User talk:Hammersoft

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mathsci (talk | contribs) at 00:05, 14 June 2022 (→‎Mathsci (again)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Recent ANI

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

    • Thanks for holding off until the thread was closed. There may still be conflict between the two of you if you both resume your work. Please be prepared for that, and consider Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Some cookies for you

    Cookies!

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

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

    Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

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

    Guideline and policy news

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

    Arbitration

    Miscellaneous

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

    Hgbb

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

    • Sure, but if you continue edits like this you'll get blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously didn't want to talk. I wish you a very happy and prosperous year in 2022, Hammersoft. --ARoseWolf 14:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ARoseWolf: Yeah I kinda figured it was a drive by, though I've no idea why. No matter. I hope you have a great 2022 too! --Hammersoft (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    How we will see unregistered users

    Hi!

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

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

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

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

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

    Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

    18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

    Page move edit restrictions

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

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

    in friendship

    January songs
    in friendship

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

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

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

    • I can't commit to anything right now. I already have a commitment to User:Sdrqaz that I've been horribly delinquent on, and need to complete before I undertake much else. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      never mind, it's just a bit disappointing when two editors drop everything they had planned to update a page after the subject died, and then nothing happens for by now 4 days, and 3 after marked ready, and all this under the label Recent deaths, and the next one already updated --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You're too hard on yourself, Hammersoft. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    February songs
    frozen
    Precious
    Four years!

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

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

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

    Discussion at Talk:Keiji Nishikawa § Date format

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

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

    Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

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

    Guideline and policy news

    Technical news

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

    Arbitration

    Miscellaneous

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

    WP:AFC Helper News

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

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

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

    Administrators' newsletter – March 2022

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

    Guideline and policy news

    Technical news

    Arbitration

    Miscellaneous

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

    Happy First Edit Day!

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

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

    25 March: Bach

    March songs

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

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

    Administrators' newsletter – April 2022

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

    Guideline and policy news

    Technical news

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

    Arbitration

    Miscellaneous

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

    New administrator activity requirement

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

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

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

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

    22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

    Mathsci (again)

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

    Wrong edit of formula

    to .
    Reason: is ambiguous

    Wrongly removed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Discussion is happening on the talk page, and that is where it should be. Patience is a virtue. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi. As you see, I have been continuing discussions, adding sources and in particular the applications to (a) Carbo 60 fullerene and (b) quasicrystals. Both of these rely on the symmetry of the icosahedron. D.Lazard complained that there were no definitions in the article; at the AfD and on the talk page, I had sketched what was needed. In the text, I provided a summary of that, which, as a first approximation, others seemed to like. Having worked through sources in mathematics (~1900), physics (~1930) and chemistry (~1970), I decided to write a brief summary that would match up with Petergans' material. I started on 7 June adding character tables and am continuing slowly. Charles Matthews is familiar with the material and saw what was going on, indicating the content was not contentious. This is one of the rare occasions where I write in my area of expertise; it is still true that the mathematical theory has to be interpreted by physicists, chemists or materials scientists. That is beyond the scope of pure mathematics. Given that Charles Matthews sees nothing contentious (nor do I), what do you suggest? Mathsci (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    blue and yellow

    April songs

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

    May 2022

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

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

    Request

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

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

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

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

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

    Apologies

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

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

    Administrators' newsletter – May 2022

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

    Guideline and policy news

    Technical news

    Arbitration

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

    File:Rick Day All Players.jpg

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

    May June music

    May songs

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

    Ok so I reviewed. I don't feel strongly about it one way or another. I lean towards including the infobox. I don't think I'd like to voice an opinion there. I know you didn't canvas me for a particular opinion, but just to get my eyes on it. Still, given that I don't have a strong opinion one way or another, I feel a bit awkward commenting. I know that doesn't help resolve the issue. But, I don't think my semi-ambivalent position would help resolve it either. :/ Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right about not asking you to voice an opinion about the question, but I have an opinion about the personal comments. For an opinion on ibox or not, and if yes which, I could have asked you months ago. What bothers me is a recent comment by a user whom I like a lot as an editor. I don't want to prompt you because I like your independent thinking. The question ibox or not was labelled a war in 2005, and it still went on in 2013 when I was caught in it, so I was sentenced by the arbitration committee, but all restrictions were rescinded in 2015. (I added infoboxes to operas in 2013, DYK? - yes, many, replacing the side boxes they used to have. I can't show you the side boxes because they were all deleted in 2021. So I guess I won the portion where I had interest and "warred".) Cosima Wagner was written by Brian Boulton, whose name was mentioned in this discussion a few times, but the one who wrote oppose obviously didn't read the discussion, just came with the language and prejudice remembered from times of war. I'd like peace. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    June songs
    Ukrainian peace music is "on" today, with the conductor! - Pentecost (on last Sunday and Monday in Germany) brought a rich harvest of great music in two church services (one with me singing in choir) and two concerts with my brother in the orchestra, - four pictures I took besides the symphonic one. - In the above matter: I think I'll just add the ibox, because the oppose is nothing that matters, 1) "rotten idea" is no argument, 2) is has been said in the discussion that the principle writer was open, in 2012, 2013, and still when he died, 3) it's simply not true that an ibox is there to "summarise" the article, 4) the subject wasn't even one of the people allegedly needing an exception because they are an "art bio", - she ran a festival, like Wieland Wagner and Michael Herrmann. (This is ignoring all references to my wrongdoing past and present, which would need some citation. - I haven't been active in iboxes since 2015, - it proved bad for my health. But once labelled by the arbs, it will probably stay with me ...) - I see two choices: that infobox will stay, or - if not - we'll have a RfC. There was none in 2022, and those (3) in 2021 were all in favour of an ibox (or its uncollapsing), last example Stanley Kubrick, all three without me taking part. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you follow? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm sorry I didn't :( --Hammersoft (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you try to explain to the reverter that the infobox wars were proclaimed over in 2018 (Yay!), and the language of "rotten idea" and "campaigner" have died out, and it made me happy? I am a campaigner for accessibility, yes, and for giving information also to the "idiots". It takes nothing away from a FA. I have never understood why there even was a conflict. - my day today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe, but it can't happen right at the moment. Maybe later today. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, what I'm seeing is a lack of consensus to include or exclude the infobox. If I were you, I would just drop it and walk away. Not the answer you want, I know, but it is a good one I think from the abstract position. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – June 2022

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

    Guideline and policy news

    Technical news

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

    Arbitration

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

    Can you help?

    I'm posting on your talk page because of some advice you gave Mathsci after returning from his last ban. He refuses to leave me alone, and is pretty clearly hounding me [3]. I've already had one admin intervene twice here. But, he won't stop and frankly, I wasn't aware of how long his history problematic behavior has been (and I suspect that @Liz was not aware either). Can you help with this mess? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Wheelchair_bound Smasongarrison (talk) 03:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've taken a look around. I note that Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mathsci_at_Double_group is progressing along. I suspect it may end in an indefinite site ban. If so, that resolves any connected issues, I should think. I've not untangled all of this enough to work through where truth lives in this. I did that once for Mathsci, which resulted in my block of them for three months. It takes hours and hours to do that correctly. It's a lot of work. Short of that, I don't know what role I can have that would help things. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. That's my hope that it'll resolve itself that way. I suspected that there would be a huge time commitment if I were to formally escalate this. (Frankly, the fact that other people have found him problematic is reassuring. I was really starting to doubt myself.) Smasongarrison (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hammersoft&oldid=1093006710"