself: most of the sources I labeled "possibly unreliable" were actually reliable. Aside from the irregularcrates.com and dancetotheradio.org ones, which are a music blog and a Wordpress website respectively (making both of them WP:SELFPUB), all the other ones are secondary, reliable sources, albeit in other languages. Below is a possible example of how a re-write of the "Artwork" section might look like, showcasing the notability of the album covers and why they are important according to these secondary sources. Below that attempt is also another attempt to write at least a paragraph explaining each cover, for each album subsection. This prose uses only secondary sources though; the tertiary TV Tropes source, along with this other TV Tropes source, could add much more information to it.
  [start of prose]
  - Stage 1: The album cover for Stage 1 is titled Beaten Frowns After.ref It depicts a stationary unraveling grey scroll or newspaper resting on a blue gradient horizon.ref Pat Beane likened the object to the creases of the brain, adding it "seems petrified as a statue, stuck in the pose of discomposure, without revealing anything of its history," and that its simpleness forebodes the tracks of the album, considered "brilliant" by him.ref Sydney Leahy from The Blue & Gold stated the artwork could have been chosen to depict the patient's knowledge that, "as the disease evolves, their ability to remember recent events may become completely dysfunctional."ref
  - Stage 2: The album cover for Stage 2 is titled Pittor Pickgown in Khatheinstersper.ref It depicts an abstract flower pot held by two faceless humanoid figures.ref Frank Falisi from Tiny Mix Tapes wrote that, while the scroll presented in Stage 1 was a reminder that "the only thing behind our bodies is us," Stage 2 is what is presented when the scroll becomes unfurled, adding that "the only things behind our bodies are pretty flowers from a rotten rock."ref
  - Stage 3: The album cover for Stage 3 is titled Hag.ref It is the first cover to be considered unrecognizable, with Sydney Leahy stating it "appears" to be a kelp.ref
  - Stage 4: The album cover for Stage 4 is titled Glitsholder.ref While the previous album covers mainly presented simple objects, Stage 4 features a human shape, which is seemingly facing away from its observer. Sam Goldner wrote the human form is presented "in the ashes of this dissolution," adding that "from the heart of death, a new life emerges, albeit one whose face we can’t see;" the writer further stated the human in the cover seems to be smiling when looked at from a distance.ref Sydney Leahy stated Glitsholder is the "saddest, most striking" artwork to her, adding that the cover symbolizes the patient losing the ability to recognize his loved ones or what a human even is.ref
  - Stage 5: The album cover for Stage 5 is titled Eptitranxisticemestionscers Desending.ref It is the most abstract album cover of the entire series, depicting a highly distorted, vaguely humanoid figure descending through a staircase.ref While the most accepted hypothesis is that the figure is a ballerina, Holly Hazelwood stated the artwork shows us "a cancerous mass blooming out of what appears to be a marble staircase – a remnant of a once-grand world, almost entirely unrecognizable."ref
  - Stage 6: The album cover for Stage 6 is titled Necrotomigaud.ref It is mainly hypothesized to be a blank canvas.ref However, Sydney Leahy interpreted the object to be "a singular art board with four pieces of blue tape," adding it is "the embodiment of emptiness."ref
  Artwork: The album covers for Everywhere at the End of Time are oil paintings created by Leyland Kirby's long-time friend Ivan Seal.ref They are minimalist in their styles, always presenting a single object in a featureless room with no text. They slowly become more distorted and abstract with each stage, symbolizing the deterioration dementia causes to the brain.ref When asked why the album covers and packaging did not present track listings, liner notes, or even the name "the Caretaker," Kirby stated Seal's paintings for the individual albums are "so important to each stage," adding his name or text there is "unimportant," and that he's "honored" Seal lets him use his works as covers. Kirby further stated they are "trying to not spoil the works so much with over-elaborate notes and text," adding that having no text at all on the covers allows "space for personal interpretation."ref
  
  Several writers and music critics regarded the artwork as essential to the experience of Everywhere at the End of Time. Holly Hazelwood stated the "remarkable" art, as well as the song titles, are "integral" to the narrative of the record.ref The abstraction of the album covers was described by Sydney Leahy to be giving "a familiar yet strikingly foreign feel" to them, adding this is due to Seal's paintings being created entirely from his memory.ref When reviewing the sixth stage, Boomkat stated that, when combined with Seal's style of art, the project becomes "crystallised as a real gesamtkunstwerk for these times."ref
  
  Other writers stated the record's concept of dementia is the reason Seal's work is important. Writing for German music magazine Betreutes Proggen, Benjamin Feiner complimented the paintings, due to their representations of everyday objects being seemingly "melted together," adding Seal's work with the Caretaker's music "fertilize and compliment each other, are made for each other."ref ref Italian news website Cyberdude wrote of the album covers as initially appearing to be easily recognizable objects, such as a book on Stage 1, a vase and flowers on Stage 2, and the face of a woman on Stage 4; however further opining that, when paying attention, it is hard to recognize them.ref ref Spanish writer Andrés Rojo from La Gramola de Keith stated one of the many reasons the project, as he opined, "will go down in history," are the album covers, which have been described as "beautiful."ref ref
  
  Ivan Seal's art and the Caretaker's music were the subject of a French art exhibition done in 2019 by FRAC Auvergne, featuring music from Everywhere at the End of Time along with an altered CD edition of Everywhere, an Empty Bliss and a book featuring Seal's art.ref Instrumental music website A Closer Listen stated that:
  
  "Seal’s art has been integral to The Caretaker’s presentation from the start, gracing album covers and offering a visual corollary to the music. His sculptures and paintings suggest tree rings, human silhouettes, in one instance a melted horse. There is beauty in this destruction that would not have been apparent had these subjects remained whole. The 162-page book (in French and English) offers the opportunity to stare at Seal’s work like one stares at clouds, until one sees figures that may or may not be there. Mysterious and fantastic, this art ranks among the best of the current era, and the fact that Kirby honors Seal in this fashion is yet another reflection of his collaborative spirit."ref
  
  [end of prose]
  
  Please note the paragraphs above only use secondary sources; with the TV Tropes sources mentioned, they could be larger. And well, thanks for saying I put a lot of effort into it (though I myself don't believe so). You see... Not intending to get too personal here but Everywhere at the End of Time was the first musical piece that made me cry and made me look at life and music in a different way; it even got me into more experimental genres, such as ambient and post-rock. So you see... I guess there's just some times in life where we are very obsessed with something very specific I guess, which has become even more noticeable today due to the ease of information-searching that the internet provides. At least in my life these periods of random passions have always existed, as there was with another album, Birth of a New Day.
  
  – Wetrorave (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - - It's evidence of an inquiring mind, even if it seems random and undirected at times. Myself, of late I've become obsessed with human settlements in remote locations. As an example; Tuktoyaktuk. Bizarrely, Tuktoyaktuk came up in a conversation I had recently with a gentleman who had served 20+ years in the Canadian Navy. He mentioned that a liberty call in a major city in Europe was a lot more glamorous than one would be in Tuktoyaktuk. Now, I'm not Canadian. You can imagine his surprise when I not only knew where Tuktoyaktuk is, but that I also knew it had somewhat recently been connected by road to the Canadian highway system. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Hammersoft: Wow. That's a bizarre yet funny story. Now that I come to think about it, it might not be specifically Everywhere at the End of Time what I'm obsessed with, but rather general artistic depictions of mental disorders just like it.
      I very rarely watch movies or TV shows, if at all. I don't feel any will to go to a streaming service and watch them, even if for free. But when some random internet commentator talked about It's Such a Beautiful Day... Just the thought of the film involving the character having brain cancer immediately made me really interested in it. I even got out of my way to try and pay for it on Vimeo, even though my financial situation isn't exactly the best right now. I just hope these kinds of random obsessions aren't unhealthy but rather, as you say, evidence of an inquiring mind. (wow this is being an interesting conversation about obsessions and psychology)
      
      Anyway:
      Would the paragraphs I wrote (as examples) serve as a way to indicate the individual album covers are notable/important, and consequently allow me to upload them back again? The prose sections above only use secondary sources though; this one and this one are tertiary but do contain a hella lot of info, and Wikipedia isn't so much against the use of tertiary sources as much as it is against primary (except when the information on the tertiary sources is already presented by a secondary source, which isn't the case of these ones).
      
      – Wetrorave (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A quote that seems apropos;

Wealth consists not in having great possessions, but in having few wants.
— Epictetus

I think you're absolutely on the right track on the article. I would encourage you to think about how best you can reduce the number of images will still serving the purpose of the article. Thus, for example, if the box set covers are duplicated, don't have the boxed set covers and the individual album covers. The goal really needs to be to take away as much non-free content as possible and still have the article function to its purpose. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft:

Noice.

~ Wetrorave (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a curiosity

Do you manually update User:Hammersoft/adminlog?

(also, just wanted to say that I appreciate all you do on Wikipedia, and your perspective in general - it's one I try to emulate) Elli (talk | contribs) 01:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. Same with User:Hammersoft/log. Thank you for the high praise :) Seriously, it means a lot to me to hear that. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
oh my goodness, all those usernames! Elli (talk | contribs) 02:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- - hahaha :) Yeah, it's long. But, these pages are useful. They're kind of their own watchlists. Witness: [27]. That let's me know about anything that's been happening recently that might have to do with admin actions I've taken. I find it rather useful. Yeah, it's time consuming to update but it's worth it. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I never knew about Special:RecentChangesLinked, that seems incredibly useful! I'm... kinda regretting I haven't done such a thing now. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - - I didn't start my /log until I'd been here some years. No reason you can't start now :) It does take some work, but I do find it useful. If you don't want to put in the work (understandable), Twinkle has an automatic version. See example. But, it only records speedy deletion taggings, I think. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll consider it.
        
        one other question: is the first AfD you closed really Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super straight? (guess it wasn't that controversial of a discussion, but it's certainly a spicy article. just curious why you started with that one ;)) Elli (talk | contribs) 10:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        
        It's the first one I've closed since becoming an administrator. I've closed others (See? The log is useful :) ). I just happened across it, it needed closing, so I closed it. I honestly don't remember the chain of events that resulted in me happening across it. I've slept since then :) --Hammersoft (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021

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

Administrator changes

Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news

Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news

When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)

Arbitration

A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

Hi. I had been looking for concerns that are similar to what I am about to present here, then I found this discussion in 2017 and this discussion in 2019. Since you participated in one of those, I would like to raise a concern here. Would you know if this is a personal attack? Perhaps you may agree that I had committed some errors in the article that had to be fixed. This appears to make no mention of the use of diacritics in players' names. But personal attacks, especially those that contain disparaging words, are never appropriate. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 03:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's mild. If taken in isolation, it's not something worth raising issue with. If there's an ongoing pattern since the 2019 discussion, then there may be something that needs to be acted on. Please keep an eye on it, and let me know if there are further incidents. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Based on the context, it appears to me that he was implying that someone has a comprehension problem or some other disability. Sure, I'll inform you when it happens again. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 01:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:47.189.52.193

They are at it again at List of premature obituaries, and now Robert Merrill (claiming erroneous death report by a reliable news outlet). [28][29] MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a week. If after the block expires they resume the same type of edits, please let me know. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still WP:NOTGETTINGIT that their edits, at List of premature obituaries, are unacceptable; see [30]. They appear to be insufficiently citing their claims, not giving a URL or other information for proper, direct verification of the material. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 1 month. Thanks for letting me know. Once again, if they return to the same sort of edits, let me know. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Principles

Hi Hammersoft, and thank you for all you do on wikipedia. I strongly support your wikipedia principles, and believe in a few short sentences you have summed up so much that is important about wikipedia. I am currently improving my userpage, and wonder if I would have your permission to include some short quotes from your principles in it (crediting you of course), because I believe they are both worded incredibly well and are very important principles to hold. If you're not happy for me to include some short quotes from them, I completely understand. Thanks again, Mxtt.prior (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! As it says on the bottom of all pages here, "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License" :) Feel free to copy, modify, etc. as you see fit. Thank you for the compliments! --Hammersoft (talk) 12:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, have a great day :) Mxtt.prior (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I take the words, twist them all around, and make it look like you said something you didn't? Baahaahaa. Seriously though - those are very well done. — Ched (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, sure (said slow, with trepidation inherent in the vocalization :) ). Thanks for the praise! --Hammersoft (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Instant Semi-protection request

Im DXLB and I would like an immediate Semi-Protection on Asmongold due to a whole bunch of edits and reversions. I already purged the cache to await Semi-Protection, One of the culprits are User:Tebzen but he been blocked. DXLB Muzikant (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was protected before I got to it. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly related

You had mentioned an interest here which archived a couple days ago ([31]). There's currently a discussion/announcement here that may explain some of the practices now put in place. Perhaps completely unrelated, but it appears to have some overlap, and as such, may provide information you (and I) were hopeful for. — Ched (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Hammersoft (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda's May corner

Enjoy two ladies today, one played in an iconic film (picture a bit below, she plays with Die Fliege), the other sang in the premiere of a famous opera, with her husband-to-be ;) - Below, we touched the topic of ArbCom, again, in fond memory of Don't. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I gave SlimVirgin the same flowers, - no words yet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I am not wholly responsive. My time and energy for Wikipedia of late is quite low. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No response needed, just that I was shocked yesterday that she died, and then further finding out that she had - like a legacy - placed RexxS on top of her user page, archived her user talk, and clad both in light green background, on 8 April, and made her last edit 10 days later. - I am meditating/procrastinating Impact for her - so sorry I didn't do it sooner, and finding it tough to summarize 17 years of unbelievable impact. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I had no idea. :( --Hammersoft (talk) 12:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  procrastination is over --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2021

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

Administrator changes

Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.

Technical news

The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration

The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you still need some assistance

Hello Hammersoft,

I apologize for not having been here a few months ago. Winter kind of gets in our way. If you still need assistance with anything please let me know. I'm not very experienced with Wikipedia but that just means I am teachable. Still trying to find my niche as my reason for coming to Wikipedia has kind of been taken away from me do to experiences that are no one's fault but my own. I have been kind of floundering a little. I just try to help out with various projects as I can. Mostly just trying to encourage those I care about here.

Wikipedia is a frustrating place to be as a new editor. I get having to earn respect but I never place the opinions of experienced editors above new editors with regards to content, factual content. It doesn't take much time to read the general notability guideline and then take part in your first AfD to realize Wikipedia is in trouble. It's not in danger of falling apart from the standpoint of disappearing. It is in danger of losing touch with reality and it has contradicting and often times destructive guidelines that are too vaguely written to ever be considered an actual policy to live by.

What we are left with is mob rule loosely influenced by personal interpretation of guidelines. That's how Wikipedia wants the encyclopedia to be developed?

I almost left after bringing a closed AfD up for DRV [32], probably not the right location to voice the concerns but that was the advised next step by the closing administrator[33]. I was personally attacked the entire thread. It went from an editor voicing a concern to "let's pile on and destroy this dissenting voice". Despite the fact that I stated, clearly, that I did not necessarily disagree with the closers assessment only with the way it was conveyed to myself that they arrived at their assessment, it didn't matter, they wanted to kill my will. I'm the new little editor and my place is to shut my mouth and continue editing for an encyclopedia even though I know, in the back of my mind, that my opinion is viewed as less than by administrators as evidenced by their personal interactions with me. It was a poorly worded response that, had it been handled differently, never would have been an issue to begin with. I have won AfD discussions and lost AfD discussions. This one perplexed me because it was brought up for AfD multiple times with promises of improvements to come but they never came and still haven't. I just wanted clarity. What I got was the opposite. A cold, hard slap to my face.

Forget being on opposite ends of the spectrum. We weren't even in the same universe. I was floored. I honestly thought someone was going to tell me this was the wrong place to voice concerns like that and I should relocate it to another place. I followed every instruction I was given. I researched the steps I was to take and followed the advice of an admin. I got punched in the gut and had my insides ripped open for it. But never let it be said that Asareel doesn't learn from her experiences. Oh, I have learned a lot about people in my lifetime. Life is my business. I see it everywhere I look and differently than most anyone I have ever met. That doesn't me better than anyone else. Anymore than having blue eyes (mine are brown and get darker when I become focused) makes a person better than having green eyes. What it does do is give me unique perspectives and I have learned to use that as a sort of intuition.

I know that was long but all that to say this, I can be brash. I can be straight forward but I don't lie and I don't deceive. I have no ambitions, save one, to leave the Earth a better place, where I have impacted it, for having my lifesong as a part of it. --ARose Wolf 15:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a text based medium, it can be quite difficult at times for people from disparate backgrounds to come together. An offer; moving forward, if there's something you want to work on developing, let me know and I can put some eyes to it too. Perhaps working together we can avoid some of the bumps in the project? --Hammersoft (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to work with anyone on anything that improves the encyclopedia. Currently, I am looking at turning the few remaining red lines blue on the template for protected areas of Alaska. I've started with Haines State Forest. I'm just trying to pattern it after state forest articles for other states. Of course the difficulty is always that Alaska is mostly a remote location. We have to use satellite just to stay connected to the rest of the world from where we are. Because it's so remote there is less information so anything more than a stub or limited article is proving to be quite a pain. I have been to most of these locations and I roamed Haines State Forest most of my life so personal experiences abound but can't be included. The ADNR website sounds very promotional because they want you to visit. Most everything else is travel guides. I'm trying to find government documents or any press releases on any state park. --ARose Wolf 14:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite tricky. I know. I don't live in Alaska, but I have worked on Alaskan articles (Miller's Reach Fire,Lake Atna). Granted, your personal experiences in being to these places isn't useful for content generation, but it is VERY useful for generating images where such images are absent. For example; getting a photograph of where the Miller's Reach Fire began would help immensely to help aid the reader about the nature of the flora in the area. Being where you are is very powerful for things Alaska. I can find articles about things Alaska. I can't take my own photographs of Alaska and release them under a free license. You can! --Hammersoft (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ut hey it was funny rickrolling ya *laughs maniacally*

[1]

@@ Line 374: / Line 374: @@
 **** I've never been involved with an AN/I matter before and am not well versed in the distinction between an "indefinite block" and a "ban from the project." Nevertheless, I'll give it a try. But first, unless you counsel me otherwise, I'm going to wait a day or two to see whether there is more reaction to the indefinite block. [[User:Butwhatdoiknow|Butwhatdoiknow]] ([[User talk:Butwhatdoiknow|talk]]) 15:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 ****: My position: banned or indeffed doesn't make much of a difference. - I had hoped to win Francis for collaboration for a FAC for [[#Impact|my song of defiance]], but {{diff|Wikipedia:Peer review/Jesu, meine Freude, BWV_227/archive1|1022077597|1022076968|his reaction}} was not promising (euphemism for chilling). - I think more of Mathsci whom I'd like to see unblocked. Is that too plain a request? --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 15:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
+* {{ping|Butwhatdoiknow}} The difference might seem semantic, but it isn't. The indef block was placed by a single administrator. Granted, it's backed up by support from others, but it's just one person. It could be undone fairly quickly. A ban from the project is something that the community, via consensus, agrees is necessary. A ban from the project is not lightly undone, and usually requires a consensus. If you would like, I can generate the proposal. I've accumulated information regarding this situation. --[[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]] ([[User talk:Hammersoft#top|talk]]) 17:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
+* {{ping|Gerda Arendt}} Yes, rather chilling. On Mathsci; I really, really, really did not want to block Mathsci, but the situation demanded it. We can't just let a years long debate keep simmering and negatively affecting the project. I am immensely hopeful that Mathsci will be returning to editing next month with a new found sense of responsibility over their edits and how they intersect with FS. If FS is permanently banned from the project (which seems likely at this point) then this is a moot point. But if not, then Mathsci must take this responsibility seriously. The three month block was the absolute minimum I could realistically apply in that situation. Hopefully it's the absolute maximum that needs to be applied to bring home the seriousness of the issue and where Mathsci is on the slippery slope. --[[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]] ([[User talk:Hammersoft#top|talk]]) 17:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 == Arbitration Case Opened ==

v t e User toolbox for Hammersoft
General	user talk email edit analysis (non-automated edits · BLP edits · policy & guideline edits) user groups global user groups blocked? user space user talk space global account info
Skin customizations	common: .js / .css Vector: .js / .css Vector-2022: .js / .css Minerva: .js / .css Timeless: .js / .css MonoBook: .js / .css global: .js / .css
Requests / Investigations	RfAs RfBs RFARs RfCs RfCUs SSPs SPIs BRFAs (if bot) editor reviews administrator reviews RfA votes AfD votes XfD votes
History	contributions deleted contributions global contributions logs moves uploads pages patrolled accounts created review log pending changes log registration time userpage log block log rights log meta thanks given received edit summary usage global account log global rights log global block log global blocks disabled/enabled filter log examine past edits edit filter changes articles created top article edits oversights rights AfC log CSD log Draftify log PROD log XfD log
Admin history	protections blocks deletions rights changes interface contributions imports global blocks disabled/enabled
Bureaucrat history	user renames rights changes
Steward history	rights changes global right changes global account changes global blocks
Actions	block unblock flag rename mass delete globally block globally unblock merge global account disable global blocks locally


Hellebore, Lorch


Helleborus orientalis