User talk:Hammersoft: Difference between revisions

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]

• @
  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]

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

• T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment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

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]

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]

Thank you for looking into my block req :)

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

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

• 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
  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]

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!

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

• I've commented there. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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]

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]

• @
  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

Three years!

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

• @Gerda Arendt: It is easy to become cynical :/ Paraphrasing, and with apologies to Mr. Thomas, "Rage, RAGE against the dying of the optimism!" The stage ArbCom is setting, should they accept this case, is that at the first sign of trouble an administrator will have a case opened about them. Given that it is impossible to avoid sanctions if a case is named after you (and yes, based on a study covering years of ArbCom cases, that is true), an admin is pretty much doomed if anyone brings said administrator to ArbCom. Yes, RexxS has been decidedly uncivil. Yes, RexxS has threatened the use of tools while involved. But, not one bit of effort (that I can find) has been made to approach RexxS regarding these issues. It's 0 to 100 in 0.1 seconds. That's a very dangerous precedent, and a very chilling moment for all administrators. To me, like with your situation linked above, this is blatantly obvious. It is not so to others, and perhaps we are blinded by our own perceptions. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, and I have no language problems with any of that ;) - in my linked case, I'd love to approach the editor in question but am banned from his talk, and can't speak up for the other because I have been warned about proxy-editing for a blocked user, - how about uninvolved you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @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]

Hellebore, Lorch

Thank you for having done that for us. I saw something coming when

BWV 53 appeared on my watchlist again and again, with a talk page growing to a few times what the article was initially. I said I don't want to be between the fighters (which included Nikkimaria), - and perhaps that was too easy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• 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]

Helleborus orientalis

yes, flower as promised - the wild one is pictured by me, the flower of the month of February, and the other - of course not by me - was TFP on 17 February. I am happy that the user whom you helped first on my request - remember? right after your RfA - is still with us and sent me a gorgeous pic from Alaska. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 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]

• (

  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]

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]

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: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]