Jump to content

User talk:Swarm/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

User talk:199.101.62.36

Block notices should not be removed, should they? Might reverting and then locking talk page access while their block is in effect be appropriate? Thank you for your consideration. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Border Town ‖ 01:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I was the one who made the report at ANI and somehow I didn't have the talk page on my watchlist but I do have yours, Swarm, so glad I saw this. The edit summary "some American wanker blocked me they think i'm a pranker but no you see" should also be noted. ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  02:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I've reviewed the guidelines and it's declined unblock requests regarding active blocks that can't be removed, not the block notices themselves. That diatribe is a clear vio of WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM however, so theoretically anyone can remove it. If you guys feel strongly about it, go for it. But, they merely wanted to say their piece in response to the block, and I don't necessarily see any reason to give them a hard time about it. Best to just ignore them, IMHO. All they did is leave a huge piece of evidence confirming that they were blocked for good reason. Swarm ♠ 20:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't even know what they're going on about but would you consider revoking talk page access? [1] ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  08:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
FYI given you may be busy IRL I have taken this to ANI, hope you don’t mind ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  11:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk page access

Hi! Coming to you as the blocking admin, I think 199.101.62.36 might need their talk page access revoked. Marianna251TALK 11:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Marianna251 See the discussion above :) I posted it at ANI as Swarm has said he's busy at the moment & 331dot has already done the honours. ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  11:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Missed that! Thanks for the ping. :) Marianna251TALK 18:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

My candidature for "Pending changes reviewer"

Hello Swarm! Sorry for disturbing you but I wanted to clear out some misconceptions about me. First of all, I totally take the responsibility of what I have done in my edits history. Well, you can notice that I created my account on 8 April, 2017 but actually started editing several months later as I was totally unaware of the roles of an editor on Wikipedia. That's why while creating one of my articles, I added the tag of "good articles" to that and tried to protect it from a single vandalism case. But for those reasons I have been multiple times advised by few administrators and they showed me the right way to do the edits. Also, I have created few articles which were eventually deleted (Maybe they were not that worthy but my motive was always to add an information to this encyclopedia). Truly, I have learnt from my mistakes and that's why I have written in my application that I have steadily learnt as a editor over the period. I also promise to continue to improve myself in coming times. So, please do provide me this responsibility.

Thank you Rishu Shukla (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Hey, I believe you! You're doing a good job overall and you're getting there, and I'm sure you're learning from your mistakes. But a cursory review turned up too many issues. The next step is to reapply at a later date, and show us that the issues have been rectified since the first review took place. Swarm ♠ 08:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you teach me how to became an administrator and how to protect pages?

I love Wikipedia, but I don't know how to contribute it.(I do know how to edit ,that's the thing everyone know how to do that) Linear D (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Linear D

Can you compare this version, for example, with the version you have just protected right now?

I think you need to give this topic a bit more attention. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quim_Torra&oldid=841736384 Regards,Miska5DT (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

  • @Miska5DT: I will gladly increase the page protection to extended confirmed and impose strict discretionary sanctions on the article, per WP:NEWBLPBAN, if you think it's necessary, but let's wait and see if the current status helps first. Oh, and just so it's totally clear, I intended to revert to a "stable version" that was not affected by IP disruption, and I reverted good faith edits in the process. So, when I restored those edits, I was fixing an unintended mistake as an uninvolved admin—I was not taking any position on the content itself. You're free to continue editing it. Swarm ♠ 22:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Kartik aaryan

(Personal attack removed) Joven salvaje (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Kartik aaryan

Kartik aaryan is 29 years old according to articles In mumbai mirror so his birthdate is 1988 not 1990 Tranquiled (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

ANI

hi. I took your point but just wanted to stress I acted in good faith, clearly I know about procedures and hated ANI. I don't know why I'm coming to ANI these days where in 17 months of editing I didn't have to come. To set the record straight, I did posed 6 times here. the report about relist of Afd cannot be seen as disruptive, that user did disruption to 20 plus afd. that checkuser report is also fine as it's urgent and no removal of warning. I agree the afd/csd request can be done elsewhere. As I said, I never wanted to be at ANI. Just to inform you, I knew where to go and I did report username at UAA, and the rest, I don't come to ANI for no reason, I also tried to avoid this place. This histmetge should be at talkpage, I apologise as I will like to add my viewpoints to this and check if I did the right thing. However, just sharing your language seems a little harsh. I am an editor from 2007 and clearly I know where to go if needed. it made me a little discouraged as any regulars who got templated. I will heed your good advice though. Quek157 (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

  • @Quek157: Okay. I honestly thought you were an inexperienced newbie who didn't know any better. In hindsight I should have checked to see if that was really the case. I sincerely apologize for lecturing you like that, and I hope there are no hard feelings. I appreciate you making the effort to separate my message from my tone, and to tell me how you feel calmly and civilly, despite feeling insulted. Swarm ♠ 02:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
no worries. it had also made me reflected on stuffs as I'm also an admin somewhere else and how I treated new members I also have to be careful of. I guess you didn't see my account as I left around 2008 where you just joined. That's when many Wikipedians of my nation left enmasse, just mailer Diablo another admin is someone I recognized. I'm still learning though as in 2007, we don't have so many places to go and AIV is still not set up, a warning level 4 in user talkpage of an vandal by me immediately trigger a 31 hours ban, we just don't need to go to AN/I. Just how this project evolved and there are too much to do now than then where things are much more calmer. I guess it's also the case where I'm still using the old fashioned signature Quek157 (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Event Coordinator

Hi Thank you for granting me the right to use the tool for events.

Please I need more clarification on " You should not grant this for more than 10 days." Stated in your comment ..Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Olaniyan Olushola: So, as you may know, there is now a rule that new accounts can't create articles anymore. They have to be confirmed. This is usually done automatically after four days and 10 edits. Obviously, this will prevent new accounts created during editing events from making new articles, so that's a problem. That is why event coordinators are allowed to manually confirm accounts. It will allow the new editors participating in the event to create new articles and edit semi-protected pages. When you add the "confirmed" user right to a new account, you will have the option to set it to expire after a certain amount of time. The maximum you're allowed to set it for is 10 days. This gives the users plenty of time to become autoconfirmed permanently, and if they do not make the required 10 edits in that period of time, they will be deconfirmed until they do. You can see what I'm talking about if you practice on User:ThisIsaTest. Swarm ♠ 16:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Why did you protect ANI?

WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO SILENCE ME? 31.73.184.49 (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

  • You've been blocked for disruption. As you're circumventing a block, you have no right to edit here. If we can't enforce this via blocking your IPs, protecting it is the only option. In sum, you ruined it for everybody. :( Swarm ♠ 21:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

Hi Swarm,

First of all - I apologize in advance for wasting your time in case this does not concern you or it is not you whom I should actually contact - but I'm in need of help.

So - on one of the debates regarding the content of the article Origins of Romanians you have said to "[...] so please propose any changes via formal dispute resolution.". While I have read the Dispute resolution page it is a bit overwhelming. Considering my experience so far (many times shut down with reference to WP:RULES) - I have grown weary of taking action with (only) logic in mind. I need to follow follow the WP:RULES.

I admit I am a "noob" and I do not at this time master the procedures and policies of Wikipedia. I believe that it would be best to have one (or preferably multiple) persons mediating this dispute. Reading all the types of dispute resolution it seems to me that the either Formal mediation or the Moderated discussion (I would tend to favor the first) would fit best but I am at a loss about the differences between them as well as how to actually initiate such a course of action (or, in case such an action has already been started by the other editors, how to find it and present my arguments).

Thank you - and again, If this is not something you can or are not allowed to help me with I would be grateful if you could at least point me in the right direction (whom should I contact to get help on the matter of initiating a dispute resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 14:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Normally I would recommend an RfC. The purpose of an RfC is not to debate your point, but to make a concise, neutral proposal. You can reply to your own RfC detailing your own opinion, but you let the process run for 30 days and it solicits opinions from the community. But in this case, I think you should probably start a discussion at WP:RSN first. Both may well be necessary, but not at the same time. Formal mediatation is a last resort, when all other options fail. And, I just need to reemphasize, no dispute resolution requires the level of comments and argument that was made on that article’s talk page. You make your case in one concise paragraph, defend it for a few more if you have to, but if you don’t secure a consensus, you have to accept it and move on. Swarm ♠ 16:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Rollback

My rollback request was denied by you. The reason I want the "rollback" feature is to revert vandalism that I see in the recent changes page. It is VERY tedious to do so with WP:TWINKLE and the rollback ability would help me TREMONDOUSLEY. The reason I was denied before was because of my edit count. I have seen many people get their rollback requests approved and they have less than 200 mainspace edits. Your reasoning for declining my request was unfounded. Do I really want to enroll in the CVA? No! The things they teach in that academy are just repeating things that I learned in the Teahouse, and the Wikipedia Adventure about 3 months ago. You also stated that I didn't have ANY anti-vandalism reverts. The main reason for this is time. In the time that I can revert 1 disruptive edit with Twinkle, I can revert 3 edits with the rollback feature. I do realize that the rollback feature is abused by many editors, and that you and the people you work with want to limit the amount of unexperienced editors with rollback permissions. I am relatively experienced with Wikipedia and its guidelines, but can be more active on Wikipedia. This rollback feature would increase my edits and time spent on here, which in turn would benefit Wikipedia. Now I understand your reasoning with the decline, and I would understand if you don't even respond to this rant. But I would be ecstatic if you read this with an open mind and reconsider your decision. Best regards, TheRealWeatherMan (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok.  Done! Swarm ♠ 18:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

ANI again

I did, and I went through all avenues in the list but nothing seems suitable. Therefore I did such a thing. Really should had waited it out but such an Afd that have a background of edit conflict may not be proper. Especially just went through drv. If you think need any sanctions, I don't mind but hope can be impartial. Quek157 (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thanks for rethinking your decision on the rollback request! Greatly appreciated! TheRealWeatherMan (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

User Alliance for Smiles

Hello, I was wondering if when you unblocked Allianceforsmiles you felt that the promotional nature of the block was addressed as well, in addition to the shared aspect of the account(they use "we" several times). Thanks 331dot (talk) 07:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

  • In my opinion, both of those concerns were straightforwardly addressed in the unblock request. Do you disagree? They directly addressed all of the points made to them in the previous unblock decline. There's no denying the account was made to represent an organization for promotional purposes (hence the "we"), but most spam accounts don't go out of their way to provide assurances that they want to contribute to other areas of the project in good faith. I don't think you can realistically ask for more out of an unblock request than what was provided here; at a certain point you either have to give them a chance to see if they're being genuine, or come up with a reason to assume bad faith. It seems more likely to me that the owner is just a regular person who'd rather keep their account, than some sort of malicious spammer who's playing us and will resume spamming at the first chance they get, but even if they are that stupid, a reblock is cheap. Swarm ♠ 08:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply and clarification. I assure you I am not looking to undo anything, just curious. Thanks again, 331dot (talk) 08:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
No worries, I know you're still learning the ropes and I'm happy to explain my reasoning. For the record though, I didn't consult with you prior to unblocking because I felt like it was straightforward and uncontroversial, and I still should have left you a note with an explanation, even if just out of courtesy. Unilateral unblocking without consulting the blocking admin is wrong most of the time. Sometimes, though, the bureaucracy is just not necessary. Swarm ♠ 08:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
It was no problem at all; I figured there was a good reason and I would tend to agree with you about bureaucracy. Thanks again 331dot (talk) 08:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Query

What is the process for requesting file moves? Will they respond fast? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 17:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stable version

Just wanted to thank you for creating this page, now I have something to point to :) - FlightTime (open channel) 00:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is - FlightTime (open channel) 01:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

ANI close

Hi. Thought I'd mention in re this close that Livioandronico2013 was blocked for a week here, not indefinitely (as at Commons). I may be insufficiently caffeinated and reading it wrong. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Queen of time - histmerge requested - Interwiki copy right violation

Hi Swarm, Greetings to you. I reviewed Queen of time via NPP today which the page was created on 05:54, May 15, 2018 by s Magnumchaos. I came across the same article on Draft:Queen of Time via AfC which was created on 07:04, April 11, 2018‎ by Karhunkynsi244. Upon checking the history page of the Draft copy and the history page of the main space copy, it appears user Magnumchaoes copied and pasted the text from that of Karhunkynsiw44's draft copy and created the article and claimed their without proper attribution provided which seems violate the licensing terms under which it has been provided, which in turn violates the reusers' rights and obligations clause of Wikipedia's copyrights policy. I have yet to write to the mentioned users. Should my assessment is correct, thus, would like seek guidance on where to report this incident and how to proceed from here. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk)

Hi Swarm, thanks for the assistance and the quick actions. I have two questions below and kindly advise accordingly.
  1. If the draft page has not been denied by AfC, and other user creates the without proper attribution - this should be still a interwiki copy right violation right?
  2. If the draft page has not been denied by AfC, and other user creates and proper attribution is paid. Would this consider interwiki copy right violation as the user could just choose to move the page instead of copy and paste the content to claim their own?
  3. When should histmerge be appropriately used in situation of such?
Thanks in advance. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
A copy-paste move that directly provides attribution with a link in the edit summary is not a copyvio. It's definitely still disruptive for other reasons (such as stealing the credit from the original author), and it absolutely still needs to be repaired via histmerge, but it technically does satisfy the requirement for attribution and is thus not a copyright violation. If no such attribution was provided, it is a copyright violation, so it's a more serious offense that potentially carries more serious consequences for the person who copied the text. However, it is still handled in the exact same way—with a histmerge. The histmerge is, and should be, used to repair any copy-paste move, whether or not said move was a copyvio. No matter what, a draft shouldn't be copy-pasted into the mainspace. The move function should be used instead, and the history of the draft should be kept intact. Hope this answers your questions. Let me know if you have any followup questions! Swarm ♠ 08:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Swarm, Thank you for the reply and you have answered all my questions. I have last few follow up questions here - when an editor discovers a coppyvio (copy & paste) article from draft to main page, what should the editor do and where to report the incident to seek an admin to perform the histmerge? Lastly, I do know there are warning/message template on copyvio but is there a template for copy paste text from draft to main for the reason to steal credit from original author? Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
To request a histmerge, simply tag the new page with {{Histmerge}} (see the template's page for specific usage instructions). It may also be helpful to note that Anthony Appleyard is the project's leading expert on histmerges, so if you ever need to contact someone directly about a histmerge, he's the guy. I don't believe such a warning template exists, but if one were to be created, it would be reasonable. I do believe this is a common problem. Swarm ♠ 09:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok Thank you for the info. One more question - As I have done the counter vandalism course end of last year and would like to work on the warning template for copyvio (copy/paste) from draft to main page. Should this is allowed and once I figure out how to do it, who should I approach to approve it? (My course instructor is Mz7). Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
@CASSIOPEIA: You can do it yourself! Let me know if you want me to take a look at it when you do. :) Swarm ♠ 08:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Swarm, Thanks a lots, and happy that you would help to check on the template. Will ping accordingly. Thanks again. Cheers! CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
No worries! Drop by anytime! Swarm ♠ 09:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


Hi Swarm, Good day. I have finished a draft version of "copyrightdr" template on my my sandbox. I would appreciate if you would have a look at it and change anything as needed (the 'bulb' message is meant for other editors and not for you). I am not sure I get the wikitext/parser function right as it looked ok (on visual edit view) but after I have saved the page, it seems the code is not transcluded properly. This template is designed for only single warning notification. Thanks in advance. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply, CASS, I'll get around to editing your template real soon. Swarm ♠ 02:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Hey Swarm, thank you and Cheers!. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Threatening to block me

You can’t block me when I didn’t violate any rules if you do block me I’ll make a report right is that your abusing powers by leaving threatening message on my talk page if we can discuss this in a good behavioral manor then that’s fine but don’t ever threaten me for a violation I never committed I left a message so don’t assume I’m violating rules when I left Jeff Hardy alone TheKinkdomMan talk 00:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC) TheKinkdomMan talk 00:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I’d like to retract my previous message and I’m sorry for my frustration and anger towards you TheKinkdomMan talk 01:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I will change the way I edit so please don’t block me on Wikipedia TheKinkdomMan talk 02:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Apology

I owe you an apology for blowing up on the ANI, You don’t deserve that and I should own up to my mistakes I appreciate that your helping me with the message you left on my talk page, I am sorry for the way I acted I’m grateful that you or any other administrator didn’t block me for my behavior, I hope I can learn from my mistakes when editing TheKinkdomMan talk 04:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

  • @TheKinkdomMan: No worries, I probably would have reacted the same way. It's human nature to become defensive when criticized, but I can see now that you're obviously a reasonable person and that threatening to block you wasn't necessary. Apologies if I stressed you out. Swarm ♠ 04:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

its Ok you don’t owe me an apology, it’s human nature like you said TheKinkdomMan talk 04:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

SilveriteKey

Would you mind checking out SilveriteKey (talk · contribs) edits? I don't know what is up with them, is it likely they are trying to become autoconfirmed? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

  • That's exactly what that is, good catch! Most likely a sock or a vandal trying to circumvent a protected page. I've blocked them. Thanks! Swarm ♠ 05:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Could you please explain...

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marlene A. Eilers Koenig (2nd nomination) as delete. Two of the participants in that discussion suggested Marlene A. Eilers Koenig be salted. And you did salt it.

May I ask why?

Participants were all agreed that Koenig didn't measure up to our inclusion criteria at GNG. But they seem to have all based their opinions on the references already included in the article.

Policy used to be pretty clear on this. The decision as to whether to keep or deletion is supposed to be based on whether the topic itself measures up to our inclusion criteria. If the topic is notable, a weak article should be kept, but flagged for improvement.

So, is Koenig notable? I haven't read the deleted article, but I just performed my own web search, and I have concluded that Koenig is notable, after all.

I checked Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marlene A. Eilers Koenig. King of Hearts cited WP:DELPRO, but WP:Deletion process#Deletion requested by subject says "Deletion discussions concerning biographies of living persons who are relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus to keep, may be closed as 'delete' per the deletion policy and BLP policy (request for deletion). Closers should review these policies to confirm the criteria are met, and then use their discretion."

Well Koenig has given press interviews -- which I suggest is inconsistent with being a non-public figure. With the recent Royal wedding columnists working the Royal beat quoted Koenig, deffered to her opinions, over and over again. I suggest that being one of the World's leading experts in a field is inconsistent with being "relatively unknown".

So, can you help me out, by explaining why you went the extra step of salting? Geo Swan (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

  • To be clear, the article was not deleted as "non-notable". It was deleted as an article the subject doesn't want, and which had no consensus to keep, which has been judged as a "relatively unknown, non-public figure" by a different administrator, and a consensus to keep did not remotely seem to be forming in the second discussion. Under these circumstances, it would be inappropriate for the article to be unilaterally recreated a third time without due consideration and community discussion. That is the simple reason I SALTed, but it doesn't actually address the point of contention. Is she a "relatively unknown, non-public figure"? That is, of course, the point of contention. Now, technically, it was the other admin who made that judgment call in 2013. I am not officially responsible for that. But, if you want my opinion, I agree with it. WP:BIODELETE is an obscure, oddly-specific bit of policy, but in my opinion, this is exactly the type of situation it's addressing. I think it's a huge stretch to say that when there's media buzz about a certain topic, and an academic expert in the topic gets brought into that media buzz, and gets quoted and interviewed, that they become a well known public figure. And, to reiterate, this has nothing to do with her notability. Normally, when notability is undecided, we default to keep, as you know. But, the point here is that given the lack of a "keep" consensus, we err on the side of the subject's wish to not have an article. Do you really think that this research librarian is a "well known public figure" to the degree that we should override her wish to not have an article, without any explicit community consensus saying otherwise? I don't think so. If such a consensus that she is a "well known public figure" is formed, you may of course request that the page be unprotected so that the article can be recreated. But I don't think it's reasonable to consider this person a "well known public figure" in any way whatsoever. Swarm ♠ 05:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the quick reply.
    • You wrote, above, "I think it's a huge stretch to say that when there's media buzz about a certain topic, and an academic expert in the topic gets brought into that media buzz, and gets quoted and interviewed, that they become a well known public figure."
    1. Just to be clear, did you do a web search on Koenig, so you can have a first hand opinion as to how widely cited she is?
    2. Your phrase "an academic expert in the topic gets brought into that media buzz"? I don't think that is accurate. Reporters on the Royal beat didn't turn to her for "buzz", they turned to her because she is recognized for being one of the World's foremost leading experts in her field.
    • You wrote: "Under these circumstances, it would be inappropriate for the article to be unilaterally recreated a third time without due consideration and community discussion." Okay. I am pretty confident that none of the individuals who participated in the Afd bothered to look beyond the article itself, to confirm or refute for themselves whether Koenig measured up to our inclusion standards. I am pretty confident they reached their conclusion just by looking no farther than the article itself. That is counter-policy.
    • For the record, didn't your closure say G4? If it really was G4 then wouldn't my draft only be the second, not the third? Geo Swan (talk) 06:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, I did, I got no impression that she was a ‘public figure’, but regardless, I wasn’t the one who made that judgment call in 2013. I can’t speak for the admin that did.
  • I did not mean to imply that she was only notable due to media buzz, just that the media attention she received was due to the media interest in her field, in which she is an expert, and is not sufficient to make her into a well known public figure. The attention she received was not about her directly. Again, just giving my opinion, I didn’t actually make the decision and can’t speak for the closing admin’s views.
  • The 2013 discussion that resulted in deletion was formally closed, I can’t just rewrite the closure years later. If you think that admin got it wrong, take it up with him.
  • Yes, I should have said “created a third time”, not “recreated”.
  • Apologies for the curt replies, I’m now on mobile and am leaving town. I will be off-wiki for the rest of the week. Sincerely sorry that I can’t continue to discuss this in-depth, but if you have any simple queries you can email me! The CSD is procedural as you know, and was entirely based on the 2013 discussion. My views on that close are not any kind of formal endorsement or judgment or anything. If you take issues with that close, go talk to that admin about it first, and if all else fails, you can submit the 2013 close for DRV. Or, if you’re willing to wait until I’m available on Sunday, we can jointly go to AN and see if there’s a consensus to allow the creation of a new article. I’m not a hard oppose on that possibility, I just think there should be a discussion first given the grey area we’re in. You’re allowed to go ahead and take it to AN without delay, of course, but if you don’t mind, I’d like to be able to participate so I can clarify any misunderstandings or questions as needed. Anyways, I’ll look at your reply here but I don’t think I’ll be around to comment until I return, just keep that in mind with my apologies. Take care, and I’ll check back in with you when I return! Swarm ♠ 07:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marlene A. Eilers Koenig (2nd nomination)

You deleted it per G4 but the first AFD[2] was a no consensus. Was there another AFD besides those two? I'm just curious....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

And I would like to add a residence place at her wikidata-entry Marlene A. Eilers Koenig (Q11988452), but I'm not sure which Virginia in the USA it was ? Can you help me here, to what linked Virginia in the now deleted article it was ? Here's her Blogger.com-profile. Best regards Migrant (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Not super important since the article is now deleted, but when expressed as “Virginia, USA” that would refer to the state and not a specific town. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @WilliamJE: Yeah, the previous discussion was no consensus, but the article was deleted given that the subject had requested deletion and there was no consensus to keep. First time I've run into this as well, but it's valid due to an oddly-specific bit of policy called WP:BIODELETE. Ten years here and I'm still learning about new rules that exist! And, yes, Migrant, I've double checked the deleted article for you and the link was indeed just Virginia. Swarm ♠ 04:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the explanation. I didn't know about BIODELETE either. Learn something every day and I agree with your use to close the AFD and SALT the article. If I were you, I'd have mentioned BIODELETE specifically in the close since right now the AFD closure sounds wrong. Just a suggestion. Cheers!...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to thank you for your thoughtful and well-considered comment on my talk page about 8 days ago. I won't discuss it further, other than to say, admins like you are what keep the project functioning properly. Andrevan@ 20:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
  • There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
  • It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

  • A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Quim Torra is not Spanish.

he's Catalan. he was born in Catalonia. STOP CALLING CATALANS SPANIARDS!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymoususer65783 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Advice about Economy of China

Hello, I noticed there seems to be an edit war going on between DoubleChine and DOR HK.


To resolve it, you reverted to the DOR HK version. I do not think that is the correct revision, see below for the various analysts (not just one) who place the various figures that make up the GDP as being over stated by 50%. DOR HK's version only suggests a single analyst stated that.

"My conclusion was that the real retail market at that time was half the value of the official government figure," he says. (BBC Matthew Crabbe)

"It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the growth in old China for the past year or so has been somewhere around zero — it's nothing like 6.8 percent," Straszheim said.

The business leaders I speak to invariably say 'I don't know whether China is growing at 4 percent, or 5 percent, or 6 percent. I really don't know despite having extensive business there,'" he told CNBC (Straszheim CNBC)

Scissors puts the GDP figure at less than 4 percent: Much lower than China says, but higher than the no-growth implications from external indicators like import demand or money flight. (CNBC) Billionaire distressed asset investor Wilbur Ross, meanwhile, told CNBC that he sees China's actual growth at about 4 percent on a similar basket of metrics. (CNBC)

Our estimate is growth probably about 3.5 percent versus roughly 7," said Gary Shilling, president of economic research firm A. Gary Shilling and Co. (CNBC)

I am not sure whether DOR HK is simply nationalistic -- but he insists on his version being correct (which is rather misleading and may suggest to the reader that the GDP growth is in fact 14%). The sourced content which he references to within CNBC does not say that. It says the exact opposite (that the total GDP growth was 3.5% and that the figures which comprise of it are off).


Zvtok (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2018 News

Welcome to the June 2018 GOCE newsletter, in which you will find Guild updates since the February edition. Progress continues to be made on the copyediting backlog, which has been reduced to 7 months and reached a new all-time low. Requests continue to be handled efficiently this year, with 272 completed by the end of May (an average completion time of 10.5 days). Fewer than 10% of these waited longer than 20 days, and the longest wait time was 29 days.

Wikipedia in general, and the Guild in particular, experienced a deep loss with the death on 20 March of Corinne. Corinne (a GOCE coordinator since 1 July 2016) was a tireless aide on the requests page, and her peerless copyediting is a part of innumerable GAs and FAs. Her good cheer, courtesy and tact are very much missed.

March drive: The goal was to remove June, July and August 2017 from our backlog and all February 2018 Requests (a total of 219 articles). This drive was an outstanding success, and by the end of the month all but eight of these articles were cleared. Of the 33 editors who signed up, 19 recorded 277 copy edits (425,758 words).

April blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 15 through 21 April, focusing on Requests and the last eight articles tagged in August 2017. At the end of the week there were only 17 pending requests, with none older than 17 days. Of the nine editors who signed up, eight editors completed 22 copy edits (62,412 words).

May drive: We set out to remove September, October and November 2017 from our backlog and all April 2018 Requests (a total of 298 articles). There was great success this month with the backlog more than halved from 1,449 articles at the beginning of the month to a record low of 716 articles. Officially, of the 20 who signed up, 15 editors recorded 151 copy edits (248,813 words).

Coordinator elections: It's election time again. Nominations for Guild coordinators (who will serve a six-month term for the second half of 2018) have begun, and will close at 23:59 UTC on 15 June. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are eligible, and self-nominations are encouraged. Voting will take place between 00:01 UTC on 16 June and 23:59 UTC on 30 June.

June blitz: Stay tuned for this one-week copy-editing blitz, which will take place in mid-June.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Corinne, Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Reidgreg and Tdslk.

>>> Participate in the June elections! <<<
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

CGP Grey

Unfortunately, I think the random acts of vandalism will continue on this every time the subject releases a new video/podcast/etc as they have a rather large and mischievous fan base that seems to like wrecking online systems. Not really sure what can be done about that, but thought I would let you know if you didn't already. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 03:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration request

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

If you no longer wish to receive notifications for this case please remove your name from the listing here

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 19:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Portal wars, W versus W

See this recent closure at AN3. You had encouraged these two editors to observe a voluntary mutual 1RR back in March but I wasn't sure if you thought they could be blocked for not observing it. Anyway nothing more to do for now. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC

Hi Swarm -- I emailed you a copy of my draft of the closing statement for this RfC a week ago, & haven't heard back from you about it. Did you receive it? -- llywrch (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Hey Llywrch, sorry for the delay, I've finally gotten some time to review the RfC and your assessment in depth. I think you did a great job and will endorse your reading. No criticisms or alterations on my end. Swarm ♠ 17:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The Troubles ARCA - new motion

Hi Swarm,

You are listed as a party to The Troubles ARCA request, and this is a message to let you know that a motion has now been posted.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mdann52 (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

... and the motion has passed. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 14:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Misclick?

Not a big deal, but I think you might've clicked the wrong option in responseHelper here: request is not pre-emptive so much as the page is already protected. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

  • They requested indefinite semi-protection after it had already been temporarily semi-protected...I interpreted that as a request for preemptive extension. It's possible they didn't realize the page had already been protected, but the result is the same in any case. Swarm ♠ 23:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, makes sense. I figured they'd probably not realized because 1. they're fairly new and 2. they don't mention the existing protection. But yeah, now that you explain it I see how a different interpretation is also possible--and like you said, result is the same anyway. Thanks for answering, by the way. :) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Adopt me

Hi Buddy, I am new here and wants someone who can give his knowledge to me and help me to expand wikipedia. I have seen you are currently accepting adoptees. Can you please mentor me.Kaushikdjay (talk) 07:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

mentoring

Hi.
I am not thinking about mentoring (adopting) someone, but I was just wondering, am I ready to do it? —usernamekiran(talk) 01:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Uh, I gotta be honest with you, I'm not familiar enough with your track record to give you a yes-or-no answer. I'm inclined to say that if you have to ask, you're probably not ready. But based on your experience and the fact that I don't get any bad impressions when I see you around, I'd say you should probably be capable of showing somebody the ropes by now. Only do it if you're confident in your level of knowledge and experience though. Also, the adoption program is a pretty inactive relic of the past. Unless you get a specific request from somebody to mentor them, I'd say don't bother. If you want to help newbies, WP:TEAHOUSE is where it's at! Swarm ♠ 04:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • lol. You are right :)
    Yes, I do think i am ready for mentoring, but i dont want to right now. Thanks for the reply, and honesty See you around. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Contact an admin who is familiar with the case

Special:Contributions/MayonaiseInstrument. DuncanHill (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:RPP archive

Thank you for helping archive, but note that bot usually archive threads after 2 hours (for accepted response)/6 hours (for denied response), don't archive too early. Hhkohh (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hhkohh - Editors here would take you more seriously if you had a pronounceable/normal name instead of the word salad that is currently your name, Back on point there's nothing wrong with archiving reports especially those that are clearly resolved, Go edit an article. –Davey2010Talk 22:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Davey2010 See [3], thanks! Hhkohh (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh come off it, did you even see the board?? I manually archived because the bot had been offline for two days and it was absurdly overflowing. I archived all resolved requests at once because I don’t have time to sit around and monitor the length resolved threads are sitting there, which is something that exactly nobody actually cares about. Please go find something productive to do rather than police admins who are maintaining administrative notice boards. Swarm ♠ 03:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Colors (TV channel)

Hi, can you help by redirecting Colors (TV channel) to Colors (Indian TV channel) or by redirecting both to Viacom 18? The redirect page was protected by you. Thanks! Vivek Ray (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Questions from an adoptee

hi Swarm! Recently I've been making small edits to pages' grammar and syntax, but I've run into users reverting my changes. Am I doing something wrong? Should I only re-write sections that are marked for copy-editing? Also, I was wondering if you could shed some light on how much detail I should provide. I have done pretty extensive research on herbivory's impact on grassland diversity, and I have the sources to cite, but I wonder if the Grasslands page really needs this information. Are there more appropriate places to put the results of this research or is this sort information too detailed for wikipedia? Thanks so much! I hope you're doing well. Squashbby (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Re: IP editor on Epstein

Meh. I don't object to any of your actions here. My reverts at ANI may have been slightly premature, though I am fairly confident no sanctions will result from Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's comments, and there's no other reason for this to be at ANI. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Meh indeed. No way that's an actionable complaint against HW, and you're right, so I've re-closed the thread. I think that the removal of the thread and the BOOMERANG block were too heavy-handed and premature, but perhaps my zealous defense of the IP wasn't ever a battle worth fighting, and I've just stepped in for someone who's not able or willing to contribute productively. Only time will tell at this point. Swarm ♠ 00:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser. Swarm ♠ 19:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Swarm. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser.
Message added 19:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Swarm ♠ 19:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Second opinion requested

Hi Swarm. I would like to get your opinion about using my rollback privileges to rollback a large number of misguided edits by Fronticla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If you refer to any of their edits with an edit summmary containing "WP:PEA", I think you will see that they are removing adjectives and descriptions that would otherwise not be removed under any of our content guidelines. The editor has refused to engage in any discussion and has edit warred extensively. I'm almost certain that Fronticla is headed for a block, but there is also the matter of cleaning up their mess. What do you think? - MrX 🖋 14:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Now at ANI. -- GreenC 14:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Colors (Hindi TV channel)

User:Christina74124 has asked for a deletion review of Colors (Hindi TV channel). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 18:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk page mania

Recently I've been getting into a lot of deep shit with some editors that are accusing me of vandalism, just because I don't agree with them. And when I try to prevent it, someone always starts it back up. I've tried WP:ANI and everything, I need this shit to stop so I can get back to normal editing and not having to deal with this. I have made some mistakes, but User:Bankster and User:YborCityJohn think I'm doing it on purpose. I need somebody to put an end to this. Thank you. Bang 🌑 21:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).

Administrator changes

added Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor
readded Gogo Dodo
removed Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

removed Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

  • Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
  • Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

  • Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking for an adopter

Dear Swarm,

I am looking for an adopter. Call me Sloth. I am a freelance copy editor, writer, and teacher. I have done a few edits here and there on Wikipedia (mostly simple copy edits, as I'm still "feeling my way" around the UI and the community guidelines) but I would appreciate a single voice for guidance in learning how Wikipedia works -- functionally more than organizationally for now -- and how to avoid misunderstandings and pitfalls common to the new arrival.

I have only one actual question at the moment: What is this adoption course that I see referred to? Is this a standard thing? It is mandatory? What does it consist of?

The problem I am wrestling with most often is a plethora of options for help, which tend to lead me to different understandings, or different answers, every time I look, combined with difficulty finding today what I thought I saw yesterday. A more disciplined search would probably help, but that often seems like it would take far longer, and lead farther afield, than I can afford. I can find information, but guideposts would be welcomed. If you are able and willing to help, O Swarm, I would be very grateful. Thank you for your time.

GGSloth (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

166.182.80.0/21

Can you identify what user you were trying to block here? I may have found some accounts that match a very narrow useragent that indicates they are the same as the target of your block. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

ANI thread "Block review please"

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --RexxS (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

{{Redacted}}

It's not a general wrapper template to put around wiki-marked-up content; it's a not template for short plain-text comments like "legal threat" or "personal attack". If you put anything inside it that general HTML, even ''italics'' it spits out invalid HTML and makes a mess. The way to strike a paragraph is with <s>...</s> or (depending on context) <del>...</del>, or a template that uses one of them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I saw the comment was messed up but I wasn't sure why! Swarm ♠ 08:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Commons

Well, you tried to help me, though without much success, let me now try to help you. If your goal for the whole incident was to confirm that Commons is full of shit (which btw I fully agree with), you probably found a right strategy which brought you directly to this conclusion. OTOH if your goal was to figure out whether Commons is currently a workable place - well, it is, with a few exceptions, and I believe for this goal you had a wrong starting point. An analogy would be someone trying to figure out whether the English Wikipedia is a workable environment and starting with participating in an ArbCom case. This is ok if you are not interested in Commons beyond the conclusion that it is full of shit, but if you are and you have some specific things in mind you would like to do - contact me, at one of my talk pages (preferably) or by wiki-mail, I should be able to help.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the offer, Ymblanter. I will certainly take you up on your offer should I ever need assistance at Commons. I apologize if I was too harsh over there. I try not to take these things too seriously, and I probably got more worked up than necessary over there. However, what I saw over there was a huge group of Wikipedians expressing outrage over the shit going on at Commons, and the Commons admins with their fingers in their ears, trying to drown it out. This, to me, is indicative of the problematic culture that exists over at Commons, on top of the original incident. But you saying that non-active Commons members shouldn't have a say just struck a nerve with me, because I would love to contribute to Commons, but I don't because of all the bullshit there. I've never experienced anything but rudeness and lunacy and have never had a pleasant experience there, and I know this is a perception shared by a great many users.
Anyways, good luck with the resysop controversy, I think you could have easily gotten away with this with little to no controversy had you requested the bit back earlier, but I understand the need for serious accusations to be heard. Swarm ♠ 23:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Harassment

I've just been notified of this diff on a page that I do not have watchlisted. Are you accusing me of harassment? because if you are, you're going to be justifying that slur at ANI and at ArbCom if need be. I've harassed nobody and I strongly object to your mischaracterisation of my contributions. Now, if you misspoke, I'd be content to see your attack struck. Failing that, per WP:ADMINACCOUNT, I'd like to see your justification for your actions. --RexxS (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

  • No, nor was there any other hidden implication. I hereby retract my comment and give you permission to strike or remove it as an unintended personal attack. Swarm ♠ 13:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • To be clear, all I was trying to say is that the block inherently reflected badly on you, given that you pinged the user in question to the discussion and were also making the same personal attacks at ANI. I blocked the user for what looked like obvious grudge holding, which had nothing to do with you. Of course you disagreed with the block, but you’re not uninvolved. That’s not to say I ignored your feedback, and I want you to know that you can come by here to give me good faith feedback any time. It is always welcome and appreciated. Swarm ♠ 14:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you for your measured response. In reply, I can only say that I mentioned Theklan at ANI only in the context of BallenaBlanca reverting two other editors (Iñaki LL being the other one) on the same article, for which I criticised BB. I take your point that I expressed myself strongly at ANI, and as you characterise that as a PA - even if unintended - I will accept your criticism and I apologise for making a personal attack. I'm aware that my discourse can become fiery at times, and I'll try to be more temperate in future. I am disappointed, though, that you feel I am involved in that dispute. I assure you that as a British editor of some experience and considerable age, I have no investment in either the Spanish or the Basque/Catalan positions. My guiding principle is to follow the sources, and I intervened in the ANI merely because it seemed to me that BB was complaining about misconduct that he was equally guilty of. Regards --RexxS (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, I just meant that you were "involved" as in you were both on the same side at AN/I and were making the same accusations, so you likely had a conflict of interest influencing your assessment of the block itself. I don't think you're involved in the sense that you have a personal bias in the content area; if you're involved in the content area in any way I don't know about it. That aside, I'm aware that I can be overzealous at times as well, but I try to do the right thing. If I cause a controversy, my aim is to deescalate it. Worst case scenario, I would have encouraged any uninvolved admins to take your comments into consideration and to freely review the block without the usual requirement of consulting with me, but Theklan gave me a window to quickly resolve the situation in a more moderate way (not something I expected). Regarding my threat to revoke TPA for misusing block appeal templates, it was intended to be harsh—I was taking the previous debacle surrounding their unblock requests into account—but was it maybe too harsh? It's pretty much just feedback that lets me know where the boundaries are sometimes, and that's one of the things I can definitely appreciate feedback on. I agree that BB was complaining about misconduct he was equally guilty of, and there's no easy fix in this underlying issue. I suspect it will end up at Arbcom with Discretionary Sanctions to follow. Swarm ♠ 03:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I hate to see any productive editor blocked, so I must admit to often being overly critical of admins who block when I might have first tried a warning. But it's your call, of course. I'm pleased Theklan stepped away - that ANI is poisonous but I hope it's now run its course. If it's any help, I see revocation of talk-page access as a very severe action, perhaps a last resort for blatant or chronic misuse of the talk page privilege. When an editor is blocked, it's not unusual for them to vent, or to demand an explanation. Especially for an editor who probably doesn't have English as a first language, it's possibly kinder to take those sort of requests at face value, and humour them. I agree that discretionary sanctions would be very useful in that topic area, but I could do without the drama of an ArbCom filing, and I don't know of any other way to request DS. On the bright side, an RfC has just started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography #RfC on use of Spanish regional identity in biography leads and I have some hope that an acceptable compromise may be found that takes the heat out of the dispute. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your helpful comments. It's always good to be given perspective. We agree that talk page access revocation should be a last resort, and I threatened it only because I anticipated that it would become necessary if I did not preemptively make that threat. It was probably not very appropriate to approach the situation that way, as Theklan did not end up doing anything to prove my suspicions correct. Anyway, I will keep this incident in mind going forward to avoid similar dustups. Thank you again. Swarm ♠ 00:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Sneering reply

You have a reply at User talk:WikiEditorial101#July 2018. Imho, this reply deserves some sort of action, because of WP:DROPTHESTICK and WP:IDHT. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

ANI

This seems fair enough, and thanks for this as well. Hopefully further reporting will not be necessary. --129.170.195.144 (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

You close of the block review of Clockback at WP:AN

What's the hurry? It's been less than 24 hours. Let the discussion run a while. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I would prefer at least 48 hours, if not more. Plenty of ANI discussions run to more than 48 hours. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).

Administrator changes

added Sro23
readded KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
  • Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

IP is back

Block evasion? ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 10:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I afraid they really have 500 proxys. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 10:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

YouTube

Please could you consider putting back the semi-protection, as virtually none of the IP edits has been constructive. Pending changes prevents the edits from going live, but they still have to be checked and reverted.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Done. Swarm ♠ 06:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

Hello. You may remember earlier this year you blocked Divergence5. They have returned to the Magnus Carlsen article, creating a new discussion about the same issue they edit warred over previously and making similar remarks as before ("this is not an intelligent comment"). They have also continued the ALLCAPS in edit summaries, and edit warred while telling another editor to read the associated talk page, despite not having made any edits to the talk page. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I’ll look into this as soon as I get the chance! Swarm ♠ 06:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

AGT Wikipedia Article

Hello, I have noticed that the AGT wikipedia article has added another layer of protection and I just wanted to apologize if any of that was due to any edits I created. Any information added previously from me was either from the show itself, its social media, or Goldderby.com, a fairly trustworthy website in terms of AGT information. I was watching the Road to Lives special and noticed they revealed the 3 wildcards so I decided to update that in the article. I'm not sure if it was the note I left that was the issue or the information itself but either way if I somehow unintentionally vandalized the page I am very sorry if it reflected badly on the community as a result.

This isn't really a post asking to have access to help edit the page again, this is just sort of an apology to show that no bad intentions were meant during any of my edits. I think it partially is just because of my lack of experience on this website as a whole and I'm sorry if anything I did caused every other auto-confirmed user to not be able to help edit the page as well. Thank you for making sure that the page itself is as clean as possible, I understand not wanting to clutter it with non-proven information.

Toopadoop (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi, Toopadoop, the page was protected because it had a problem with people repeatedly adding/re-adding content without sources, in spite of WP:V. Multiple users are at fault, but for what it's worth, if you are one of them, I didn't even notice, so you certainly don't have to apologize or feel like it's your fault. The page is "extended protected", which means that you need 500 edits to edit it. The good news is that you're very close to the 500 edit threshold and will be able to return to editing the article soon! If you were adding content without sources, it's okay, just learn how to include sources when it's necessary in the future, because if you don't do so, people can revert your edits. If you need help with this, see the intro to referencing, and you can ask any specific questions at our "teahouse". Feel free to ask any questions here as well! Swarm ♠ 01:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Unprotecting Gamaliel Audrey Cantika

I would like to ask for unprotection of the article Gamaliel Audrey Cantika. I have created a draft version at Draft:Gamaliel Audrey Cantika. Dieter Mueller (talk) 12:45, 10 August (UTC)

  • Hi, I would be happy to unprotect the title, but doing so to allow the creation of an unsourced BLP is not a valid reason. In its current state, your article will be automatically deleted per WP:BLPPROD. Please let me know when you have added your sources and I will unprotect. Swarm ♠ 13:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the compression of media files

Hello. I just uploaded an image for the article Tik Tok (app), but I realized that it was not compressed, and that media files must be low-resolution. What should I do? Know of any way to reduce the resolution? Is this something I should worry about in the future? Ups and Downs (↕) 03:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Never mind. I think I figured it out. Have a nice day. Ups and Downs (↕) 03:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

August GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors August 2018 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the August 2018 GOCE newsletter. Thanks to everyone who participated in the Guild's June election; your new and returning coordinators are listed below. The next election will occur in December 2018; all Wikipedia editors in good standing may take part.

Our June blitz focused on Requests and articles tagged for copy edit in October 2017. Of the eleven people who signed up, eight editors recorded a total of 28 copy edits, including 3 articles of more than 10,000 words. Complete results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Thanks to everyone who participated in the July drive. Of the seventeen people who signed up, thirteen editors completed 194 copy edits, successfully removing all articles tagged in the last three months of 2017. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are here.

The August blitz will run for one week, from 19 to 25 August. Sign up now!

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Tdslk.

>>> Sign up for the August blitz! <<<
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Clockback community block or ban?

Regarding this tag , are you sure it is correct? It appears to be a community block as I see it at AN. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying and educating me, I didn't know. This is going in The Signpost by the way. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
You’re very welcome! And interesting! I look forward to reading the article! Swarm ♠ 16:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

A complain about an anonymous user

Hi. Can you please take a look at this] the IP user who editted this is adding and removing contents in different articles. If possible, can rhis IP be blocked? Thanks Knightrises10 (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Blocked for edit warring. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan thanks Knightrises10 (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Block

Please block me. Colonestarrice (talk) 05:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Pssst...

I think you forgot to push the button.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

Hello. You may remember earlier this year you blocked Divergence5. They have returned to the Magnus Carlsen article, creating a new discussion about the same issue they edit warred over previously and making similar remarks as before ("this is not an intelligent comment"). They have also continued the ALLCAPS in edit summaries, and edit warred while telling another editor to read the associated talk page, despite not having made any edits to the talk page. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I’ll look into this as soon as I get the chance! Swarm ♠ 06:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
@Hrodvarsson: Sorry about the delay here, this is too stale to block over but I will issue a warning. Swarm ♠ 19:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
No problem. It did not escalate further and the issue appears to have been settled with the input of others anyway, but I'll let you know if something else happens (or I could file a new ANI report instead if that is preferable to you). Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
@Hrodvarsson: Feel free to let me know! Swarm ♠ 00:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Your comments at WP:GS

I know you feel strongly that a classification template is unnecessary, but could you please watch your tone? Comments such as This is ridiculous, go contribute something meaningful to the project, anything and This is a fairly sad attempt at bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy, and it's a little, well, stupid are not conducive to civil discussion. Thanks –dlthewave ☎ 20:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

You’re right, I apologize for being uncivil, and I appreciate the reminder. Although I would be lying if I said that wasn’t truly how I feel, I will keep the perjoratives to myself going forward. Swarm ♠ 20:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of message

Hi,

I saw your deletion of a message by a user named Jezzy-lam on my talk page (I hadn't responded to the message yet). Is there something I should know about this user or why you deleted the message?

Ira Leviton (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

  • @Ira Leviton: The message was part of a larger spree of disruption that the user was going on. I went through their edits and reverted as much as I could after blocking them indefinitely. In theory you can restore the message if you want, but I reverted it as nonsense/disruption. Swarm ♠ 19:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Ahh, OK thanks.
Ira

Extended confirmed protection on KSI vs Logan Paul

I see you have added Extended confirmed protection to the KSI vs Logan Paul article which now means I cannot edit or make additions as I only have auto confirmed access. I am a major contributor to the page and was wondering if there was a way to allow me to bypass the Extended protection and continue expanding the page. TheMasterGuru (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you @Swarm: for putting my article creations up for auto-patrolling. I consider it an honour to be treated as such. Much appreciated, Jamesmcardle(talk) 07:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Swarm. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 00:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

TheSandDoctor Talk 00:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

3rrnb

Just curious, but what about the 4RR vio? This gets a free pass? - wolf 09:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

  • I chose to protect instead in the hopes that the user would discuss. A one-sided block did not seem productive, and from what I can tell the user had not ever been warned, so I gave them a one-time break. Swarm ♠ 10:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Take a look at his talk page, especially before the mass-blankings. There are numerous warnings for edit-warring, disruptive behavior, "revenge reverts" leaving a page in a mess, hostile edit summaries with personal attacks, and on and on. This was a clear 4RR vio, from an unrepentant, uncommunicative user will continue with this problematic behaviour. This calls for a block, (something I learned from you, so the contradiction is baffling). The next time he does this, there will be no record of this, and it'll be treated as a first time offence, likely with the same kind of enabling type of leniency you are showing here, as opposed to users with blocks who are immediately given more, longer blocks. Just be consistent. Just enforce the rules like you are supposed to and were expected to when given the tools. I know you were involved with his indef request and exchanged friendly notes, but you are one the very few to see that side. Please do some research and take the appropriate action. Thank you. - wolf 12:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, I’m not involved, and you’re apparently misinterpreting common courtesy for sympathy for that user. I reviewed the user’s talk page and they have never been warned for edit warring. To me, page protection is preferred above blocking, particularly one-sided blocking. It takes two sides to edit war, and I would have blocked both sides had I decided to go that route. Swarm ♠|
To be clear, "involved" as in very recently interacted with in a friendly and sympathetic manner (very sympathetic as it turns out), not WP:INVOLVED, happy? I've seen you make bad blocks, now you refuse to make a good block, as in, an obvious, straight forward and certainly called for block, not only based on the obvious 4RR vio, but past, current and very likely to be on-going, behaviour. I'm not sure how hard you looked at their talk page, but they have been warned about edit-warring before. Then there were the three different editors that all encouraged this user to stop reverting this time and discuss on the talk page, which he repeatedly ignored while arguing via revert edit summaries. And, who else would you block? No one one else violated 3RR... another thing you got wrong. (Did you even look at the report? Are you sure you have the right one?) Oh, and by the way... as of this post, he still has not come to the talk page to discuss anything. At all. So, yeah... he's definitely a great candidate to hand out a free pass to. Geez, heaven forbid you say "I got it wrong", then do the right thing. - wolf 22:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Alright, well I'm sorry you very strongly disagree with my approach here. I understand what the term "involved" means, it means you're implying that I have some sort of sympathetic view of this user based on my comment "hope all is well", but frankly that's ridiculous. My only interaction with the user was a routine self-requested block that I performed in response to a request here, and I can only assume I was randomly selected from the 21 administrators who do SELFBLOCKs. Trying to tie that into some sort of frivolous accusation of admin abuse is really pretty desperate. I'd assume given your history you'd be familiar with the old cliché "it takes two sides to edit war" by now. Just because it's a 2 or 3-on-1 edit war does not change that concept, and just because you don't breach 3RR does not mean you can not get blocked for participation in a tag-team edit war. As I've said, between the possible options of page protection, a two-sided block, and a one-sided block, the one-sided block was my least preferred resolution, given that it was a very minor content dispute and a fairly new user who has never received a warning (I thought issuing a warning and then reporting them to be blocked before they violated the warning was poor form; ironically, the most recent "bad block" I've actually been called out on was for choosing to block in that situation). Furthermore, giving a user a break in a blockable situation isn't "giving them a free pass", it's still an aggravating factor that will result in a more serious block should there be evidence of future problematic behavior, as would their refusal to participate in talk page discussion during a period of full protection. Given that, this degree of anger over what is a perfectly routine preventative measure in response to an edit war is highly unusual. It comes across as a disproportionate degree of malice for what was a minor content dispute in an article. I suspect you may feel like you were deserving of such a break when I blocked you for a week for a 3RR vio, so why would this user be more deserving of such? It probably feels like an arbitrary double standard that is unfair to you. However, there are differences, mainly that you had a recent history of blocks for edit warring at the time, whereas this is a new user who has never been formally warned, nor ever reported to administrators for misconduct before this point. Anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree on this, as there is currently no preventative need to block the user, and blocking them after I have already chosen to protect the page would be an egregious abuse of the tools. Rest assured, this is a one-time break given the reasons I've outlined, and this user will not be getting away with continuing to edit war or refusing to discuss, now that they've been formally warned and given a motive to discuss. You don't have to agree with my methods, but asking me to block them now is inappropriate. Swarm ♠ 03:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Right, because blocking someone, so long after the fact, and after other admin interventions have occurred would be just "egregious" and "inappropriate". Glad we can agree on that. There is nothing "thinly veiled" here, (or at RfA, btw). I'm saying it straight up, you've made bad choices before, you've made another one here. Anything else you think that is insinuated, unspoken, percieved, intuited, or coming thru via a sixth sense is wrong. I've been very clear with my opinion here. I'm not claiming "admin abuse", I'm saying you got this wrong. And this is neither "frivolous" nor "desperate", it's sincere and, if anything, borne of frustration. There has been some disturbing inconsistencies at 3rrnb and this is just another example. You have editors trying to help the project by filling out these reports and admins wasting these editors time and effort with bad decisions. "Anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree on this." ...is about the only thing we can agree on here. I think were done now, I know I am, unless you have anything else to add? - wolf 19:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
It’s fine if you think I made a bad judgment call, but from the beginning you clearly implied that I did so because I was sympathetic to the user based on prior interactions, and used the term “involved”. That’s hard to interpret as anything other than an implication of admin abuse, and that’s what I characterized as “frivolous” and “desperate”. If you instead just want me to accept your feedback that you strongly disagree and that the user should have been blocked, feedback accepted. I’m genuinely sorry you’re upset by my response. Normally page protection is completely uncontroversial, and I had no way of knowing you’d be so outraged. As I’ve attempted to explain, it’s not the same as a free pass, and it’s not a courtesy that would be extended beyond a first report/first warning, and it will reflect very negatively on them should they demonstrate that it served no positive purpose. If the user is as disruptive as you claim, then they’re going to end up blocked sooner rather than later anyway. Sorry to disappoint you. I’ll avoid actioning administrative requests from you going forward since you clearly have a problem with me. Swarm ♠ 21:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

(I really was hoping we were dome) "Upset" and "outraged"...? No. "Disappointed"...? Yes. And you can now add "baited" to the list. I don't have a provlem with "you", I don't know you (and there's no need to personalize this). For all I know, you could be a great person IRL. I just don't care for some of the admin decisions you've made. When editors make mistakes, accountability is required. It would be nice to see that from admins as well, at least occasionally. If you see a report from me, by all means, action it, especially if I've gone to the trouble of filling it out and, that is why you have the admin tools in the first place. If you're going to avoid your responsibilities everytime it involves someone that criticized you for avoiding your responsibilities, why be an admin? Lastly, page protection can be very controversial. I'm not saying it was in this instance, but when you have disputed versions, suddenly locking one of them in for several days can just cause more problems. The problem in this case was a single editor. That should've been clear. They violated 4rr which was also clear. And with this clarity, I also want to make clear I am not acausing you of "admin abuse" or violating the policy, wp:involved. If that wasn't clear before, I hope it is now. I think you made the wrong call, and a very contradictory one. But I've also said that a half dozen times as well. So, hopefully now we are done. Have a nice day. - wolf 02:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

FWIW

The clean block log is almost certainly due to the toxic environment in the "superhero movies and TV shows" topic area; Adam and two or three of his friends are very good at getting "full" articles that they have privately drafted over the course of months in the draft space into the mainspace as soon as the films enter production, then forcing them through the GAN process very quickly after the films have come out (which is facilitated by GA reviewers' having a vested interest in passing rather than failing the articles despite obvious OWN/stability issues). They tend to defend each other against edit-warring accusations, and collectively force out outside input. It's been going on for years, and the longer it goes on the more they seem to consider it to be the "norm". I'd be as shocked as you and would probably say This is so unbelievably out of line that I cannot even believe this user maintains a clean block log. if I had not been trying to edit these articles since c2015 and running into stiff resistance from the editor in question constantly.

Admins don't like to look at this problem, it seems (Bish once told me that she just wouldn't touch superhero movie article disputes, and Drmies said something similar about a related dispute). Your final warning just now will have been a godsend if Adam finally takes it seriously.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Just so it's clear, the above is intended solely as a response to the "I cannot even believe this user maintains a clean block log" -- I too can hardly believe it, but I've had literally years to mull over it and try to figure out how this situation came about. I'm not trying to start another discussion, just clarifying. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm just going to add this here since it is about the same topic, though I have no interest in responding to Hijiri's usual complaints about me behind my back. Swarm, your comment about me is filled with misinterpretation, hyperbole, and strangely personal comments; your threat to block for something that I have not done is quite astounding. Did you not think that the fact I have not been blocked before may be because ... I never deserved to be? I just find it very strange that you are threatening to block me for ownership and being uncivil when that is exactly what I was dealing with from the other editor. This is not just my opinion, as several other editors (who I have no affiliation with and have not talked to in any other way) have also interpreted the situation in that way. In fact, the other editor finally seemed to be coming around to having a reasonable conversation on the issue before you posted your bizarre assessment. I would be especially concerned if you were swayed by Hijiri's late interjection given their penchant for attacking me with false accusations (like the rubbish about Nazis that they added to the ANI thread). - adamstom97 (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, not a discussion of Adam's behaviour; I don't know why he would want to make it such. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
By continuing to say things like that I have a "penchant for attacking me with false accusations" you are just digging yourself a deeper hole, and arguably violating your final warning. You should drop it right now. (And no, it was not "rubbish" to say you defended someone a troll just because I was I was the one they were trolling by insinuating that I was a Nazi -- Swarm knows this a lot better than you do, because of the off-wiki contact we had about the same incident; Swarm, since you arrived later and probably weren't as aware of the comments about my username as you would have been had you got involved while they were active, it's the Momoiro Clover mess that's being referred to here.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The onus is on you to understand the problem with your behavior and rectify it. The policy considerations here are fundamental and straightforward, so it’s either an ownership issue, or a competence issue. Either way, it’s way out of hand and it needs to stop. I’m not going to argue with you about whether there’s a problem. We’re way past that point. This has gone on too long. Swarm ♠ 12:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not arguing anything, I'm just trying to work out what's going on. It's pretty shocking to go from a seemingly well-respected and valued member of the community with good working relationships with most editors I've come across to being told that I could be blocked at any time. Since this has all happened because I asked an editor to discuss their bold change before implementing it, is it worth me even trying to dispute edits moving forward? - adamstom97 (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not "most editors you've come across" -- it's most editors who can stand to put up with you for more than one or two reverts. And you could have been blocked at any time before now: hence why others can be so surprised that you haven't been. You have violated our edit-warring policy countless times, and even breached the "bright line" of 3RR more than enough times to justify a block (enough times being once). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I explained the problem in great detail, including the specific disconnects between your behavior and policy, in that large paragraph I wrote at ANI, so you have no excuse to claim you have no idea what the problem is. For the record, I see the offense here as being very severe and feel you’re already firmly in lengthy block territory, and you were issued a warning as a courtesy, because I’m assuming you’re competent enough to knock it off. But, should you violate the warning, I will not hesitate further. The disconnect from the disruptive behavior you’re attempting to portray is not going to help your case. Yes, your communication is mellow and reasonable, but it doesn’t match up with the way you’ve actually been behaving. Your commentary here does not strike me as being any different from your commentary throughout the whole ordeal. You’re apparently unable or unwilling to understand straightforward points that are being made to you. That comes across as being either willfully manipulative or incapable of effective communication. If you honestly believe that you’re in good standing after the conduct I’ve witnessed, you’re deluding yourself. Serious changes are needed. If you don’t want to get blocked, simply read up on the relevant policies cited at WP:ER/UC and in my ANI response, steer clear of the behaviors described there and you will not breach the warning. You’re not going to be blocked for being involved in good faith disputes. All this means is that competent policy adherence is going to be enforced going forward. Swarm ♠ 13:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I hope you are keeping an eye on the discussion at the Ant-Man and the Wasp talkpage, where this warning was largely dismissed as the opinion of one editor and Aeusoes1 was again warned his edits would be reverted because they're not well written. The discussion at ANI took place over the weekend and I didn't see it until after it was closed, or I would have offered my own experience with garbage reversions and ownership behavior on that same article.[4] That said, the notion that Aeusoes1 has to get individual approval/consensus for what amount to basic copyedits (or else be reverted) and that a RFC is required for some plot summary wording changes seems to pretty well suggest that nothing has changed. Grandpallama (talk) 11:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, yeah. I stupidly tried reasoning with him, but when you put it like that demanding an RFC for a change to the wording of a plot summary where Adam doesn't seem to want to say what his specific problem is beyond "almighty BRD" does seem extremely excessive, and is almost definitely a violation of yesterday's "final warning". I've been encountering IDHT from this user since roughly April 2015, so I fully expected to see that kind of response to this warning, but managed not to say as much until after someone else did. I'd say at this point a short block is in order; he's caused enough disruption to merit a site-ban, but given his clean block log it may just be that no one has ever told him no, and he might improve if given a short block. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
BTW, Swarm, the diffs are here and here. And sorry, I didn't want to message you about this after having inadvertently invited drahms onto your page yesterday when trying to provide historical background, and also pinging you on that other, loosely related, discussion. I just decided to chime in after someone else did. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
It's clearly a violation of the warning that was just given. If adamstom97 feels the RfC is needed, he can open it and ask about Aeusoes1's edits. Telling Aeusoes1 that they have to open the RfC, submit all their proposed changes, and then get "approved" to add those edits to the article (or else be reverted) is exactly the behavior that resulted in the ANI report in the first place and that adamstom97 was told to cease. The only objections to the edits that have been raised have been about the writing quality and how encyclopedic they are, which seem spurious to me, given both my own experience with adamstom97's command of grammar and from a look at the proposed changes which are all perfectly sound and reasonable. (I'll also now quit bombarding your talkpage with drama.) Grandpallama (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I mean, I think I’ve made it sufficiently clear to Aeusoes1 that they’re free to implement their edit and that if Adam continues to exhibit ownership behavior that he would be blocked. Adam literally does not have to agree with me or listen to me. I can’t force him to. Based on his talk page comments, he doesn’t want to, and that’s fine. I’m not going to block him for just saying he doesn’t agree with me. He’s been made aware of where the line is drawn and what the consequences will be. But if Aeusoes is going to continue to engage with Adam and attempt to work with his demands, that’s his prerogative. I think it’s bizarre that he filed that complaint and now is continuing to attempt to satisfy Adam, but if he doesn’t care, why should I? Swarm ♠ 12:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Based on the ANI discussion, I see an implied narrative that I'm using ANI to get my way in a content dispute. The benefit of an RfC is that it prevents the appearance of impropriety. An editor shouldn't have to fight overwhelming scrutiny every time they want to make minor edits, but that bridge has already been crossed in this instance and several well-meaning editors have already suggested an RfC. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
@Aeusoes1: You should proceed as you feel most comfortable, but Swarm has made clear that the outcome of the ANI discussion means your bold edits were fine, and that the decision to proceed with engaging this as an RfC is also entirely your choice. And while I'm not a fan of keeping ANI discussions open for extended lengths of time, I do think the fact it all occurred during the weekend and was closed so quickly meant that other voices who might have spoken up in support of your edits (and perhaps in confirmation of having had similar experiences) didn't see the discussion until it was over. So the sentiment you reference may not be as representative of overall sentiment as you think.
I also feel like the subsequent statement that your edits will be reverted if you don't get the RfC endorsement is already a violation of the terms Swarm set out regarding ownership behavior, collaboration, and references to a non-existent "policy" that changes to existing text are not generally permitted, but I guess that statement wasn't far enough over the line to prompt action at this time. Grandpallama (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
So when I was told that I am still allowed to dispute edits, that was not the case? I am actually not allowed to ask to have a discussion about something? To be clear, I am asking for an RfC on the matter to try and get more eyes on the issue (as it seems to me that more people who are not regularly editing an article get involved with discussions when they are formatted as an RfC) to avoid it being a me vs. them argument as that is not helping and has only caused more strife. If there are more opinions than just mine being expressed then hopefully people will stop claiming that I need to approve their changes to the article and will instead focus on actually discussing the change. If I was wrong and I am actually not allowed to dispute this edit without being blocked then that is what I came here to find out in the first place. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
You once again disputed the edits without providing specific objections, and indicated that you would continue to revert without doing so. Had Aeusoes1 ignored your comment and implemented their edit again, and had you reverted again without providing specific objections, as you declared you would, you would be blocked right now. The user is not under any obligation to comply with continuing ownership behavior, but if they want to spend their time getting a pre-consensus that isn’t required, that’s up to them. I’m not sure if you would truly ignore the warning and willingly get blocked over this, but Aeusoes is unwilling to put you into that position, and for that you should be grateful. Swarm ♠ 19:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
This is literally what I said: I stand by my right to revert your bold change because I believe it is written worse than the current summary and in a way that is not appropriate or professional enough for Wikipedia. I ask, again, that you go ahead and open the RfC so that we can get the view of the community and not be governed by the biased opinions of just a few. I very clearly stated my objection to the edit, and I in no way indicated that I would continue to revert without explanation. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the problem here is not "reverting without explanation". It's "reverting without citing specific objections". "Specific objections" refers to clear, individual, policy-based points of contention, rather than vague, general, non-policy-based complaints such as "it's written worse". That's not a valid reason for preventing another user from making bold edits in good faith. This is a clear indication of continuing ownership behavior. I had no intention of policing or micromanaging that discussion, and assumed that you would simply get your act together, but the complete lack of any understanding or reasonable conduct is incredibly concerning. It really does appear that you're pushing the boundaries as far as possible. Swarm ♠ 22:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I would agree that "it's written worse" is not a valid argument if someone is making a change based on a policy or even a guideline, but it is completely reasonable if the other argument is "it's written better". Do you seriously want me to ignore any edits that I believe are arbitrarily making the encyclopaedia worse? Especially when all I'm asking is for the wider community to discuss whether they find value in the changes or not. If others agree that the new version is better, I am not going to stand in the way of it being implemented. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

(←) Yet again, a perfectly reasonable comment at face value, that doesn't actually match up to the reality of the situation at all. Aeusoes1's explanation for his edit was not "it's written better". It's actually broken down and explained in excruciating detail in the "Proposed changes" section. The fact that you're completely disregarding that explanation and falsely claiming that the only explanation provided was "it's written better" is a textbook sign of disruptive behavior. Swarm ♠ 23:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The only explanation he has given is a 1000 word-long, multi-sectioned WP:WALLOFTEXT, and I am the unreasonable one? My instinct is that the user was being completely genuine and not intentionally disruptive when they wrote that comment, but then again they have reported me to ANI twice based on the same misunderstanding with no evidence to support their false accusations, and I have been through enough personal abuse on Wikipedia in the last year to know when it is time to take a step back. The only reason I am still pushing on with this dispute is that I am reluctant to give up on an issue because of the way others are treating me in fear of setting a bad precedent. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Wow, Adam, are you serious? First you impede the user for not having any reason for implementing the changes, hammering them over and over again for “making changes for changes sake”, and when they provide a detailed rationale for their changes, you continue to impede the user, only suddenly it’s because the user’s rationale is a “wall of text”. That “wall of text” was literally only written because you were claiming that the user had no reasons for their edits, and the second they provided their reasons you moved the goal posts, while still failing to present any specific reasonings for the dispute you’ve forced with that user. This is some of the most uncollaborative, unreasonable conduct I’ve ever witnessed. When I reviewed the AN/I report, I hoped a warning would be sufficient. Now I’m beginning to think that I was wrong. Swarm ♠ 02:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Adam, why would you think this revert with this edit summary was appropriate under the circumstances? At the time you made that edit, the RFC (disregarding the pre-RFC discussion, where an overhwelming majority favoured "slave") had 8 for "slave" and 5 against, and of those five two were "weak" and two more were you and your frequent owning tag-team partner F1F93. Had you said "wait for the RFC to close", that might have been reasonable, but you made a comment that was completely out of touch with the reality of the situation, which seems to indicate that you intend to continue, going forward, claiming consensus is on your side regardless of whether it actually is or not. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
When I checked the talk page before making that revert (it was in this state at that time) there were five editors pro-"slave" and seven editors against. That sounds like "no clear consensus" but leaning away from slave to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
No, it was in this state (and even had it not been, you could have assumed Capriaf was for "slave" given that it was them you were reverting), and those for "slave" were Aeusoes1 (who didn't express an opinion in the RFC question as they are not allowed but you knew their opinion perfectly well and they also posted this), Adamfinmo, Argento Surfer, Isaidnoway, *Treker, SarekOfVulcan, Robertgombos and Capriaf (eight editors), with those opposed being you, Markbassett, SassyCollins, DonIago (weak), DonQuixote (weak) and Favre1fan93 (six editors, of whom two were "weak"). You seem to be including TriiipleThreat based on the assumption that since he always sides with you and F1f93, which may be a reasonable reading of his comment, but he didn't actually say as much, and had I said what you just did I would no doubt be accused of "assuming bad faith" or some such. You also seem to have left out both Aeusoes1 and *Treker because their !votes weren't bolded. This kind of "creative" interpretation of "consensus" is a perfect example of your disruptive editing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
BTW, there was already, before the RFC being opened, a clear majority in favour of "slave", with Aeusoes1, Capriaf and Adamfinmo supporting the change and only you with your typical "status quo" argument and DonQuixote making a very weak "the film uses the word slave but that might be figurative, and because of that the burden is on those wanting to use the word" argument. And now that the RFC is open with a clear consensus in favour of the change, you are still demanding that no change be made until the RFC has been closed. This is exactly what Swarm warned you about. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I am honestly so sick of your nonsense Hijiri. I don't know how you keep getting away with treating me and others that you don't like as absolute trash, but congratulations, it's working. I really don't want to be here any longer, but seeing as how no one elae is going to defend me...
I looked at the talk page, in the state that it was in (not the state that you want it to have been in), I counted up the bolded votes that I could see (without any of your creative counting) and I used that to inform the edit summary as I reverted an edit that needed to be reverted—if I had changed a page to my preferred version in the middle if an RfC, you know that you would have gone absolutely off at me for ownership and disruptive editing and all sorts of other stuff because of just how much you hate me, but as soon as I do it in a calm and objective way you are on me like I killed someone. Are you intentionally stalking my edits, looking for the first sign of something that you can twist into a blockable offence? - adamstom97 (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I am not "intentionally stalking your edits"; I just glanced at your contribs following the final warning (and your attacks on me further up this thread) and the first two things you did were violations.
Swarm, would you mind blocking Adam for the above? Expecting me to put up with I am honestly so sick of your nonsense Hijiri. I don't know how you keep getting away with treating me and others that you don't like as absolute trash is completely inappropriate, and accusing me of "creative counting" when he's the one ignoring independent opinions if they aren't expressed in the form of bolded !votes is just plain wrong.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Seriously? You have been calling myself and several editors names and throwing unsupported accusations at us throughout this thread (for instance, see why this thread was started in the first place...)! These are blatant personal attacks, and are in line with the behaviour that you yourself just asked me to remove from my user page citing WP:POLEMIC. This is not new behaviour as you know that you go to the talk page of most editors that I have disputes with to complain about "those MCU editors" or "those superhero movie editors". And now you have basically admitted to WP:HOUNDING with the obvious intention of pushing me until you can get me blocked here. If I do get blocked for being blatantly abused and harrassed by an editor who has made no effort to hide their dislike for me and multiple other editors then that will be outrageous. You cannot treat someone like this, on Wikipedia or otherwise. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Kindly retract the above bogus accusations of name-calling, "throwing unsupported accusations" (I opened this thread to answer a question Swarm had posed, and did so in a perfectly civil manner) and POLEMIC. Accusations made without evidence are personal attacks. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
You're happy to dish it out, but as soon as someone calls you out on your abusive behaviour it is "don't expect me to put up with this" or "retract that". The very first paragraph of this thread is full of your own twisted opinions referring to other editors as "toxic", saying "they" do this and "they" do that (which is what you brought up POLEMIC for at my talk page), and adding that we "collectively force out outside input". Made-up nonsense, just because you haven't been able to get your way a few times. And how else would you expect someone to take the comment "your frequent owning tag-team partner"? You can't just say stuff like that about people because you know that retaliation from them will get them blocked. Regardless of what happens to me, you should be ashamed of the way you so blatantly put others down just because there are some editors who are willing to revert you and make you actually discuss issues at a talk page. I mean, seriously, "trying to provide historical background"? Why don't we bring up the time that you tried to stop a GA review from going through simply because you don't like me, and were only prevented when another editor told you to cut it out. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I explicitly said I was not going to ask you to strike Alex's personal attack against me from your talk page (which was unprovoked and unwarranted). You are talking about a comment I made on another user's talk page in answer to a question he had posed. None of this has anything to do with POLEMIC; the comparison would only be kinda-sorta-notreally valid if Swarm took my comment and added it to his user page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I've had enough of this. I don't know you Swarm, but I believe that in general you must be a fair and reasonable editor otherwise you would not be an admin. I don't know if you have some sort of personal problem with me, but the fact that you keep ignoring my arguments and are being swayed by the lies of others tells me that I just need to walk away from this page. I will also attempt to avoid Hijiri and their atrociously abusive behaviour, but given they keep following me around I'm sure that will be unsuccessful. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't edit articles in my wheelhouse, would be the best way to avoid me "following" you, except that almost all the articles you edit are in my wheelhouse. MCU movies are about the only big-budget Hollywood blockbusters I never wait to see on DVD or Netflix (at least since real world financial troubles made it difficult for me to watch every new movie that came out, something I used to make a habit of doing). Accusing people of "following you" when they just happen to have similar interests to you would be a gross personal attack by itself, but combined with the fact that you showed up on an ANI thread that didn't concern you, something you had never done before, just to undermine me indicates a pretty outrageous double standard. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Goes to see why that would have happened, reads the first line of the edit... adamstom97 (talk) 03:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
You made a disruptive comment clearly motivated by your prior negative interactions with me, totally contradicted by the actual state of affairs on the page in question (the following topic bans and ArbCom blocks support this), and made an excuse about how you were already on ANI for your own reasons. It's still hounding (singling out of one ... [editor] and joining discussions ... they may edit ... in order to repeatedly ... inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating ... annoyance[5]). You should not have done it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Yet again, Adam, you're ignoring the fact that I'm directly responding to your arguments in an attempt to get you to see reason and falsely claiming that you're making arguments which are being ignored. I do not wish to block you indefinitely, I'm literally pleading with you to recognize the problem here. Swarm ♠ 16:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Swarm/Archive_13&oldid=1045689684"