User talk:Hammersoft

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

Arbitration

• Following the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Cabayi, Firefly, HJ Mitchell, Maxim, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree, Z1720.
• Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
• The arbitration case Industrial agriculture has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• The New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,000 unreviewed articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

---

I should probably mention that Patient Zero has been my username since 2016, not 2014, as I underwent a rename! But I do appreciate your rapid closing of that thread and the way that you dealt with the matter. :-) Patient Zero^talk 21:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1]? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Patient Zero: Oh, and congrats on being the first human to post on this talk page this year :) --Hammersoft (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My username back then was Chesnaught555, and my first edit to Wikipedia was to clarify what that Pokémon’s signature move was! 14-year-old me was quite the fan of the franchise… I still use the same account, but I had it renamed to Patient Zero in 2016. And thank you! That’s an honour :-) Patient Zero^talk 21:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Sonia Furstenau, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the Main page: the person who made the pictured festival possible --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Today a friend's birthday, with related music and new vacation pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added cast members based on the film's end credits. DareshMohan (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DareshMohan: I'm sure you did. You are among a great many editors who keep trying to add and/or change the order of actors in a cast in South Asian films. This has been going on for more than ten years, and has become highly disruptive. You'll change it, and soon enough someone will come along and change it to their preferred version. Over and over and over and over and over again this happens. Did you know there are frequently different versions of a film based on where it is distributed to? What you saw is not what someone else will necessarily see. If you're going to change the case, then please...PLEASE...find reliable, secondary sources to support the change. That's really your only chance for your preferred version to remain the accepted version. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DareshMohan: and I have undone your edit again. Provide a reliable, secondary source. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:FILMCAST, we order cast members based on the credits or any official source. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792: Hey that's great! Ok, which release of a given film would you like to use? Which one is authoritative? The film gets released in one region, it has one order. It gets released in another, it gets another order. So, which one? It's not enough to say put it in order the film puts it in. Barring consensus on what is considered the authoritative version (and we'd need proof of that via WP:RS), then WP:NOCON sustains. I.e., we keep it the way it was. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think American films have different credits orders by region... within the same nation! But if there are changes made for other English speaking nations, we still go by the de facto, ie the country the film was produced in. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to South Asian films. Within that sphere, it is common for different regional releases to have different cast orders. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian films even with overseas DVDs maintain the same print so the cast order doesn't change. Can you show an example where the order changed? DareshMohan (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the various threads regarding cast order changes at Talk:Twenty:20 (film). That's as good a primer on this subject as anything. I've seen similar disputes on the IMDB community forum as well. The constant changes in cast order is highly disruptive. When does it end? Why...WHY...does it matter so much that people have to keep changing it? As an example, see the IMDB entry for this movie's cast. It claims it's in credits order [2]. Except, their credits order doesn't agree with what's here. On YouTube, Aditya Music India (who has rights to the music so should have some authority) shows a different cast order [3]. So, whose credits order is right? And on it goes. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay that film is an extreme multistarrer. I guess your right. Saying that the Aditya Music one matches the end credits is original research. DareshMohan (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that any of them is authoritative over another is as well. That's one of the many reasons this cast order business keeps happening over and over and over and over again. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft You messaged me yesterday regarding an edit I made to Richard Sands (businessman). I'm new to Wikipedia but was looking to correct an error that I found. Would any of these articles be sufficient for you to change it back to Jennifer Burns or just to Jennifer (as opposed to removing his wife's name entirely which another user did last night)? I could not find a way to add citations to the info box that I tried to edit. Thanks for any help you can provide!

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/17/realestate/with-five-children-and-eight-grandchildren-the-nest-wasnt-empty.html

https://www.rit.edu/news/sands-studios-dedicated (see picture caption)

https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/fltimes/name/marilyn-sands-obituary?id=35666661

Lreg4414 (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lreg4414: First, welcome! You're doing fine. Nobody expects you to be an expert! As to the sources, none of those sources indicate a name other than "Jennifer Burns" (well, I couldn't read all of the NYT source as it's behind a paywall). Could you add "Jennifer"? Yes. Add a maiden name based on those sources? No. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft Thank you! That makes sense. Could you let me know how to add a citation to the info box so the change gets approved or is that something that you are able to do as an administrator? Lreg4414 (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In your editing window, there is a link in the upper bar that says "Cite". Click on that, then in the left drop down menus where it says "Template", select "cite web". In the resulting pop up box, paste the URL of the citation into the URL box and click on the magnifying glass to the right of it. That will populate some fields of the template (not all; it depends on the website being used and how compliant they are with markup standards). Click on the little calendar to the right of "Access date" to add today's date. Click "insert", and the citation is added to the text you're wanting to support. More help is available at Wikipedia:Citing sources. You don't have to be an administrator to edit things here, including adding citations. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be one of our returning nuisances. Thanks for taking care of it; I upped the blocks as CU-confirmed. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very well could be. I figured it was an attack name when I saw it while patrolling the user creation log. Their edit confirmed it. I probably should have blocked on sight. Oh well. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

• Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

• Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
• Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
• Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
• The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

---

story · music · places

Today I am happy about a singer on the Main page (at least for the first hours), after TFA the same day last year. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Seiji Ozawa. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image, taken on a cemetery last year after the funeral of a distant but dear family member, commemorates today, with thanks for their achievements, four subjects mentioned on the Main page and Vami_IV, a friend here. Listen to music by Tchaikovsky (an article where one of the four is pictured), sung by today's subject (whose performance on stage I enjoyed two days ago). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think of family as not being defined by either physical or genetic distance, but rather emotional distance. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Six years!

Good. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to music from Ukraine if you like, - I heard it in 2022, and the November concert (at a different church) raised a truckload of winter clothes. My story today is also from my life: I heard the singer in 3 of the 4 mentioned musical items. I sang in yesterday's. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

more music and flowers on Rossini's rare birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this revert but the editor, previously an IP, made earlier changes that didn't get reverted – I can't because I'm at 3RR. Would you be willing to? 81.187.192.168 (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted it to stable, prior to all the revisionist changes. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last time I’m trying, if this isn’t good enough, then Wikipedia isn’t for me, could you please look at my draft? Draft:Benji Krol if there are any small errors, please just help me and fix them instead of declining it. Joshbanana (talk) 04:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbanana: I've done some clean up on it, cleaning up section heads per WP:MOS, adding a section head for references, correcting a minor typo, removing birthdate per WP:DOB (no reliable secondary source supporting it), and re-added the afc submission base template. I also removed four references to International Business Times, as this source is not considered reliable. See WP:IBTIMES. I'm not going to review it for acceptability as an article, as I find I am biased against the subject given the history of this draft production. It would not be fair for me to assess it. It is, at least, in better shape than it was. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(ref: Draft:INDIAN ONLINE CLASSES), 13iehpatel (talk · contribs))

While patrolling the recent changes feed, I noticed that user who created this draft twice has now recreated it again. ''Flux55'' (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Flux55: Deleted, salted since it's been created in essentially the same form and deleted three times, and editor warned. Thanks for bringing it to my attention! --Hammersoft (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Jamarr81 is back to blatant sockpuppetry here. They don't even try to hide it. Thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sangdeboeuf: Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've tagged the sock, blocked the sockmaster indefinitely, and placed an explanatory note on their talk page. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hammersoft. This was a confirmed joe-job.[4] I'd encourage you to reverse these actions. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, but I don't understand what it is you want me to do. If there's some admin action you think should be taken in regards to my admin actions, please feel free to do so. --Hammersoft (talk) 10:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I was asking you to reverse the actions. Sorry if I was unclear, and more apologies if what I'm about to say is checkuser-xplaining. Technical evidence makes it clear that Rramaj18 (talk · contribs · block log) was an account created and operated by Architect 134 (talk · contribs · block log), an LTA and troll, in order to trick administrators into blocking Jamarr81 (talk · contribs · block log), indefinitely, for something Jamarr81 did not do. The complaint above by Sangdeboeuf was reporting a deception. Your action in extending the block was based on a false premise. There's no blame to be assigned here, as Architect 134 has trolled many others before and they're pretty good at it. However you have been trolled, blocking Jamarr81 for "Abusing multiple accounts" is a mistake, and I'm asking you to fix your mistake in light of the new facts. I've pointed out many other joe-jobs to many other admins before, and they've always been happy to learn from it, undo the troll's work, and correct the record. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't feel I've been trolled. I'm not going to give them that recognition. If they want to waste their lives doing stuff like that, so be it. Thanks for telling me about it. I'll clear the block. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you blocked the user I reported to UAA. There was another user in the log that was created by the same user with an offensive username. Both offensive summaries were the same. Could you revdel? Thank you. ClumsyOwlet (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I picked up on that username not from UAA but from the user creation log. I did see the other two. The other two are not inherently problematic with regards to the username policy. I will continue to monitor. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The summary in the User creation log probably is, though. ClumsyOwlet (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Guideline and policy news

• Phase I of the 2024 RfA review is now open for participation. Editors are invited to review, comment on, and propose improvements to the requests for adminship process.
• Following an RfC, the inactivity requirement for the removal of the interface administrator right increased from 6 months to 12 months.

Technical news

• The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

• The 2024 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Doǵu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, MdsShakil, Minorax, Nehaoua, Renvoy and RoySmith as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
• Following the 2024 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Ajraddatz, Albertoleoncio, EPIC, JJMC89, Johannnes89, Melos and Yahya.

---

In spite of your clear warning to not edit war, Brusquedandelion (talk · contribs) has again added the label of "Far right" that they had been edit warring for prior to your full protection of the page. They have been edit warring for it for quite some time previously [5] [6] [7] [8] and dont seem to have any intention of stopping after multiple warnings from multiple users. Please do look into it. Thanks, Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article history, there have been multiple times when it's been referred to as right wing and as far right. Right now the article disagrees with itself with the lede and the categorization. There doesn't seem to be a consensus one way or another as to how to label this organization. That's not a ticket to edit war. If you can find sources supporting it being "right wing" as opposed to "far right", then produce them on the talk page and try to work it out. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure if I understood this correctly, or if I explained myself correctly. Are you saying its okay for them to continue edit warring to introduce the contentious label they want (on which a TP section is open where they dont have consensus)? And FWIW, I have raised sources on TP, they have continued edit warring despite that. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have never said it's ok for ANYone to edit war. I am asking for people to seek and get consensus. From what I can see from the article history, there IS NO CONSENSUS at all on what to label the group. Nobody is more right than anyone else. Follow WP:DR if you are not satisfied. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They've just continued their edit war, no? They reverted to their preferred version after you explicitly said that edit warring would lead to a block. I just want to confirm again, are you saying that
1) You don't find an issue with their edit highlighted
2) The onus is now on those seeking to remove the claim of "far right", and not on those inserting it
Because to the best of my understanding, our policy would say no, but the way I understood your responses that's effectively the advice here.

If there is no action (not even a revert on their reintroduction for which they know they lack consensus) we are effectively encouraging their edit warring. Simultaneously, it is also wrong if instead of following WP:Onus and Wikipedia:ECREE, I have to go and disprove their exceptional claim (or seek DR). If you agree that there is no consensus to assign the label of far right, then obviously the exceptional label shouldn't be there. I know I might have sounded a bit rude, but I'm very perplexed by your handling of this.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you're asking me to do is to assert that the correct answer is not to label the group as far right. The person you are in disagreement with I am sure would be very happy to assert that labeling them as far right is the correct answer (@Brusquedandelion: correct me if I'm wrong). My job isn't to assert what the correct answer is. My job is to stop disruption to the article. As I've noted, I've looked at the history of the article. There is no answer that is the consensus answer. Changing it to say it's not far right isn't any more right than changing it to say it IS far right. There is no correct answer from the material provided. There is no point in the article's history to go back to and assert as "stable" until such time as a consensus to change it exists. I'm happy to be convinced otherwise. Asserting they are wrong and you are right isn't a sufficient answer to that. I'm not going to start issuing blocks because one or the other party isn't happy with the state of the article. So let's just trial this out, ok? You're asking me to block Brusquedandelion from the article. Let's say I do that. After they do that, you go and change the article to your preferred version. Since there's no consensus, I would then be obligated to block you from the article. Move into the future, two more people change it back and forth, so I block them from the article. Repeat ad nauseum. It would never end. It's NOT an answer to the disruption. Find a better answer. Come up with sources that prove one side is right over the other. If you can't do that, then come up with compromise wording that everybody is dissatisfied with (since being satisfied is unlikely to happen). --Hammersoft (talk) 10:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not relevant what is "correct" here. What is relevant is that you told all of us to not edit war or else you would be issuing blocks, but youre now telling me that someone can happily continue with their edit warring and you wont do anything about it.

Anyway, that does clear up the confusion. Im not happy with your descision, and IMO its a wrong way to treat disputes, but it does clear the confusion.(In my opinion, it amounts to encouraging disruption. If you justify edit warring by placing the onus for consensus and burden of proof on the constructive editors, it makes it pointless for anyone to actually bother discussing. Far easier to just edit war for their preferred version and then stonewall on the TP) Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CapnJackSp: I'm unclear as to what I can do to explain this further to you. Likely from my own gross incompetence, I have been completely unable to convey to you what the situation is and how to resolve it. From my chair, my interpretation of what you're saying is that I am somehow condoning edit warring, and I've taken a position supporting the group as far right. I've done neither, but my woeful capabilities have proven incapable of expressing that I've not done this. Since I am so obviously incompetent, I strongly encourage you to take just one piece of advice from me, since the rest of what I have said is utter gibberish; go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Your answers lie there. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My intent was not to insult, but to express my frustration with something I find unjustifiable. What you said wasnt "gibberish" or anything, but it was essentially the chamberlain way - advising to avoid conflict even if the other side is patently edit warring. It has never worked.

Theres nothing to explain, I got your point. The reason for writing my post was to just leave my opinion on this clear, since I did not agree with the point you were making. Anyway, I hope you got what I mean. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing my methods to Chamberlain is not lost on me as I am student of history. I find such comparisons to be insulting, not least of which is it essentially assigns people you disagree with in this dispute as being Hitlers. It is perhaps ironic that this is over a "far right" designation. Yeah, I get what you mean. I'm not doing what you think I should be doing. From my chair, I'm doing exactly what I need to be doing. I am not going to take sides in this conflict, no matter how incompetent you or I think I am. It's not going to happen. I will say it one more time and drop this conversation; if you don't like what I'm doing, then your salvation lies at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If you're not willing to do that, then please... please... drop it. I concur with ARoseWolf below. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, there is an open discussion about this, open for more than a week now mind you, which you refuse to engage with. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Hammersoft has already pointed out, the article already refers to the organization as far-right, long before I ever touched the article, and there has been a general consensus that the body of the article, as well as the categorization, should refer it to as such. I did not touch the first sentence in my recent edits. The categorization has been this way forever, and it has been the consensus to keep it that way. Please don't confuse the issue of European Fascist influence with the categorization issue; K3 and you have unfortunately managed to piggy back the categorization change with the latter issue, where there actually is contention, but these are separate issues. Anyways, there is an open discussion about this on the Talk Page; as Hammersoft says, if you have reliable sources arguing the RSS is not far right, please discuss there. I have provided a veritable laundry list of sources indicating that the organization is, in fact, (referred to as) far right (by numerous reliable sources). I have received no response for close to a week now. Brusquedandelion (talk) 10:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Just following this from a distance but wanted to weigh in some thoughts. An edit war is not started until until there are two reverts to a change. While BRD is not the end all to how content disputes are resolved it is the framework for how best to resolve. There was a bold change. There was a reversion. There has to be, at some point, discussion. The fact that there was another reversion was the initial "salvo" in the edit war. No fault, at that point, can be placed on the opposite side. However, when it was reverted again the other side became equally at fault. While it does not take two to initiate an edit war it takes two or more to continue it so if an edit war continues at the article that means there are two sides, not editors, continuing to revert each other. As an intervening uninvolved administrator, Hammersoft, can not enter it with the approach of determining which side is correct but how best to stop the disruption (edit war) and that can involve issuing warning's to both sides up to temporary blocks to cool the situation. I don't see where Hammersoft has condoned any edit warring and I think it would be best for both sides in this to heed his advice to seek some form of proper dispute resolution before sanctions are handed down. --ARoseWolf 17:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Regarding a user that you blocked. Would you consider removing their talk page access as they are abusing their own talk page.

Thanks - TLJ7863 (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TLJ7863: Done. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@hammersoft how do I add custom badges on my profile like the this user is from and this user visited? --paytonisboss (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(by talk reader) @Paytonisboss: You can find a bunch of templates at Category:Wikipedians by location. Using the categories listed at the bottom you can navigate to other templates regarding who you are. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Paytonisboss: Honestly, heck if I know. If you see my userpage, I obviously don't use that stuff :) A potential place to start: Wikipedia:Userboxes. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you bro I appreciate the information Paytonisboss (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that you blocked my dear friend (irony) Piermark. Can you do the honours to the other dirty sock? User:EWTN Eternal Word Television Network 5817 Old Leeds Rd. Irondale, AL 35210

Thanks! Kirham (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

action/message passed each other in transit. Already blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking User:Communitypitisan. I was just about to submit an SPI report but noticed you had already blocked them in the meantime. – DreamRimmer (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have some familiarity with them. I was just trying to get my ducks in a row to make sure. Sorry it took a bit. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think they belongs to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ramkripalyadavgeo. – DreamRimmer (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. I'll untangle it later. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into it, yeah it's possible but I'm not 100% convinced. Let me know if you see anything else supporting this. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page they were requesting to create for Ramkripalyadavg is about the same person and was previously created by socks of this case on both the English and Hindi Wikipedia. I'm aware of this because I've reported these socks multiple times on the Hindi Wikipedia. – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm aware of it too and have been involved in it since last year. I'm just not 100% convinced on behavior it's the same person. It doesn't really matter; they're all blocked anyway. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. It's possible I made a mistake there. Thank you for taking the time to help. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DreamRimmer: I'm curious; why aren't you an administrator? I did a very cursory review of your editing history, and it seems like you might be well qualified. Interested? If so, I can dig into your contribs deeper and give you some more complete feedback. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no plans for an RFA for now, maybe after six months, but I would appreciate your feedback. – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll take a deeper look. But, I'll need some days/week. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Hammersoft! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

• Kbdank71
• Kosack
• NrDg
• TLSuda

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to convert all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure.

Technical news

• The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

• An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".

Miscellaneous

• Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.

---

User Bettyboots12368‎ has been deleting relevant edits to the personal life section with no explanation except that “information was not relevant” but it is and is properly cited the edits were not made by me but more senior members of the wiki community. I only reverted the edit once to the revisions users JeffSpaceman and bloopyfloop originally made. User jeffspaceman even got the assistance of an user Spanneraol‎ ‎to override Bettyboots12368 deletion. I’m requesting a block on user Bettyboots12368 from editing Taylor Russell’s page and revert back to revision made by user bloopyfloop. 3 different users including myself believe the revision is necessary and relevant despite Bettyboots12368 insistence on deleting the information. Sharpeye33 (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There aren't any "senior" editors on this project. I have no more standing here than you do. See principle #1 on my userpage. To your points; I'm not interested in debating the issues on the article. The problem I saw was editing warring, and I put a stop to it via protecting the page. Your next course of action here isn't to involve me and convince me or you're right and other disputants are wrong. Your next course of action is to begin a discussion on the article's talk page and attempt to move forward towards WP:CONSENSUS. That's how we do things here. See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hammersoft. Would you mind taking a look at this and this, and perhaps the other recent additions to List of Australian flags and List of proposed Australian flags? There is an edit notice at the top of the editing window for "List of Australian flags" regarding the use of non-free files in the article, but the person adding the files might've just overlooked it. FWIW, File:ASeaCadetsFlag.png seems to have been discussed at NFCR and was removed by you, but a {{Non-free reviewed}} template was never added to the file's page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the files, removed the rationales, added orfud to the waffle flag, and notified the person trying to use them. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hammersoft would you be able to extend protection period for this page? It will keep being vandalized. Thanks Bettyboots12368 (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PREEMPTIVE, we don't generally do this unless there is a strong, compelling reason to do so. I've been seriously tempted before, knowing vandalism was going to happen. For example, for any high profile coaching position there's bound to be all kinds of vandalism as soon as the job opens up. Hopeful, wishful people plug in their favorite candidate to claim they are the new head coach, never providing a source to prove it of course. It's going to happen. It always happens. Yet, we don't preemptively protect those pages. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, will keep you updated if it does occur again thanks anyway. Bettyboots12368 (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation as well. Bettyboots12368 (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

I've owed you one of these for some time now, and today is the day that I send you what I feel that I've owed you for much too long. Dang, you beat me to it... TWICE NOW (because I'm writing this to you)! Well done. I want to thank you for being here for us, volunteering your time, energy, and your diligence to this project. You've been around pretty much as long as I have, and we've interacted many times. We're becoming a rarer and rarer breed; people who have this long of a consistent service to this project. So much has changed over the years that we've been here. From getting rollback and account creator, to seeing recent changes protection level 2 rights to come and disappear.... We're dinosaurs, Hammersoft...... I'm happy that you're still among us. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: Thank you :) Very much appreciated! It was sheer luck I saw that, as I hit the log and saw it right on top. I dare say though your admin actions far outstrip mine :) So thank YOU! --Hammersoft (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the kind words. "Sheer luck"? Nah... You were doing your job, you made the exact decisions that I would've, and by God... I absolutely love that! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest compliment; somebody does precisely what you would do :) --Hammersoft (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you for improving the project's quality in April! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

Guideline and policy news

• Phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship review has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including creating a discussion-only period (3b) and administrator elections (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as creating a reminder of civility norms (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the full report.

Technical news

• Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Conflict of interest management has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA.
• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!

---

Apparently a bot adding tags to this page at the same time you deleted it made it so that page wasn't deleted. Draft:Nicholas Vibes. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Weird. Thanks for the heads up. Deleted. @Qwerfjkl: this was your bot that did it. Any ideas what happened here? I deleted it, the bot apparently somehow edit conflicted and recreated it after I deleted it. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the bot retrieved the page data before it was deleted, but saved the edit after it was deleted. I've updated the code to use nocreate so it'll throw an error if the page already exists, instead of creating it. — Qwerfjkltalk 14:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thank you! --Hammersoft (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please look into the current situation on User talk:Hateglitter. They have said that they have/had at least two other accounts (one they claim they have deleted). They have stated they have edited Wikipedia using the other accounts but have thus far refused to disclose those accounts despite saying that they would. Perhaps it is just a language barrier or a lack of understanding. I am trying to assume good faith. Could you give me your opinion. Tell me if I need to disengage or what the next step is. Sometimes an outside perspective is needed. --ARoseWolf 14:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from you! It's been a bit. You are correct of course that accounts can not be deleted. They can be renamed per Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing, which reduces the possibility of discovery but does not eliminate it. As to disclosing other accounts; it is not required to disclose alternate accounts. See WP:SOCKLEGIT. To quote, "Alternative accounts should always be identified as such on their user pages, unless where doing so would defeat the point of the account." Reading over the discussion at User talk:Hateglitter, I would recommend dropping the request to identify alternate accounts unless you have strong reason to believe they are being misused. In that case, it might do to present evidence at WP:SPI. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your objective view, as always. I will leave it where it is. The user has stated they are not using this current account again so if they continue then there may be cause for a SPI. --ARoseWolf 17:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been some time. I received a compliment that I think should be attributed to you, as well, on my guestbook. The principles you've shared are being noticed by others and I am so appreciative to you for the time and effort you have given to the encyclopedia and the community. I've thoroughly enjoyed listening to your Song here over the past going on four years, Hammersoft. --ARoseWolf 17:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't attribute it to me. Ok, you posted them on your userpage. But, choosing to embrace something takes on a bit of ownership of it. If you follow the teachings of Gandhi, you are choosing to embrace those teachings. In part, you become those teachings. It is you. I'm glad you found value in the principles! I wish more people did. The project would be a better place if it were so. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and greetings from all strata. Before I proceed, is it morning or night where you stay? Answer me quickly or I will go and complain. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SafariScribe: There. I did it for you [9]! Ever trying to be helpful, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing that headache recently. I was about gradually sleeping before that edit and now m, I am feeling that sleepy too. You deserve more than a Barnster and that's what I will give you. You see, sometimes, you feel like not editing but have to. Those do happen to me and thanks for that complaint toy (I am putting that way). It somehow revived me from the little headache, welp, I'll abide never ti archive TP. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

This is always a way to say one is kind. Like I told you, it's always headache and you never tried Tom worsen it but still gave me a support (when I mean not with a warning but a typed message addressing I did something in good faith but it wasn't helpful). I, SafariScribe awards you for such an act of kindness and feel free to assert any of my wrong and I will accept and correct it. I don't know if you've been told this timelessly, I encountered you today and you're a awesome. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 21:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hammersoft, I just noticed this edit in my watchlist… I was under the belief that Twitter (I’ll never call it X!) sources could be considered reliable if the posting party could be considered reliable - for example in this case, it’s SWT’s official account…? I still don’t believe that the edit made by the other user was an improvement, so I stand by your reversion… I’m just a tad confused by the edit summary. Danners430 (talk) 08:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're not wrong. For me, whenever I try to load that link I get "something went wrong". The edit had other problems, as you note, and I reverted in part based on that, but also knowing that X is often misused I felt it was likely the best answer for why not to use it. If you get better results from the link, great. Feel free to re-add the information with the source. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– DreamRimmer (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goat.

XXMontyXx (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).

Guideline and policy news

• Phase II of the 2024 RfA review has commenced to improve and refine the proposals passed in Phase I.

Technical news

• The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Venezuelan politics has been closed.
• The Committee is seeking volunteers for various roles, including access to the conflict of interest VRT queue.

Miscellaneous

• WikiProject Reliability's unsourced statements drive is happening in June 2024 to replace {{citation needed}} tags with references! Sign up here to participate!

---

Can you take a look at this image that is supposedly part of a photograph collection at the Library of Congress? How can a photograph taken in December 2023 be "from the Congressional Quarterly or Roll Call portion of the CQ Roll Call photograph collection at the Library of Congress? The Congressional Quarterly portion contains works created "ca. 1960-2005, bulk 1989-2002", the Roll Call portion contains works created "1950-2000, bulk 1988-2000". The image was flagged as a WP:COPYVIO in December 2023, and another cropped version was just readded to Hunter Biden.

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hunter_Biden_and_Abbe_Lowell_in_2023.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hunter_Biden_in_2023_(cropped).jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hunter_Biden_in_2023.jpg

Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 21:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are correct. Just because it is a CQ Roll Call image doesn't automatically mean it's part of the original collection given under the deed of gift. The photographer, "Tom Williams", does appear on this list of photographers represented in the collection. However, again, that doesn't automatically mean any photograph by Tom Williams is covered. I would place all three of these images together as a group deletion request. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request for how to do that. If you need help setting it up, let me know. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do need your help because the page is protected and can only be edited by administrators. I found a third image cropped from the original one; that one was also saved to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hunter_Biden_in_2023_(cropped).jpg. Does that one go on the same deletion request, or is there a separate deletion process on WP?

• File:Hunter_Biden_and_Abbe_Lowell_in_2023.jpg
• File:Hunter_Biden_in_2023.jpg
• File:Hunter_Biden_in_2023_(cropped).jpg
• File:Abbe_Lowell_in_2023.jpg

Reasons for deletion request: The cited license from the Library of Congress covers CQ Roll Call Photograph Collection deeded to the Library by gift in 2013 and does not appear to cover the 2023 image and the images cropped from it. This introduction explains what's part of the Congressional Quarterly & Roll Call Collection: The Congressional Quarterly & Roll Call Collection includes photos taken for both publications and donated together by the Economist Group in 2011. The Congressional Quarterly portion of the collection contains works created "ca. 1960-2005, bulk 1989-2002"; the Roll Call portion contains works created "1950-2000, bulk 1988-2000". The "image File:Hunter_Biden_and_Abbe_Lowell_in_2023.jpg" cites a December 2023 RollCall article as its source. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other three images are on WP, too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hunter_Biden_in_2023.jpg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hunter_Biden_and_Abbe_Lowell_in_2023.jpg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abbe_Lowell_in_2023.jpg. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also commented here — seems to be a larger issue. I took a look at the "Congressional Quarterly & Roll Call Photograph Collections in the Library of Congress" research guide. Seems pretty clear that these images are not covered under the license. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very short on time right now. More later, I hope. But, from here, it appears all the images in question are on Commons. You should be able to edit them to place deletion notices on them. If you can't, neither can I. I'm not an admin there, only here on en.wiki. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone hear the one about the Wikipedia editor that walked into a bar? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They should have ducked? Those bars hurt. --ARoseWolf 15:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

--Hammersoft (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually impressed 434 editors are currently taking on the mostly thankless responsibility of being an admin and dealing with semi-regular drama. I don't always agree with every decision made by admins especially when I feel they use their tools to force their own opinions into articles but I have an immense respect for the admin corps. --ARoseWolf 14:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, that's true. But another perspective; they're just editors with additional tools at their disposal; tools which are restricted in use. Editors have to deal with a lot of crap too, in many ways no less than administrators. For example, my impression is most of WP:AN/I is handled by non-admins. Topically; if we lose another 8% of administrators over this next year as we did over the last 365 (rolling) days, we'll be right at 400 admins left that do anything. The graph in that section on WT:RFA is telling; we have ~137 users per admin while Commons has 203. Commons is a failing (not quite dead yet, but getting there) project. There are nowhere near enough administrators. En.wikipedia isn't that far away from the cliff. People have been wringing their hands over this for many years now, and with good reason. The problem is there are no solutions that will fix things. The Foundation is going to have to step in, and step in soon, or Commons is going to fail. All language Wikipedias depend upon Commons. In about 3 years, the Foundation is going to have to step in to save en.wikipedia, because it won't save itself anymore than Commons has. If the Foundation does nothing, Commons and en.wikipedia both will likely cease to maintain themselves in about five years (at a guess). --Hammersoft (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are just editors. Trust me when I say that I know editors face tons of crap. That is one of the primary issues I see with getting editors to step forward to be admins. Many editors that would make great administrators or some subsection of such for specific topics feel as though they would never pass an RfA as it stands now, either because traditional qualifications may not met or they may have "unagreeable" past experiences. I'm not a stalker but I do recall when looking through your Song on Wikipedia there was a time you considered, and may still, RfA a waste of community effort even going so far as to say anyone going through RfA to be an admin is probably unfit to be an admin. You scoffed at the possibility of ever being accepted or nominated to be admin for your part because you believed you had accumulated many "enemies". Yet you did make it and you are a fine example of an admin. I don't think that much changed in your philosophies beyond what could reasonably be expected.

I think RfA is still a broken process but is a product of the community at-large. You are so correct that there are no solutions to fix everything. So we should stop trying to fix everything. Maybe A correct path is to further open up certain tools for editors to address some of the issues on a limited and specific case-by-case need. We basically see that now on AN/I, as you point out, without tools through community discussion. Opening up the tools presents other issues like how one is chosen to receive said tools. Another RfA like process would only serve to further weaken editor retention in those areas. Maybe the solution is to do nothing at all. Maybe the ends are inevitable. I don't know. What I do know is that you care for the encyclopedia/community and I know I do too. --ARoseWolf 19:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As with everything else in the world, Wikipedia will have a product lifecycle. It's inevitable. Even the Roman Empire ended. Wikipedia will eventually not exist. How that comes to pass would be pure speculation. There are a multitude of signs abounding that Wikipedia is well, well past its maxima. I could see one potential out come of Wikipedia meeting it's demise; a copy of it will be created and made non-editable by anybody except hired hands at the WMF. There might be a few hundred of them. They will work over a span of a few years to clean up the copy, fixing extant vandalism, MOS issues, removing article development tags, etc. Once that work is done, then a static copy of Wikipedia would exist that is essentially "done". But, who knows. Right now, the Foundation doesn't seem to give a damn that one of its bigger projects (Commons) is falling apart. So, who knows. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right now the WMF is promoting Wikipedia as a reliable tool for search engines. The old Twitter didn't just up and decide that they would rely on Wikipedia in their verification process. So on one hand the project itself says it is absolutely not a reliable source and on the other it is being promoted as such. The issue is we have this little problem of verification of fact versus verification of statement. We rely on what we deem reliable sources to state something and we verify that statement by its existence. However, a reliable source in one instance can be completely unreliable in another and that statement could be completely erroneous. But we can't state that unless it is also challenged by a reliable source. For a project that doesn't require vetted statements of fact this works. We just rely on our reliable sources to do the fact finding and we slap a warning label on it. But when the owners of this project actively promote it in the hopes of garnering additional funds through donations as the most reliable volunteer encyclopedia things become more complicated. That is one of the biggest peeves in Indigenous communities and why a lot of them have refused to work with or promote Wikipedia. We have lost a lot of voices and probably will lose more with recent kerfuffle's. --ARoseWolf 12:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are all losing our voices unfortunately. AI driven bots are seeing to that. Unfortunately, such losses are never egalitarian (if you could even call it that), and minority populations are always the first impacted, including indigenous voices. Have you heard of the dead internet theory? Worth a read of the intro. While I doubt it's true in large form, there is considerable truth to it in my opinion. It would be extremely naive to think that Wikipedia isn't being written by bots. The project is woefully inadequate to the task of filtering such things, and the tools we have are caveman in technology levels compared to the attacks happening to Wikipedia. I've not investigated much, but I seriously doubt the Foundation cares, or is even aware, this is happening. Wikipedia as we know it now will likely not exist 10 years from now. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: Given your oppose at the HouseBlaster RfA, you may be interested in the above and in this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#If there's any doubt that we need more admins.... --Hammersoft (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hammersoft. Just wondering if you'd be able to deal with the IP account 203.37.252.2 that repeatedly posts nonsense on their talk page. Looks like a bunch of misbehaving juveniles... is it enough for you to block them and revoke TPA? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, never mind. If they do it again, I'll just report them to AIV as a vandalism-only account. Thanks! --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's half a day out from their last gibberish posting. I'm a bit reluctant to change a six month block into including talk page access being revoked. But, if they persist it's warranted. If AIV doesn't get you a result, let me know. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like AIV disables the "vandalism-only" account reporting option because of the existing rangeblock. The latest from them is just a few retaliatory lines against the editors who warned them. No pages worth of nonsense again (yet). --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).

Administrator changes

• Elli
• HouseBlaster
• Pickersgill-Cunliffe

• Brianga
• De728631
• Georgewilliamherbert
• Hyacinth (deceased)
• ProveIt
• The Night Watch

Technical news

• Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)

Miscellaneous

• The Community Wishlist is re-opening on 15 July 2024. Read more

---

Hi Hammersoft. Would you mind taking a look at File:Simon Théodore.png and User talk:Mmcbr#Non-free rationale for File:Simon Théodore.png? It seems like there's a good chance that this is either incorrectly licensed or replaceable non-free use. The uploader seems to be concerned about an agreement they've entered into with the image's provider, but that seems to be something unrelated to the copyright status of the file. If, for example, this is Théodore Simon, then it seems to show him at a younger age the photo that was uploaded which would increase its chance of being public domain. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the discussion, you are right; everything depends on publication date. We don't know the author, so we have to rely on publication date. Without that, it's guess work. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking at this. It might not matter because the file was uploaded to replace File:Theodore Simon ACERVO CDPHA.jpg because uploader feels the Commons image is not as good. I don't know whether the Commons file is OK from a license, but it would seem to mean that no non-free could be used if it is. In addition, the attempt to further justify file's non-free use made here kind of seems COI-ishy and as trying to even things out between Simon and Alfred Binet with respect to Wikipedia images is the main reason for uploading the photo to set the record straight about the credit each is being given for their collaboration. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

My story today is - because of the anniversary of the premiere OTD in 1782 - about Die Entführung aus dem Serail, opera by Mozart, while yesterday's was - because of the TFA - about Les contes d'Hoffmann, opera by Offenbach, - so 3 times Mozart if you click on "music" ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today's story is about a photographer who took iconic pictures, especially View from Williamsburg, Brooklyn, on Manhattan, 9/11, yesterday's was a great mezzo, and on Thursday we watched a sublime ballerina. If that's not enough my talk offers chamber music from two amazing concerts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thank you for closing this long and fraught AfD discussion, I greatly appreciate it and do not envy you making that decision! I was wondering if the comment left on the talk page Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Age and health concerns of Joe Biden - obviously an error - could be moved into the main deletion discussion page? No worries if not GnocchiFan (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It of course doesn't make any difference to the closed discussion, but it's moved. Thanks! --Hammersoft (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2024).

Technical news

• Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
• Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee appointed the following administrators to the conflict of interest volunteer response team: Bilby, Extraordinary Writ

---

I won't muddy the user talk page by raising it there, but are we confident that this wasn't just an outcome of the WPWP "add as many images to articles as you can" competition causing two users to behave in a similar way?

Histories like cold reading and Giorgio Francia show bursts of reverts of the same image under the same WPWP hashtags, which suggests that competition entrants might be being guided towards particular example "needs an image" article categories. If the entrants' process is to always add the first Commons image irrespective of whether it's correct, then the same image will keep coming back from different editors whenever it gets removed as incorrect.

We can leave Goodymeraj/Chizoba2 to make an unblock request, but if they were actually separate people competing in the same WPWP contest having been given the same advice on how to participate, this may be a significant nail in the coffin of the contests, which are starting to seem like a system whose purpose is to replicate misidentified Wikidata images onto Wikipedia every summer. Belbury (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found enough convincing evidence to conclude they are one and the same, or in the very least meatpuppets of one another. But, I believe they are the same person. I'm unsure of continuing the contest. I've not looked into that. On the surface, it appears to do some good work mixed in with some bad. The bad is enough to pollute the rest, and leaves one wondering if any of the work is good or not. I haven't done enough investigation to conclude that though. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's fair enough. Maybe I'll start this year's village pump discussion of the problems it's causing. Belbury (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced that editing competitions such as this one do far more harm than good. Every time they cause problems of this kind. I wish we could ban them. However, concerning these two accounts, I am convinced that they are not the same person, for several reasons, the most clear cut one being the timing of editing. Compare, for example, the timing of these eight edits and these seven. One editor jumping between two browsers in which they were logged into different accounts? I very much doubt it, and in any case there are other reasons for thinking they are not the same person. Meatpuppets? Possible, but I don't see any reason to think so; maybe you can let me know what your convincing evidence is. Belbury's explanation seems to me to completely fit the facts, and it is also exactly the kind of thing that I have seen in previous competitions. JBW (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing their activity across same edited articles, they have been conducting the same edits of each other. I'm willing to believe they're meatpuppets, but I still suspect they are sockpuppets. Regardless, both accounts are engaging in the same sort of highly problematic behavior. I'm comfortable with them both being blocked. As to labeling them socks, meats, or just bad actors? I'm ok with any definition, so long as the blocks stick at least until they promise to cease this behavior. If you want to undo either/both of the blocks, be my guest. But, the problematic behaviors that ensue without those assurances will be a problem. Perhaps an SPI for a checkuser to confirm? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW: Well, they've placed a malformed unblock request and made another comment on their talk page. They're claiming to know the gender of Chizoba2, which in essence confirms meatpuppetry. I'm happy with whatever you decide to do, and I'll leave it in your hands since you were the original blocking admin, assuming you want to make that decision. If not, let me know. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Chizoba" is a female name in Igbo.

You could certainly take the view that the output of the WPWP competition can sometimes run close to meatpuppetry, when a group of people are all given the same broad instruction to copy the first Commons image results onto a particular category of articles as quickly as they can (each user engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose), but that's a bigger issue. Belbury (talk) 07:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW Save for these two editors, are there more problematic editors doing more harm than good in the encyclopaedia? Best, Reading Beans 14:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reading Beans: Sure, here's a quick example of the second person listed in the 1073 filter log; User:Dera_xoxo. You yourself told Dera_xoxo on their talk page last month that most of your contributions are not so good! But a month later they're still taking part in the competition and one of their edits today was to add a photo of Norwegian lecturer Marit Ruth Rustad to an article on Swedish athlete Marit Ruth.

That took me twenty seconds to find. Are WPWP organisers not actively checking participant behaviour while the project is running, or keeping track of potential problem editors? Belbury (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Belbury, thank you for your constructive feedback. The user you pointed out has added over 500+ images few >30 errors. I don’t think I’d categorise that as harm than good.

The WPWP organisers are actively tracking the contributions of every editor participating in each wiki (as I do here on the English Wikipedia). Thank you all for your contributions to the collaborative efforts! Best, Reading Beans 17:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what an acceptable error rate would be for adding content to what are largely biographical articles, and I do appreciate that engaged users can learn and improve over time, but of Dera_xoxo's most recent 50 edits, 6 have been reverted for depicting the wrong person. I'd consider a 12% error rate to be a concern. Belbury (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reading Beans: I'd consider 12% to be incredibly bad. From my perspective, anything above 5% is way, way out of line. The target should be 2% or less. Preferably no errors, but we're human. The underlying problem with contests like this is that speed matters more than accuracy. That is encouraging negative behavior. I would change how the contest is run such that making an error costs five or even ten times as much as making one addition. There should be serious penalties for getting it wrong...assuming the contest were allowed to continue at all. We shouldn't be encouraging negative behaviors like this. I'd rather have a less complete, but more accurate encyclopedia than a more complete, less accurate one. The goals with this contest are, in my opinion, misguided. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I note, for the record, that issues about this contest were raised four years ago here. Four years later, same problems exist. I don't have all the information yet to make a proposal, but a cursory review to me seems to support the idea this contest should be banned from en.wikipedia. The issues appear to be systemic in nature. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've no problem with their being a wider discussion about how appropriate WPWP is. This discussion is fine for now. But, there's a subjective point at which this needs to go to a wider audience for consideration. I leave it to those of you here to figure out where that point is. Having this discussion here can help narrow the points of concern and generate foci that can be discussed in a wider forum. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in a recent edit to Galileo Academy of Science and Technology you used this link as the source for the current principal of the school and it says that Ambar Panjabi is the current principal, and removed this link which states that De Trice Rodgers is the principal of the school and is from the official website of San Francisco Unified School District. Is there any reason why you chose that instead of the latter?

I am not sure if these sources are reliable but apparently according to these [10][11] Ambar Panjabi was appointed as interim principal and the current principal is Dr. DeTrice Rodgers.

Normally, I would have already edited it but I am confused as there are two different sources and I am not sure which source is the more reliable one. And considering that you are much more experienced I wanted to ask for your opinion. --Yuthoob (talk) 12:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, have a look at my userpage and principle #1. I might have more time on the project than you, but that doesn't elevate me to a higher position than you. :) Anyway, the link I used was to this. That's directly from the school's "about" page on their website. I presumed (wrongfully? rightfully?) that this was authoritative. It's curious the school and district pages disagree with each other. It's a tossup. If you want to change it to Rodgers, that's fine. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick reply. In my opinion, the information on the school's website is outdated, but I think I will leave it as is for now. --Yuthoob (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously. I appreciate it. I will definitely take it to heart before seriously considering adminship. Jdcomix (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you understand I wasn't trying to tear you down. I just know how critically important it is to read RfA instructions, and how savage !voters can be about it. Make even the slightest error, like a slightly malformed transclusion error when launching your RfA, and people will criticize you for it. Don't be dissuaded from trying RfA at a future date! --Hammersoft (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, trust me, I've watched RfAs before. They are brutal. Jdcomix (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you for good advice popping up on my watchlist! - On 13 August, Bach's cantata was 300 years old, and the image one. The cantata is an extraordinary piece, using the chorale's text and famous melody more than others in the cycle. It's nice to have not only a recent death, but also this "birthday" on the Main page. And a rainbow in my places. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

today's story is about education, 10 years OTD after lecturing our founder). Music for today's feast is Monteverdi's, the best concert we ever did (so pictured again on my talk). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help? My story today is about a woman, nominated for RD but needing support as I write this. A composer died whose article is long and mostly unreferenced. And some articles open for review, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I can help. I'm sure you've scanned the net as much as I could. --Hammersoft (talk) 10:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The composer was only the second problem ;) - I'm going to dig into the composer, but it's tough. I just remembered him on his birthday. The date of that 2019 DYK happens to be the same as he now died. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With four supports, the violinist "made it" just before I went to bed. Goehr work is detailed on the talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking you to get involved but would you just look at the discussion and tell me what you think? --ARoseWolf 13:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Their edit war summaries on the article are rather funny :) The edit war needed to stop, and it appears that it has. If it continues, I'll happily issue blocks to make it stop. As to the content; I think you are correct. But, consensus needs to form about the wording. It's possible there will only be three of you in the conversation. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I fear. The wording, as it stands, will not work. It doesn't even sound right when you say it. I am just wondering if we can't find a compromise. I will ponder it a little while. Thank you, again, for your clear analysis. Sometimes the funniest part of an argument here are the edit summaries. --ARoseWolf 15:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I cleared up both articles (Norman Lear and Room 222) of primary and incorrectly attributed statements while maintaining neutrality. Let's see if that works. If you get a chance to just look at my edits and let me know what you think I would appreciate it. Any feedback is welcome but, again, only if you so desire. Thank you, Hammersoft. --ARoseWolf 19:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No you did not. You even claimed the Television Academy Foundation article was based on interviews with producers, writers and directors of Room 222 in an edit summary. You have also falsely claimed it had nothing to do with Norman Lear, when even mentioned him by name twice, stating things like "the show broke new narrative ground that would later be developed by the major sitcom factories of the 1970s, Grant Tinker's MTM Enterprises and Norman Lear's Tandem Productions" and "A season and a half before Norman Lear made "relevant" programming a dominant genre with the introduction of programs like All in the Family and Maude, Room 222 was using the form of the half-hour comedy to discuss serious contemporary issues. During its five seasons on the air, the show included episodes that dealt with such topics as racism, sexism, homophobia, dropping out of school, shoplifting, drug use among both teachers and students, illiteracy, cops in school, guns in school, Vietnam war veterans, venereal disease, and teenage pregnancy."[12]Speakfor23 (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Speakfor23: @Milowent: @ARoseWolf: This ends. Now. I have issued final warnings to Speakerfor23 and Milowent for edit warring. I have reverted the article back to its state on 16 August 2024. Either discussion reaches consensus on how to proceed, or the desired changes will not happen. Nobody gets the privilege of making their changes just because they find themselves in the unique position of thinking they're right. Further discussion on my talk page discussing this issue in detail is not encouraged nor welcome. If you wish to discuss my final warnings, fine. If you wish to discuss the article, there's a reason there's the article's talk page. This also applies to Room 222. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. --ARoseWolf 02:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. This has all unfolded not unlike an episode of a 70s sitcom that addresses serious social issues. Things got a bit chaotic between myself and Speakfor23, then the more reasonable ARoseWolf tried to get it sorted out, then parental figure Hammersoft came in at 26 minutes and set us all straight. The episode ends with myself and speakfor saying "Just like a norman lear show (me)/room 222 (Speakfor)!!" during the closing credits. I will step away for a bit but I am sure a reasonable resolution will be reached.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Milowent: Oh wow that's really funny :) --Hammersoft (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milowent, how dare you call me reasonable like this is an encyclopedia or something. lol I still like The Carol Burnett Show. --ARoseWolf 16:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ARoseWolf: Just be careful which dentist you use!. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eunice and Mama. --ARoseWolf 16:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea if I am contacting you correctly or not. Every other method has apparently failed or I dont understand what I am doing. (Very likely).

You have placed a block on a massive range of I.P. Addresses for vandalism of a TV station or stations from what I can read and comprehend. It is User:2600:1700:0:0:0:0:0:0/30

Apparently I am included in this range... I find this to be disturbing. I understand you are an admin. However I find a blind range of IP Addresses to be excessive if you are including people who have nothing to do with the vandalism(s). I had to create an account just to be able to appeal this to you, I was trying to add a comment on a talk page that had nothing to do with TV Stations. This made me wonder why can't you just block the actual offender from the page he/she vandalized? And finally, why a range of IP addresses and not the actual offenders IP Addresses? Please reconsider blocking IP Addresses if they affect other people like myself from posting anonymously. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OriginalCrow (talk • contribs)

@OriginalCrow: First, new comments on talk pages go at the end of talk pages, not the beginning. I've moved your comment down here. Second, you should always sign your comments with ~~~~ so that others know who is making what comments. Third, since you are now logged in the block does not affect you. Fourth, a partial block was applied to the IP range to three articles they had vandalized. See this log entry. It did not have the desired effect in stopping the vandalism. I have reduced the block back to the original partial block and duration. However, if vandalism resumes, stronger blocks will ensue again. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Sundown towns in Mississippi indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[13] I'm not sure what to do about the block, if anything. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edits are problematic and in some cases outright vandalism. But, the editing has stopped now and been stopped for hours. I wouldn't be inclined to doing anything at this point, unless the problematic editing resumes. Then, just standard escalating warnings leading to a block. Since their focus is the single article, maybe a partial block at that point. The /64 doesn't show any other edits elsewhere. --Hammersoft (talk) 10:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bfilmy is vandalising the articles. Have warned him several times. Please take any action. Thanks. Charliehdb (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already indefinitely blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether Notability (species) should be adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, remedies 5.1 and 5.2 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans on My very best wishes, respectively) were repealed.
• Remedy 3C of the German war effort case ("Cinderella157 German history topic ban") was suspended for a period of six months.
• The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.

Miscellaneous

• Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in September 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,900 articles and 26,200 redirects awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

---

Hi Hammersoft! I'm messaging you to let you know that I just strengthened this range's block to a site-wide block and set it to expire one month for now due to this edit that I just caught. I'm letting you know about this because you had modified the block for this range that has still been ongoing. I'm not sure as to how extensive, related, or how frequent the past vandalism from this range has been, but the previous block logs made it clear that stronger blocks would be imposed if shenanigans continue. Please know that you're welcome to modify, reduce, remove, strengthen, turn upside-down, - whatever you want to the block modification that I imposed. Just let me know and why; It would be good information in case this range pops up on my radar again. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Today is Schoenberg's 150th birthday! On display his portrait by Egon Schiele, music from Moses und Aron, and two DYK hooks, one from 2010 and another from 2014; the latter, about his 40th birthday, appeared on his 140th birthday ;) - See places for a stunning sunrise, on the day Bruckner's 200th birthday was celebrated (just a few days late). -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To the IP 141.76.185.215 that posted the supposed {{banned user}} template on my talk page: The only thing such vandalism does is prove (a) you're not understanding how blocks/bans work on the project, and (b) that whatever it is that I did that caused you to be so upset was obviously the right thing to do. Perhaps if instead of trying to conduct pointless vandalism, you attempted to discuss whatever the issue is you might find yourself in a happier place. If so, I'm all ears. If not, continuing to conduct vandalism won't result in anything positive for you. Have a great day! --Hammersoft (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please delete File:Julia-Chang.png and File:Jaycee (TTT2).png immediately. I used them for infobox and experimenting but now, I have no intention to use them in the article as they were replaced by a free image. Kazama16 (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kazama16: Done. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).

Administrator changes

• Asilvering
• Significa liberdade

• Good Olfactory
• Hesperian
• I JethroBT
• TommyBoy
• Woody

CheckUser changes

• Barkeep49
• Izno

• Doug Weller
• Spicy

Guideline and policy news

• Administrator elections are a proposed new process for selecting administrators, offering an alternative to requests for adminship (RfA). The first trial election will take place in October 2024, with candidate sign-up from October 8 to 14, a discussion phase from October 22 to 24, and SecurePoll voting from October 25 to 31. For questions or to help out, please visit the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.
• Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether there is a consensus to have an administrator recall process.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Historical elections has been closed.
• An arbitration case regarding Backlash to diversity and inclusion has been opened.
• Editors are invited to nominate themselves to serve on the 2024 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission until 23:59 October 8, 2024 (UTC).

Miscellaneous

• If you are interested in stopping spammers, please put MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist on your watchlist, and help out when you can.

---

Hi Hammersoft. Would you mind taking a look at File:PNAU (EDMtrio).jpg? I'm pretty sure the uploader means well, and I've been trying to help them out at Talk:Pnau#Pnau and PNAU and their user talk page; however, I don't seem to be having much luck. I'm pretty sure both files (it's actually one overwritten file) they've uploaded are copyvios and could be tagged per WP:F9, but I'm trying to give them a chance to sort things out themselves. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a look at this file and for your comment on the article's talk page. Do you think it's worth the effort of getting the file split for a HISTMERGE? Both "versions" are likely going to end up being deleted in about a week unless the uploader can add a verifiable license that's OK for Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's worth any additional effort. They're clearly copyright violations and will be deleted on the 24th of this month. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

Administrator changes

• Crisco 1492

• Babajobu
• Daniel
• Elf
• Jayron32
• Thue
• Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

Maxim

Oversighter changes

Maxim

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, the discussion-only period proposal that went for a trial to refine the requests for adminship (RfA) process has been discontinued.
• Following a request for comment, Administrator recall is adopted as a policy.

Technical news

• Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

• RoySmith, Barkeep49 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2024 Arbitration Committee Elections. ThadeusOfNazereth and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.
• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate from 3 November 2024 until 12 November 2024 to stand in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections.
• The Arbitration Committee is seeking volunteers for roles such as clerks, access to the COI queue, checkuser, and oversight.

Miscellaneous

• An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

---

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

@BGerdemann (WMF): Given the ANI case and the WMF's response to it, I'm sorry but nobody is anonymous on this project. It's obvious the WMF is willing to unmask anyone here. The precedent here is dangerous to the safety of many editors here and extremely chilling. So my survey response is this; WMF, get your house in order. Editors are seriously angry about this. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Dcw2003 § Using the "PD-US- no notice" license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hammersoft. Would you mind taking a look at what I posted here to make sure I'm not misleading this user in some way or otherwise leaving something important out? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. In fact, your had more knowledge on the subject than I do! Bravo :) --Hammersoft (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but the response from the user seems to indicate there's looking for something quick and easy, which is not always the case when it comes to this type of thing. I'm afraid my response to their response might be too wordy and too hard to understand. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]