User talk:Swarm/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Okay, silly question...

How do I get my userpage to be cooler? I can't seem to do anything besides put one userbox on top of another. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 23:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Swarm, Also... another silly question: Do you think I have enough experience to be a WP:rollbacker? I know you generally handle those sorts of things. Cheers! ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 14:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@MattLongCT: So, I'm not a userspace design expert by any means. What little customization I do have has been ripped off of other users over the years! I would say the very fundamental aspects, in my personal opinion, are organized userboxes, and a picture. Beyond that, it all depends on how in-depth you want to go. I made a header, and a list of quick links. You can see the above section for instructions on how to customize the way your user page title displays. Most of my userspace is utilitarian, but in the past, I had a ton of userboxes, interesting photos, a collection of on-wiki quotes that I had saved. But if you really want to get into it, you can look at Worm That Turned's user page, which is heavily customized. I don't know how he did that, but I imagine that you can get something really impressive just by copying his code and tinkering with all the different parameters! My approach: scan around and rip off what you like! To answer your second question, yes, in terms of baseline experience, you're already qualified for Rollback. However, Rollback is reserved for experienced recent changes patrollers, who have demonstrated the ability to correctly screen for and revert vandalism, and appropriately warn users. We need to see that you can differentiate between vandalism and good faith disruptive editing, revert with appropriate edit summaries, issue appropriate warnings. If you'd like to get involved, see WP:RCP and WP:CVU. It's really not difficult for most people, and if you take a day or two to demonstrate experience with anti-vandalism patrol, I'd be happy to grant you Rollback, and Pending changes reviewer as well! ~Swarm~ {talk} 04:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Btw, if you have any specific ideas for your userpage and you're just not sure how to implement them, let me know and I'll be happy to assist. ~Swarm~ {talk} 04:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

swarm, Oh my gosh that is so helpful!! I'm really trying to diversify my on-wiki experiences. Though, I am already a pending change reviewer. I'll be taking on the task of monitoring WP:RCP when I get home. Thank you again, Swarm!! ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 17:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Swarm, alright. Would you mind taking a look at my edits? I think I did some decent anti-vandalism stuff. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 21:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@MattLongCT: Looks fine, I'll go ahead and grant Rollback. That said, it looks like you're going most of your editing manually. Have you tried Twinkle? It makes a lot of things easier, including reverting, issuing templates, warnings and welcomes, making reports to admins, tagging articles, nominating them for deletion, etc. Highly recommend. ~Swarm~ {talk} 10:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Swarm, Oh my gosh!! this was the coolest thing I have done! It is so much more efficient!! I've been meaning to check out twinkle, though. I just have to get a handle on it. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 15:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@MattLongCT: Haha I know right? It's amazing. Don't get me wrong, I also started off editing manually, and I being able to do so is a fundamental ability that any decent editor needs to master first, before they start using scripts. But it makes it so much easier. You can enable plenty of other helpful tools like this from the "gadgets" page (in preferences). There is also an extended list at Wikipedia:User scripts/List. I actually don't use too many, but you may find a few others that would be helpful. ~Swarm~ {talk} 00:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

AE – Sarah Jeong

IPs are back to vandalizing the article. Would it be worth restoring WP:ECP for this? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, between the vandalism and the recent talk page comments, there is clearly still an issue, as expected. ECP reinstated indefinitely. ~Swarm~ {talk} 01:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Revdeletion

Hi! I saw that you revdeleted the history of Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women – a page I have watchlisted because of the CCI for the author(s). But I'm not immediately seeing where any copyvio has been removed; what am I missing? Best regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Justlettersandnumbers: Hey! See #Thanks, and a request. FKC is cleaning up their own copyvios, I'm just handling the revdel side of things. If you want the specifics, you'll have to ask them. But, feel free to restore revisions as needed so FKC can show you the diffs. Hope all is well! ~Swarm~ {talk} 14:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Swarm – of course a clean-up is very good news. Could I suggest, however, that there should be some sort of trail left of what's been done? Perhaps if FreeKnowledgeCreator would identify the source(s) of the copied material in each case, one of you could then leave a {{cclean}} on the relevant talk-page? Happy to help with this if needed. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: Okay, that sounds perfectly reasonable to me and I'm willing to do what I can. But, speaking pragmatically, as you can see, we already have a huge number of requests actioned. I'm honestly not sure how feasible it will be to go through every single article again and sift out the source of the original copyvio. Maybe FKC can do it, I'm not sure, but it seems like a fairly large task. ~Swarm~ {talk} 06:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

No need, but thank you.

For what it's worth the feeling is genuinely mutual. To find myself in disagreement with you...the realisation hit me that perhaps I wasn't being as clear or cogent as I ought to have been. Or like to think myself as! For myself, I'm just sorry if I came across as an officious tosser; have noted the pressure-cooker environment I then did bugger-all to lower the temperature with my replies. I hope you're keeping fine, Swarm—cheers. ——SerialNumber54129 18:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Serial Number 54129: Thanks, I appreciate that. I completely feel the same on my end. Your reply is a weight off my shoulders. Getting overly worked up and playing into the escalation of such "pressure-cooker environments" is not ideal, and rationally, I would like to say that I am already above that, but apparently this is one of my many flaws that I have yet to fully eradicate. That said, unpleasant incidents like this are important reminders of the areas I can improve on as an editor, administrator, and person. Sometimes, that's just how we learn. A less experienced Swarm would have implemented the indef unilaterally rather than arguing about it in a discussion, and I'm not going to say I wasn't tempted to, but I've done that sort of thing before, and I've learned that escalating such a situation is not fun or beneficial for anyone, much less the project. I did still let my passion get the better of me, but progress is progress. I'll see you around, Serial Number, and I look forward to our paths crossing on friendlier terms. All the best, ~Swarm~ {talk} 05:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Most Subscribed Youtuber Talk Page section merger

In your full protection statement last night you said that we should have a single discussion. That has not happened and instead people are making spam edit requests and the page looks like spaghetti . IDK if this is necessary but can you give me permission to blank some of these sections and create only 1 talk section about this page convict. BMO4744 (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I am going to do it at 6:00 ust because it is just a hot mess.BMO4744 (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• I planned on cleaning up the talk page, but I’m on mobile and it’s too difficult to do it on a phone. I was gonna consolidate all the protected edit requests into a single section and remove the templates, and then collapse them with {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}. They are spammy and annoying, but I don’t think outright blanking is permissible under WP:TPO. Feel free to to do this task for me, alternatively, they can be archived. Thanks for your help! ~Swarm~ {talk} 17:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I have cleaned up. I am going to combine the discussion later. IDK how to merge all the different threads into 1 but I will probably just create 1 feed and ask people to only use that feed. BMO4744 (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Life of Tau: Please actually read what I said before becoming hostile, and @BMO4744: I specifically explained the forms of cleanup that would be appropriate, and I specifically said that blanking isn't permissible by policy. So I'm not sure why you misrepresented what I said and wrongly claimed you had permission to blank comments. That sort of thing can get you into hot water. Thank you for trying to help out, and thank you Tau for correctly restoring, makes it easier on me. ~Swarm~ {talk} 22:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

PewDiePie

T Series passed PewDiePie so I don’t know y you change it they passed him for 8 minutes they should be recognized as the most subbed channel unblock It RomanReignsHEEL (talk) 05:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Please read the talk page. ~Swarm~ {talk} 06:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

T Series should be recognized as the most subbed channel fix it or unprotected the page if you don’t do it I’m giving you until 8:40 PM Feb 24 Eastern Stantard Time,24 hour to fix it From Romanreigns heel RomanReignsHEEL (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Replied on your talk page. ~Swarm~ {talk} 02:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

ACC tool access approved

Thank you for your interest in returning to the account creation team. I have verified that you have signed the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information and reactivated your account.

You may now access the interface here. Before you begin handling requests, please ensure you have read and understood the account creation guide and username policy as there have been changes since you were last active. As always, if you have any questions, please ask, and if in doubt on a request, it is always best to ask questions or to unreserve it.

Please also remember to resubscribe to the ACC mailing list before handling any requests. Please pay special attention to the instructions for verifying your on-wiki identity using Special:EmailUser.

Finally, if you'd like access back to our IRC chat channel (#wikipedia-en-accounts ^connect), please join #wikipedia-en-accounts-unreg ^connect, and I or another channel operator will get you set up with access again.

Please don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. Again, welcome back! — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Awesome, thanks JJMC89!! I look forward to getting back involved, and I will definitely take my time in re-reviewing the pertinent information. I'll have to retrain myself to use IRC, but I will join the channel so I can consult with others when needed. Is the channel active? I remember back in the day, we'd sit in the IRC chat and wait for the requests to come in. When one did, we'd get a ping, and it was a rush to be the one to reserve the request first. If you weren't in the IRC, you had no chance of catching any of the requests. How things have changed! ~Swarm~ {talk} 02:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  That happened when the backlog was under control. With our current backlog there isn't a need to wait for new requests. The channel isn't too active but there's often some people around to answer questions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  @JJMC89: Hey, my email is "banned" from the mailing list lol. Can you fix this? ~Swarm~ {talk} 22:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  

  The entire domain was banned due to a period of list subscription spam. I've removed the ban. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  @JJMC89: Thanks, but now, when I try to subscribe, I get a message saying "You must GET the form before submitting it." What does that even mean?! ~Swarm~ {talk} 22:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  I've never see that before. I just did a test subscription, and it worked fine. Could you try again? If it doesn't work, then just do the EmailUser part and I'll subscribe you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  @JJMC89: Huh, I tried it multiple times before and got that same error message, but when I just tried it again, it did work. Weird. Anyway, I've subscribed and sent the verification email. Thanks for all your help. ~Swarm~ {talk} 00:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  I haven't received your subscription request. Did you receive the confirmation email from mailman? — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  Oh, I didn't realize I needed to confirm. Done now. ~Swarm~ {talk} 00:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oh, and you can send the subscription fee payment directly to me. ᴵᵗˢ ʷᵒʳᵗʰ ᵃ ᵗʳʸ SQL^{Query me!} 02:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Okay, I can't figure out IRC, it's been too long and it's too confusing. ~Swarm~ {talk} 07:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

United States

You clearly haven’t seen Talk:United States#New York or New York City in the Infobox? as well. IWI (chat) 09:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Huh? There's no formal, or even informal, consensus in that discussion. But, it appears that more people seem to favor "New York City" over "New York", so I'm not sure what you're getting at. ~Swarm~ {talk} 09:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I know, but this proves what the status quo was during the ongoing discussion. So Castncoot was edit warring against status quo, something I think you missed. IWI (chat) 15:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I respect you as an editor but you have definitely made an error. IWI (chat) 21:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The user's immaturity is highlighted as he has removed my comment from his talk page twice and won’t discuss with me. He is circumventing policies and guidelines to get his way (e.g. he has every right to remove my comment, but it’s not exactly a civil thing to do to someone trying to resolve a dispute) and I don’t know how to resolve this and I would like some guidence before I go to noticeboards. IWI (chat) 01:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) IWI, you should just let this go. Castncoot is completely within their rights to remove your posts from their talk page and repeated attempts to discuss those removals, either on Castncoot's talk page or elsewhere, is only going to get you into trouble.--regentspark (comment) 02:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, would you be able to remove my templateeditor rights.

Hello,

I would like for my templateeditor rights to be removed. I won't need them anymore and so for security it will be better if one less account has the rights.

Thanks, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Dreamy Jazz, that's a thing people do? You really don't need them... so you are giving them up? (talk page stalker) ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 18:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

MattLongCT, yes. I am becoming semi-retired, so won't use them. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Dreamy Jazz, oh... that's unfortunate. Just so you know, that is a loss for the project. :') ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 19:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Will reply on your talk page. ~Swarm~ {talk} 08:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...

"My sole purpose here is to help."
... you were recipient no. 1866 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

We give thanks, we give thanks ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk)

• @Gerda Arendt: Thank you very much! I can't believe it's been a year already! It was a great honor to have been recognized this way in the first place, and to have such an anniversary recognized is humbling. ~Swarm~ {talk} 08:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, it was meant to be uplifting, not humbling ;) - I made "we give thanks" my motto for 2019, so can't thank enough. Did you notice Ray's Rules? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Administrator changes

Evad37

There'sNoTime

Alex Shih • Brian • Mushroom • Nakon • Oscarthecat • PeruvianLlama • Ragib • Reaper Eternal • Rossami • Tom

Interface administrator changes

Evad37 • Galobtter

Ritchie333

CheckUser changes

There'sNoTime

Keegan • Ks0stm

Oversight changes

There'sNoTime

Ks0stm • Sphilbrick

Guideline and policy news

• The RfC on administrator activity requirements failed to reach consensus for any proposal.
• Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.

Technical news

• A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
  • paid-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
  • checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2019 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Base, Einsbor, Jon Kolbert, Schniggendiller, and Wim b.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Swarm. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 23:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Adoption

I was wondering if you were still adopting. If so, can you adopt me? NerdyKaiExpo (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sure. If you have any questions, let me know. Is there anything in particular you're interested in getting involved with? ~Swarm~ {talk} 04:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I was just wondering if you could teach me some of the basics on how to do most of the things on Wikipedia like Infoboxes and other stuff on Wikipedia pages. NerdyKaiExpo (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• @NerdyKaiExpo: Alright. Well, let's start with the basics. Infoboxes are a little advanced. For a basic introduction on how to edit, see The Wikipedia Adventure. Once you've completed it, you can let me know what you're still confused on, and we can get into infoboxes. ~Swarm~ {talk} 23:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I finished The Wikipedia Adventure. NerdyKaiExpo (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• @NerdyKaiExpo: Awesome! Are you feeling comfortable with the basics of editing, or was there anything you're still unsure about? ~Swarm~ {talk} 18:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I’m pretty comfortable with the basics, and as of right now I havn’t run into anything to difficult but I will come and ask if I do find something. NerdyKaiExpo (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good! Remember to indent your posts when you're replying! Did you still have any questions about infoboxes? ~Swarm~ {talk} 18:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah do you need to have all of the information filled into the Infobox in order for it to be considered a “complete” Infobox? NerdyKaiExpo (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

How do you do the pushpin picture things for Infoboxes? NerdyKaiExpo (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

You absolutely do not need to have all of the information filled out. Virtually no infobox does! Whatever is necessary, appropriate, and/or achievable will always suffice. Now, I'm not sure what you mean by "pushpin picture". Can you show me an example? ~Swarm~ {talk} 06:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Go to the article Charlotte, North Carolina and look in the Infobox. NerdyKaiExpo (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Are you referring to the buttons, where you can switch between the maps? @NerdyKaiExpo: ~Swarm~ {talk} 02:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but I want to do it with different pictures not maps. NerdyKaiExpo (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, that infobox parameter is specifically for maps. As far as I know, there's no precedent for using pushpins to switch between general images. We instead use image galleries. However, you may wish to ask at WT:INFOWATCH, they may be able to expand on this subject. ~Swarm~ {talk} 20:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Noticed your changing signatures

~~Swarm~~{talk}

Hi Swarm,

I've noticed you changed your signatures over the past few weeks. The current one (since last month) only had 2 tildes, so this one above is the same as current, but now with the standard 4 tildes, as noted. How does it look now?

~~AirTSC~~{talk}

• Yeah, I actually had been using the four tildes as a tribute to another user who inspired me to become involved here, who used the four tildes in their sig. I initially adopted this one simply because a user dropped by and suggested this design (they had also noticed me changing sigs). It pained me to drop the four tilde concept, but when I tried the new design with the extra tildes, I realized I liked the smaller, more minimalist design. Part of the reason I kept changing my sigs was because I kept feeling like it was too aggressive, and when I tested this sig with the extra tildes, I still felt that way. This one, for whatever reason, doesn't make me feel like that, so I like it better. Thanks for stopping by though! ~Swarm~ {talk} 20:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

There ain't any Copyvio

Dear Friend, Please look at [1] and help to xplain to Rossguill that there ain't any Copyvio because the text can be used freely via the OTRS decision. Thank you for everything.Borgatya (talk) 12:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• It was just a mistake. No big deal. ~Swarm~ {talk} 21:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding my current ban

I was wondering if I am allowed to use {{Edit request}} to make edits to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Or is that disruptive as well? The reason why I am asking is this. Wikipedia has "Blocks may be used to enforce bans" but the page does not reflect the updates that the WMF staff had. Awesome Aasim 17:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

PS you may remember me as UpsandDowns1234. Awesome Aasim 17:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Awesome Aasim: Hey! So, in general, I think you should steer clear of making edit requests for policies and guidelines, because you agreed to "refrain from unnecessary edits or participation in the Wikipedia namespace or in any Wikipedia meta-processes", unless "related to the uncontentious improvement of articles". That's pretty straightforward. Of course, we can be reasonable and hear you out if you think there's a very good reason to make an exception. What exactly is the issue you need to raise? ~Swarm~ {talk} 21:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Maybe you can update my username on WP:ER/UC but that's it. I have no plans to appeal my sanctions right now because they are ensuring that I am only making encyclopedia-improving edits and because I now have a better understanding on how policy-related edits are disruptive. Awesome Aasim 22:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Btw, good job keeping out of trouble. Hope all is well! ~Swarm~ {talk} 21:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Adoptee Report: Gaming the system from YCTiberius

Page: User:YCTiberius/sandbox

Guideline: WP:GAME

Relevant Links: Special:Diff/886522752

Comment: Clear gaming the system by making 10 sandbox edits to get user autoconfirmed. I recently posted to WP:AN/I, so I don't want to make another post there at the moment. I figured I would submit this to you since you're my adopter. Thank you, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Swarm. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.MPS1992 (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

YGM

Hey, Swarm. Please check your email; you've got mail! There is no subject line.
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Missed the point

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Concerning further proposals: You appear not to have understood the nature of the objections at all. WP:Process is important; we have WP:VPPOL for a reason, and we have WP:AN for a reason, and they are very different reasons. An order of magnitude more people pay attention to VPPOL than AN, and this is by design, since the latter is focused on admininstrators' stuff, and the former on site-wide decisions making. While it's correct that something like WP:CENT can be used to draw sufficient attention to an RfC or similar discussion at any page (i.e., make it act as a VPPOL surrogate in the case of some site-wide decision that needs rendering), that did not happen in this case. Your "as long as wide-reaching proposals are properly advertised to the community, it makes no difference" proviso simply was not triggered. You really ought to understand that, or not close such discussions, especially not with the kind of patronizing, sarcastic, finger-wagging tone you used. You don't get to personally decide what people are allowed to be concerned about, nor to override the entire community having established a venue specifically for decisions of this sort, and a very separate venue for internal deliberation about admin matters. PS: It did eventually get added to CENT, but only shortly before it was closed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry, I didn't mean condescend in any way, and I do apologize for that. However, I do strongly disagree with your characterization that I am personally making some sort of arbitrary rulings. On the contrary, my only intent here was to neutrally clerk the discussion and to straightforwardly convey policy. VPP is, obviously, an appropriate place to discuss policy-related proposals, but there is certainly no requirement, in theory or in practice, that consensus can only be formed there. So, in the context where there is a central discussion at a community noticeboard, that is already well-underway, saying "wrong venue" is meaningless. That's exactly what I would describe as a petty procedural objection, and that's exactly the type of thing WP:NOTBUREAU is a check on. You can't just shut down a discussion with a "wrong venue". "A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request." The relevant policy here is WP:PROPOSAL. It stipulates that policy proposals should: a) be an RfC, b) be announced at VPP and/or VPR, and c) be listed at CENT. There is no mention or implication that "correct venue" matters in any way. The only current policy proposal satisfies all these requirements. If the previous ones didn't it doesn't matter, because they went nowhere. The only other proposal is to shut down the WikiProject, which was DOA, or to generically "reform" the WikiProject, which does not have anything to do with policy, and could likely be done via local consensus building. If future ones are improperly advertised, that should be handled on a case by case basis. "Wrong venue" is not the correct response to proposals that are insufficiently advertised. The "wrong venue" complaints simply have no teeth and are not going to go anywhere. ~Swarm~ {talk} 21:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  There are numerous non-Admins in the discussion and it has been widely advertisted, including by TTH. Sorry the idea this is some kind of a star chamber hidden debate holds no water. Legacypac (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  Um, at the time you closed the discussion X3 wasn't an RfC; I added the RfC tag 12 hours later. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  So, there was not an RfC tag, that has nothing to do with "wrong venue" objections. Good on you for noticing and adding one, though, now there are really are no outstanding issues. ~Swarm~ {talk} 19:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Removal of revision

Hello Swarm, it would be great if you could remove the first version of https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AEduard_Joseph_Schmidtlein.jpg (22:31, 9 March 2019). Cheers, ~~Metrosideros~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metrosideros (talk • contribs)

@Metrosideros: That file is hosted on Wikimedia Commons, which is a different website (albeit a closely-related sister project of Wikipedia). You'll have to make the request over there. ~Swarm~ {talk} 19:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

March GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2019 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the March newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since December 2018. All being well, we're planning to issue these quarterly in 2019, balancing the need to communicate widely with the avoidance of filling up talk pages. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. January Drive: Thanks to everyone for the splendid work in January's Backlog Elimination Drive. We removed copyedit tags from all of the articles tagged in our original target months of June, July and August 2018, and by 24 January we ran out of articles. After adding September, we finished the month with 8 target articles remaining and 842 left in the backlog. GOCE copyeditors also completed 48 requests for copyedit in January. Of the 31 people who signed up for this drive, 24 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the February Blitz. Of the 15 people who signed up, 13 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed 32 copyedits, including 15 requests. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: As of 23:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 108 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 851 articles. March Drive: The month-long March drive is now underway; the target months are October and November 2018. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the backlog. Sign up here! Election reminder: It may only be March but don't forget our mid-year Election of Coordinators opens for nominations on 1 June. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Reidgreg and Tdslk. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Possible block evasion by Honethefield98

I am notifying you since you were the administrator who blocked Honethefield98. I believe that Honethefield98 (talk · contribs) is evading his block by using 12.86.50.98 (talk · contribs) and 2601:243:400:F535:5186:BBB2:72B3:7608 (talk · contribs) to continue editing. The first IP edited the same topics as the banned user, while the second IP edited the Heavy metal music page, which was also edited by the first IP (same content added by both). Both IPs come from the Chicago area. – Sabbatino (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Sabbatino: Excellent catch. Both blocked, thanks for letting me know. ~Swarm~ {talk} 22:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, and a request

Hello, Swarm. Thank you for deleting several articles that I tagged with G7. I've been looking for an administrator to help me clean up my copyright violations, but so far I haven't found anyone who is both willing to help and on speaking terms with me. Can you help, or suggest another administrator I might contact about this? It would require selective purging of the revision histories of articles, for example Religion and Nothingness, where I removed a couple of paragraphs of copyvio here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• @FreeKnowledgeCreator: hey, no problem. I’d be more than happy to help you! Anything you need, just let me know.  Swarm  talk  04:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Handled requests

Thank you, Swarm, that's much appreciated. In the case of the Religion and Nothingness article, it would help if you could remove the visibility of all revisions except the current one. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC) @FreeKnowledgeCreator:  Done  Swarm  talk  18:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC) Thank you, Swarm. There are other cases where I might make similar requests. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC) Specifically: it would be helpful if you could remove the visibility of all revisions of The Foundations of Psychoanalysis prior to the edit I made here and all revisions of The Memory Wars prior to the edit I made here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)  Done.  Swarm  talk  02:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC) Thank you very much, Swarm. The next request: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of An Inquiry into the Good prior to the edit I made here? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)  Done as well!  Swarm  talk  04:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC) Thank you again, Swarm. The next request: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of The Structure of Science prior to the edit I made here? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)  Done  Swarm  talk  03:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC) Thank you, Swarm. The next request: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of Homosexuality: A Philosophical Inquiry made between the automated edit here and the edit I made here? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC) @FreeKnowledgeCreator: Sorry for the delay,  Done.  Swarm  talk  21:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC) Thank you, Swarm. The next request: could you please remove the visibility all revisions of Knowledge and Human Interests made between the edit I made here and the most recent edit, which I made here? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)  Done  Swarm  talk  23:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC) Thank you, Swarm. The next request: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of Homosexual Behaviour: Therapy and Assessment prior to this one? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)  Done.  Swarm  talk  19:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC) Thank you, Swarm. The next request: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of Philosophical Problems of Space and Time prior to the edit I made here? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC) @FreeKnowledgeCreator:  Done  Swarm  talk  09:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Thank you, Swarm. The next request: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of A Critique of Pure Tolerance made between this edit I made as an IP and the edit I made as FreeKnowledgeCreator here? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)  Done  Swarm  talk  09:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Thank you very much, Swarm. Looking again, I'm going to have to refine that last request. I think the revision made here also needs to be hidden. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Good catch,  Done.  Swarm  talk  10:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Thank you again, Swarm. The next request: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of The Theory of Good and Evil prior to the edit I made here? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC) @FreeKnowledgeCreator: Sorry for the delay,  Done  Swarm  talk  21:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC) Thank you again, Swarm. I'm happy to be patient. The next requests: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of Freud, Biologist of the Mind prior to this edit and all revisions of Ethics (Watsuji) prior to this edit? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)  Done  Swarm  talk  08:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Thank you very much, Swarm. I appreciate your help. In the case of Freud, Biologist of the Mind, however, you have hidden only some of the relevant revisions. Those that need hiding currently extend from this revision of 28 September 2013 to this revision of 15 March 2018. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC) @FreeKnowledgeCreator: Oops,  Done  Swarm  talk  21:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC) Thank you again, Swarm. In the case of The Structure of Science, there is still a need to hide all revisions beginning with this one of 24 October 2012 and up to and including this one of 25 January 2018. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)  Done  Swarm  talk  21:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC) Thank you, Swarm. In the case of The Theory of Good and Evil, there is still a need to hide some early revisions. They begin when the article was started here on 5 November 2012‎, and they include all revisions up to and including this one. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC) Jeez, I don't know what's going on with these incomplete deletions. Sorry about that.  Done  Swarm  talk  21:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC) Thank you, Swarm. In the case of The Memory Wars, there is a need to hide all revisions beginning with this one of 22 December 2012 and up to and including this one of 5 September 2017. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)  Done  Swarm  talk  22:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Thank you, Swarm. The next request: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of Freud and Philosophy beginning with the edit I made here as Polisher of Cobwebs on 17 June 2012 and up to and including the edit I made here as FreeKnowledgeCreator on 29 November 2018? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC) @FreeKnowledgeCreator:  Done  Swarm  talk  07:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC) Thank you, Swarm. The next request: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of Freud: The Mind of the Moralist beginning with the edit I made here as Polisher of Cobwebs on 11 July 2012 and up to and including the edit I made as FreeKnowledgeCreator here on 1 December 2018? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)  Done  Swarm  talk  08:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC) Thank you, Swarm. The next request: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of A Separate Creation beginning with the edit I made here as an IP on 6 August 2013 and up to and including the edit I made here as FreeKnowledgeCreator on 20 October 2018? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC) @FreeKnowledgeCreator:  Done  Swarm  {talk}  14:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC) Thank you, Swarm. The next request: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of The Anita Bryant Story prior to the edit I made here on 12 October 2018? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)  Done.  Swarm  {talk}  20:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC) Thank you, Swarm. The next request: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of Reason and Morality, with the exception of the most recent revision, made here just a minute ago? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)  Done  Swarm  {talk}  21:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC) Thank you, Swarm. The next request: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of Lesbian/Woman prior to the edit I made here on 5 October 2018? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)  Done  Swarm  {talk}  22:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC) Thank you, Swarm. The next request: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of The Sexual Brain prior to the edit I made here on 27 October 2018? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC) @FreeKnowledgeCreator:  Done  Swarm  {talk}  22:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC) Thank you, Swarm. The next requests: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of Aspects of Scientific Explanation prior to the edit I made here on October 23, 2018 and all revisions of Philosophy of Natural Science prior to the edit I made here on December 18, 2018? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC) @FreeKnowledgeCreator:  Done  Swarm  {talk}  22:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC) Thank you, Swarm. The next request: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of What is Philosophy? (Deleuze and Guattari) prior to the edit I made here on December 21, 2018? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)  Done  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  01:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC) Thank you, Swarm. The next request: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of The Freudian Fallacy prior to the edit I made here on December 8, 2018? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)  Done  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  21:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC) Thank you, Swarm. The next requests: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of Organization of Behavior prior to the edit I made here on January 5, 2019, and all revisions of The Language of Music prior to the edit I made here on October 23, 2018? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC) @FreeKnowledgeCreator: Apologies for the delay.  Done  ~~Swarm~~  20:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC) Thank you, Swarm. I am extremely grateful for your help and I am not worried about delays. I should make another request in the next few days. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC) The next request: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of Meaning and Necessity prior to the edit I made here on February 5, 2019? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)  Done ~Swarm~ {talk} 02:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC) Thank you, Swarm. The next request: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of A History of the Mind beginning with the edit I made here as an IP on August 16, 2013 and up to and including the edit I made here on October 16, 2018? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)  Done ~Swarm~ {talk} 20:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC) Thank you, Swarm. The next request: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of Natural Law and Natural Rights prior to the edit I made here on December 8, 2018? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)  Done ~Swarm~ {talk} 19:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Swarm. The next request: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals except for the current version? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done ~Swarm~ {talk} 04:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Swarm. There may be a delay of a few days before I make another request. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll be around. ~Swarm~ {talk} 06:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The next request: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of Sexual Preference (book) beginning with the first edit that started the article on January 4, 2012 (there is a link to it here) and up to and including this edit of May 19, 2016? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done ~Swarm~ {talk} 00:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Swarm. The next request: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of The Homosexual Matrix beginning with the edit that started the article on October 1, 2013 and up to and including the edit made here on January 18, 2017? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done ~Swarm~ {talk} 03:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Swarm. The next request: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women prior to the edit I made here just a few minutes ago? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done ~Swarm~ {talk} 14:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Swarm. The next request: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology starting with this edit, which I made as Polisher of Cobwebs on July 8, 2012 and up to and including this edit? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator:  Done ~Swarm~ {talk} 22:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Swarm. The next request: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of Reading Capital beginning with this edit I made as Polisher of Cobwebs on October 23, 2012 and up to and including this edit I made on February 27, 2019? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

An interesting editing case for your judgment

With due regard for your warning that you are terribly busy I just wish to submit to your judgment a recent editing case in which I was involved. I perceive that it may contain some important matter of principle and application of policies & guidelines. Please do not bother to comment if you do not consider the case as important. 154.44.138.30 (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

2019 Cricket world cup > Group stage > Points table is vandalized

It seems that, someone has already added 4 teams to semifinals, before the world cup starts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iammilind (talk • contribs) 06:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

AN thread about article probation

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Old probation editnotices. You helped to tidy up some old article probation sanctions earlier. In fact, community sanctions are not dead, so even if we no longer use the phrase 'article probation' it is possible that a notice could be placed saying that general sanctions are active for those topics. As with WP:GS/SCW. Assuming there is an ongoing need for sanctions on the five articles being listed at WP:AN. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Swarm. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Coral Restoration Foundation

Hello Swarm,

This is a repeat of an email to you because I'm not sure of the best way to communicate.

I'm seeking help with publishing a new article on Wikipedia and would appreciate your assistance.

The new article is on the Coral Restoration Foundation (CRF) based in Key Largo, FL. I'm a volunteer with CRF, and I understand Wiki's prohibition against promotion and the advice against authoring an article about an organization that I'm a member of. However, I feel CRF's work is important, and the public needs to see the facts about the many threats to coral reefs worldwide and the vigorous efforts by various organizations and government agencies to mitigate those threats.

In the longer term I'm very interested in working on a variety of issues with Wikipedia, particularly vandalism and misinformation. I'm a long term Wiki user and donator. I would like to further the goals of bringing solid factual information out to Wiki users.

So, would you be able to help me with my article?

Thanks! FLkeyseditor (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Swarm, You haven't responded to my 15 March request for adoption. Does that mean that you don't have availability? Should I try for another editor to adopt me? Thanks,FLkeyseditor (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Spoonkymonkey and User:Midlandino sockpuppeting to violate BLP

Based on their editing patterns, it also appears that User:Spoonkymonkey used the sockpuppet User:Midlandino to edit the Jesse Brown (journalist) article back in January. Both editors have added the same derogatory information, sourced to Twitter. 104.222.125.138 (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

This close

Not that close, this close :)

I don't think it's worth making a big deal over at ANI, and I'm certainly not going to revert you, but could I gently urge you not to make a habit of this please? We have a rule against making involved closes because we don't want people making involved closes; blurring that line, even if your particular instance of it is not terribly problematic, is not helpful in the long run. Was there anything so terribly urgent about that it couldn't wait for someone uninvolved to come along and do it? GoldenRing (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• No problem, you're right. I'm not in the habit of doing so nor do I plan on making it one. Thanks for your feedback. ~Swarm~ {talk} 19:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• I just realized no one pinged you or notified you about the continuation of the ANI thread you closed (WP:ANI#Death threat). I've unblocked Drilou per the consensus at WP:ANI#Bad close (and, frankly, per the consensus at the original thread). The new thread is still open if you want to comment. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks @Floquenbeam:, good unblock! My block was clearly in error due to a failure to detect sarcasm, and I see that now. I've made this clear at AN/I, and I will apologize to the user directly. ~Swarm~ {talk} 21:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Since that ANI thread is closed, and you wrote any subsequent feedback is welcome on my talk page, here's mine. In your block and close, you seemed to be making your own argument for the user to be blocked. In my opinion, you did not even attempt to even assess the consensus, and thus failed in your main duty as a closing admin. That's quite a grave mistake in my book. starship.paint ~ KO 03:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• The block was discretionary. In other words, it was an independent admin action. I did not imply that I was actioning a consensus. Closing AN/I threads as "discretionarily actioned" like this is routine. ~Swarm~ {talk} 04:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• Well, okay. Alright then. starship.paint ~ KO 07:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Re: Adoption for assistance with my Coral Restoration Foundation article. Please check your email. Thanks. FLkeyseditor (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Apology

I want to unequivocally apologize for the rude things I said to you at WP:ERRORS. I have no excuse, and you did nothing to deserve the rudeness. I am sorry. --Jayron32 10:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks, @Jayron32:. No hard feelings. These things happen to the best of us. I won't pretend I didn't also get overly-worked up there, so apologies for the tone I took as well. The situation surrounding that blurb is a shitshow, and was from the very beginning, and I think the most constructive thing to preserve my sanity and to stay far away from that trainwreck. ~Swarm~ {talk} 22:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

  Probably not a bad idea. --Jayron32 02:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Adam's still at it

I really shouldn't have to put up with stuff like this more than seven months after your fina warning. Would you mind having a word with him? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, could you indef block me.

Hello,

I noticed you are in the category Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks. Would you mind placing an indefinite self requested block? Could you also block my bot (and remove its bot rights) User:Dreamy Jazz Bot indefinitely too? If I decide to come back, I'll request it over email or Wikipedia:Clean start.

Thanks, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for your help throughout my time on the project! Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 17:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks, Dreamy Jazz. I will add it proudly to the treasury. Hope to see you again soon! :( ~Swarm~ {talk} 06:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Violation of voluntary IBAN

This edit constituted a warning from you to this user that they are "topic banned from directly tagging for notability, proposing deletion (PROD), or nominating for AfD, any article created by Alansohn or where Alansohn is a major contributor." Due to an inadvertent edit on my part in an AfD several months ago, sanctions were imposed on me and extended indefinitely. I had been avoiding this user like the plague and making every effort to avoid any contact whatsoever by trying to verify that I do not cross paths by carefully monitoring every single edit I make to the best of my ability. I was disturbed to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis McNerney, a nomination for deletion of an article that I created and for which I am the major contributor. It is clear that the user knows that there is a conflict, as they have deliberatley violated deletion policy by failing to notify me about the AfD on my user talk page, while every other AfD or Prod for other editors have been tagged on their talk pages. What is the story here? Alansohn (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

If I had considered that McNerney was an error, the pattern continues with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Dugan, an article that he nominated for deletion which I had created and am the major contributor, again with no notification on my user talk page as required by deletion policy. This user has made more than a dozen nominations for Prod and deletion over the past day or two, every single one of which had a notification on the user's talk page; the only two exceptions are to the AfDs for the two articles I had created. It's clear that the user realizes that I was the page creator and is deliberately refusing to notify me. Your help in addressing this issue will be appreciated. Alansohn (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Alansohn I'm going to AGF that you did not read the post you linked and quoted. You missed the part "This arrangement will run for six months." and that was over one year ago. He has no obligation to notify you of deletion discussions, and not notifying you appears to be a pleasant curtesy. I'd suggest not WP:STALKING their edits. Legacypac (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac, While User:Alansohn has many conduct issues, including unloading a attack on me in an edit caption this morning, do you really think it's stalking if he notices that pages he created were nominated for deletion?Jacona (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I was referencing "This user has made more than a dozen nominations for Prod and deletion over the past day or two, every single one of which had a notification on the user's talk page;" which describes a review of the other user's edits. My comment was not to accuse this editor in an actionable way but to head off further behavior that would be actionable. Also, I'll point out that a very experienced user like Alansohn should not allege a violation of deletion policy without checking out the policy. Notification is not required - in fact we can uncheck the notify creator box in Twinkle, which is presumably what was done in these two cases. Legacypac (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

April Fools?

I can participate, right? I've always wanted to! That's okay, right? –MJL ‐Talk‐^{1 April} 00:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: I have no idea what Swarm thinks, but, quite frankly, an April Fools spree would not be the best start to your next phase on Wikipedia. That's just my opinion! MPS1992 (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@MPS1992: that's pretty fair –MJL ‐Talk‐^{1 April} 02:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I am just a bad-tempered person. It seems the latest bout of stupidity is already underway, and I just now resisted the temptation to message one of the people involved to say "congratulations, now that you have wasted a lot of people's time, you will struggle ever to pass an RfA". I am going to go to sleep and hope that my watchlist looks more sensible in the morning. Or evening? Ho hum. MPS1992 (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• @MJL: I tend to think April Fools' is harmless fun, and of course you can participate. That said, a significant faction of the community are hostile to it, so just tread carefully. Don't overdo it. ~Swarm~ 🐝 {sting · hive} 16:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

  I got too busy for it anyways. That was a disappointment. Anyways, I should probably send you an email about possibly ending the wikibreak. There's pretty much only one thing I need to see finished before I pick up a regular mainspace editing pattern. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, my view is that the April Fools stuff is a tedious, repetitive disruption which should be banned. With only very occasional exceptions, is a repository of the most pathetically unfunny juvenilia, mostly variants of "delete X to make the problem go away LOL" or "delete NamedCelebtrity cos they are not notable LOZ". There is almost none of the originality or surprise which makes good humour.

Over the years we have manged a few steps to corral it into a few spaces where it does less damage than it used to, but it's still disruptive. The best that I can say for this compromise is that maybe restricting it to a defined space is what allows it to be stamped out elsewhere.

The one real good part of April Fools is WP:DYK's fake April Fools: DYKs which look like hoaxes but are actually real. Here are this year's two sets: [2], [3]. I have great respect for the skills of those who devise those fake hoaxes ... but as for the rest, I share @MPS1992's view that people who waste the community's time in that way shouldn't waste more of it at RFA. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I was going to say that there was no use because I wasn't able to participate anyways, but you showcasing those DYK was actually something I didn't know we did. However for this hook ... that Bizzarro serves in the Connecticut senate? Yes actually. My sister campaigned for his opponent. He serves with Senator Looney (the Senate President pro tempore). That is my favorite line, but we also have so many other names to play with. Thank you for sharing, and I certainly respect that position on April Fools. It's not the ideal situation, I will admit. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Only reason I mentioned that my sister campaigned against him was because I had forgotten his name come election day. I did a hard double take when she came home and was like "Bizzaro won the election." I thought she was trying to say how crazy it was that the Republicans won there or something... He's certainly an interesting person to talk to when I've gotten the chance. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Article:Colors Kannada

Hello Swarm, Would you plz unprotect article:Colors Kannada as its 'create-protected'. I am requesting as because of this draft at AfC. Thank you. --Gpkp (u • t • c) 18:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

•  Done Swarm– ^{Sting · Hive} 🐝🐝🐝 21:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Swarm. --Gpkp (u • t • c) 17:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

your signature changes

I've been meaning to thank you for moving away from a particular signature you used to use (quite some time ago now). It appeared to be embedded in a swarm of bees, and to me (and probably to anyone else with really poor vision) the resultant low contrast made it virtually illegible. Thanks again. Meters (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Banned User:PAKHIGHWAY

I don't want to be accused of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, but User:DdBbCc22 seems very similar to banned User:PAKHIGHWAY. The editor makes the same type of long edits as PAKHIGHWAY on History of Pakistan, and very similar styles, like copy/pasting large content/formatting from history of India to history of Pakistan as seen here by PAKHIGHWAY and here where a lot of the lead was copied, and most importantly, the obsession to change content to Indus valley as seen here by PAKHIGHWAY's sock (reverted by Capitals00) and same tinkering here with "Indus valley". @Lorstaking, Yamla, NeilN, and Kautilya3: I saw you guys worked with the PAKHIGHWAY in the past, I mainly faced the users multiple IP/socks in the past 12-24 months. But, these are the edit styles I found of PAKHIGHWAY. But, I want to sincerely apologize in advance if I am wrong. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC))

User talk:Highpeaks35, I also not want to be accused of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and I hope I will give my opinion respectfully. In my first case, I not copied the content same to same from History of India as in case of PAKHIGHWAY and I did a large number of modifications, infact the "self-created" or "modified content" that I added is much large than the copied one. As you said "a lot of content", I think it's wrong. The content which seems "a lot" is citations or references, I copied these citations because they are absolutely applicable there and also I observed many times on Wikipedia that the citations of common topics on two or more articles are same. In second case, I changed content to Indus Valley civilization from Ancient India because at there, the others parts of Fertile Crescent (Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia and Ancient India) have their orginal links such as article of Ancient Egypt is for the Egyptian civilization but article of Ancient India (redirect of History of India) is about whole history of not only India but whole Indian subcontinent till the partition of British India. So in this way the article of Indus Valley civilization (purely for history of civilization) gives us more information about ancient Indian civilization than redirect-article of Ancient India. I hope you will understand my point.DdBbCc22 (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

Administrator changes

Reaper Eternal • ThaddeusB

Bogdangiusca • Christopher Parham • Necrothesp • Schneelocke • Siroxo • Sarah

Mentifisto → Lofty abyss

Interface administrator changes

Mr. Stradivarius

Bureaucrat changes

DeltaQuad

Kingturtle

Technical news

• In Special:Preferences under "Appearance" → "Advanced options", there is now an option to show a confirmation prompt when clicking on a rollback link.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee clarified that the General 1RR prohibition for Palestine-Israel articles may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice.

Miscellaneous

• Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
• As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Want to Know How to Build a Better Democracy? Ask Wikipedia

You're quoted in it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Swarm. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.x2 TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Please unprotect

Hi, I see you are listed as the admin who moved Lamar S. Smith to Lamar Smith. Would you mind unprotecting the page? 117.229.68.203 (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello 117, the page in question is indefinitely semi-protected due to persistent vandalism. If you wish to contribute, I would recommend either suggesting edits on the talk page of the article or creating an account (it's free). If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them here and myself, Swarm, or another person will respond when we can --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

RfA comment

Hi Swarm. You've always struck me as one of the good ones and, which is not the same, wise. I was, therefore, quite surprised to read, "The only possible reading of your doing so is that you're caving to the shameful people who are trying to sway the result of the RfA ex post facto." I get that the RfA is contentious, that many people feel strongly in both directions; but d'you think you may have over-spoken here, and might be able to reconsider the strength of those words and how they come across? Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 17:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

How's my name?

Hello there, I am writing to you to see your opinion on my idea of a name. It's Auld Lang Syne. It matches all my criteria for a name: Piano (it's a song), vinyl records (it's on a lot of records, the earliest dating back to 1908!), and Literature (It's a poem.) And most of all, it's available globally! I think it's a good, serious name. I'm wondering on your opinion. Your help will be the upmost appreciated. Thank you. The Duke 22:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• It seems fine to me, but the most important question is whether you think you'll be satisfied with it in the long-run. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I've had a think over these two days, and yes. I will be happy to stick with the name stated above in the long-run. It's nice, and serious, and reflects my interests, and hobbies. My other idea, Greensleeves, is taken. And I cannot think of any other names, that aren't taken. Thus, I will be happy with the name. Thank you. The Duke 15:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    • However with that being said. I'm not one hundred percent ready for a rename. As I am thought of a new name just about an hour ago. It's The Kerry Dance. I will now take some time to decide on either/or, and then, when I'm ready (and when I'm able), make the request. Thank you. The Duke 06:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Swarm. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

How to avoid AEscalation?

Hi Swarm, and Guy Macon -- re [4][5], what would it take to address your concerns? --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 22:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Wondering what is going with my rename?

Hello there Swarm, I've taken this week to think over the two names, and I've came to a decision. I'm happy with The Kerry Dance, it's a nice, serious name. And when I asked at WP:AN, I was given two proposals, one by you, and User:Cyberpower678, Cyber told me to come back in six months, and you said "The rename should be actioned when they're ready.". So, since I am ready for my last rename, one where I am happy to stick with this name long-term, what is going to happen? Will Cyber's proposal kick into effect, and my rename will come in six months, or will yours kick in, with it happening now? Thank you. The Duke 14:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

If Swarm wants to rename you now, they are free to. I'm still sticking by my waiting period here. You should continue using this time to muddle over your name. You may have something better in mind when the time comes. I'm doing this, because I am effectively going against the wide majority of my fellow renamers stances on denying you one last rename. Consider yourself a big exception here as I won't be doing that again.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: Thank you so much for the exception! If Swarm decides to rename me, I will take another week to finalise my thinking. That's if he is even a renamer, I don't think he is. Again, thank you Cyber. The Duke 15:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

You are correct that Swarm is not a global renamer. * Pppery * _{has returned} 19:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Evidence in arbitration case

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Enigmaman/Evidence#Inappropriate protection practices, did you mean to say something like "... where there was no disruption coming from non-extended confirmed users whatsoever"? isaacl (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Isaacl: Yeah, that's definitely a mistake on my part—I meant confirmed/autoconfirmed. Fixed. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!

[6] I never understood til you explained ;-). 173.228.123.207 (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Denuvo Talk

Posting my response to your recent comment on the Denuvo Talk Page here since I think this isn't really relevant to establishing a consensus at this moment. That being said, I'm honestly baffled at that response. I don't even know where to begin.

The only thing I can think of doing right now is trying to explain my rationale in the face of your frankly astonishingly hostile tone over what is essentially a storm in a fishbowl. The thing that started the whole controversy (which is taking place mostly on Reddit and will likely blow over once the thread slips down within a day or two) is the removal of the unsourced content itself.

Users felt that leaving most of the cells in the affected column empty would somehow suggest that someone's trying to make this DRM solution look much more effective than it actually is by "misleading" readers into thinking that a lot fewer cracks are available than there actually are. My intention with removing the section was to reduce controversy by taking this factor out of the equation - and if you take a look at the source of this controversy (i.e. the Reddit thread), that's exactly what the change achieved. If anything, I improved optics that were much worse before, when everyone thought the article was intentionally misleading and edited by a Denuvo employee or whatever.

As to what to do with the column, I was under the impression that Wikipedia articles are able to evolve and be edited, so I'm not sure why you imply that sourcing issues could "NEVER" be resolved again, as if any possibility of recreating the column once a consensus has been reached has been tossed into the eternal flames of irrecoverable cleansing. There is currently no consensus regarding how to bring back a gist of the information that the column had previously provided backed by poor sourcing; there have been several suggestions by many users participating in this discussion, and good points have been made by all sides. There are proponents of leaving the column out, there are proponents of bringing the column back, there are proponents for a compromise anywhere between the two extremes (like leaving the column out but adding a new section highlighting the solution's ineffectiveness in more detail).

I'm also at a loss as to where you're finding me "authoritatively" or "condescendingly" doing anything in particular. I'd like you to point out to me one instance in which I shut down someone's point without properly explaining why I don't agree with it. If you took exception to the "gentle reminder" part, I don't know what to tell you other than that it was not intended to be hostile in any way, shape or form. We're on the internet here, presumably all adults (or at least old enough to be able to take part in constructive discourse), and hopefully able to separate the person making the point from the point being made - I know I am. I never once even implied that my opinion is any more valid than anyone else's, so the only person barging in and authoritatively claiming anything is the one I'm currently responding to.

So you may think I'm "petty" and put on a grand display with those fantastic quotation marks around the word "improvement", presumably as to tell me what you think of the fact that I selfishly decided to ruin Wikipedia by engaging in discussion after trying to somewhat placate an angry mob with an edit that may have been to hasty, but if this is how you deal with brand new inexperienced editors and point out their mistakes, then I'm not sure if I could make any more dents into the public image of Wikipedia than there already are - and that's not considering that there's at least one other, seemingly highly experienced editor who seems to agree with me, and I don't know why your opinion should be any more valid than theirs (or, in fact, vice versa).

I hope going off on me felt as good as you thought it would feel, but I'd appreciate if we could get back to the topic at hand without muddying up an ongoing discussion on a Talk Page with what essentially boils down to a frustration rant (that should probably have gone on my Talk Page instead of the article's, but I assume that wouldn't have felt quite as cathartic as posting it where "thousands of critical eyes" would likely see it). --ThePaSch (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

And, to add to that, I would also like you to point out where exactly I was "edit warring". There was a single (non-vandalism) revert that I made, and it pointed to the Talk page because their revert of my change had absolutely no justification/explanation whatsoever, and, as stated above, I was (and still am) convinced that just not having the column at all would be a much better look to outsiders than to have a table with a few "yes"s strewn in and hundreds of empty cells suggesting "no". So if you could kindly explain to me where exactly the edit war happened, I'll make sure not to let it happen again in the future.--ThePaSch (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Unreal. I hope your unwillingness or inability to process criticism without immediately victimizing yourself is merely the result of natural human defensiveness, rather than a symptom of a deeper behavioral issue, or your career here will indeed be very short. My tone reflected the fact that you did one of the most boneheaded things I've ever seen here, and frankly you deserved to be called out. I didn't make that post because I'm a sadist and it "feels good", I made that post because I'm an administrator who's invested years of my life into building up this project, something that pales in comparison to thousands of more dedicated users. So when I see some random newbie who has no stake in the reputation of the project, boneheadedly step into the middle of a sensitive situation that requires nuance and restraint, and do something so utterly stupid that it makes the project look like a joke in the face of thousands of already-concerned spectators, then I'm not going to pretend like it's no big deal and leave a friendly "correction" in a place no one will see it, I'm going to make a post right then and there so people can not only see that you do not represent the project as a whole, but you do not even seem to know what you're doing. I'm sorry if you feel that's harsh, but if you don't want to be harshly chastised, don't introduce yourself to the project by bumbling into a major controversy and acting like a bull in a china shop, to the detriment of Wikipedia's public image and act like it's no big deal. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you feel the need to continuously and repeatedly attack my person instead of engaging with any of what I said or any of the rationale that I explained. I can assure you there is no "deeper behavioral issue"; I'm just trying to understand why you feel my actions make "the project look like a joke". I will reserve the right to defend myself here as the only thing you seem to be aware of is that there is a controversy, but not what about and from where - I outlined that information to you, mentioned that the removal of the column was welcomed by many who felt even more misled by a column with a bunch of empty cells (that would naturally imply a "no" when the only other content to be found anywhere are a few cited "yes"), but you engaged with absolutely none of that and decided you have to instead call me boneheaded, utterly stupid and a bull in a china shop, on top of implying a deep-lying mental problem. Please excuse me if I feel offended by that.

Please let me know if we can have an actual discussion about this. I'll understand if you aren't keen to, since you haven't shown any willingness so far and I don't expect that to change in the future, but on the off chance that there is constructive discourse to be had here, I'd like to start off fresh, because I'm seriously starting to feel like we've got off on the wrongest of feet here.

Just an acknowledgement that you have indeed read through my rationale, and at least some attempt at rebuttal (as opposed to personal attacks), would go a long way. I realize that making you sound like a sadist wasn't the kindest of things from me either, but I'm sure you'll understand that there is indeed a natural human defensiveness that will indeed kick in after being put in the pillory with an explanation that is not entirely comprehensible from my point of view, having stated why in my previous posting. I will concede that while your tone could've been better, so could mine, and would simply like to resolve this dispute as amicably as possible. --ThePaSch (talk) 03:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Administrator changes

HickoryOughtShirt?4 • RexxS

Necrothesp

Bratsche • Kyle Barbour • Kzollman • Madman

Interface administrator changes

Pharos

Bureaucrat changes

Primefac

CheckUser changes

Reaper Eternal

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Technical news

• XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

• In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
• Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment is currently open to amend the community sanctions procedure to exclude non XfD or CSD deletions.
• A proposal to remove pre-2009 indefinite IP blocks is currently open for discussion.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrolled Permission Discussion - Spinster300 [Cont.]

Hello dearest Swarm, my sincerest apologies for never having gotten back to you in November. I was unable to participate fully on Wikipedia, as work and family kept me busy. At this point, I am still getting back on the beat of how things are run here again.

Please accept this message as my withdrawal request from being considered for Autopatrolled Permission at this time. I hope I can be up and running more actively on Wikipedia soon, and confidently resubmit my application (keeping in mind the improvements and detailing you suggested to my edits) in the months to come.

I hope you are well and have a good day! Cheers and kindest regards, Spinster300 (talk) 05:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC).

Alright. Offer still stands. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Concern

Hi Swarm. Regarding your granting of rollback, I know you couldn't of seen this, but I would like to highlight my concerns that had me decline Masumrezarock100's PCR request on the 28th. I'm not objecting to the granting of rollback if your discretion thinks it's still ok, but just want to bring this to your attention at minimum. (My two cents is the bot should pull up any declined perms request in the last 90 days as they requested NPR last month on top of that). -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: Hey. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. To be honest, I just rubber-stamped the request as it was endorsed by the user's CVUA instructor. I would not have granted it had I known about such a recent declined PCR request. Girth Summit seems enthusiastic that the user can be trusted with it, and a cursory review of the user's patrol looks okay, though they aren't using Rollback. But in recognition of the concerns, I'll convert my grant to a temporary trial period, for review in a month. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

ANOTHER BELIEVER

I am wondering how the decision came to indefinite 1-way IBAN. The community input has been anything between 3-6 months with 3 months being the prevailing input, so the consensus push for indefinite. how did it come to consensus having decided for "indefinite"? Can you explain how it got extended out?Graywalls (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Sure! To be clear, it actually was not "extended out". "Indefinite" simply means that there is no specified duration. The IBAN was indefinite as proposed. Unfortunately, the consensus view did not endorse adding an expiry. Two users supported a 3 month duration, and one supported a 6 month, but even combined this does not represent a level of support that could be considered a "consensus". ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Could you clarify the specific restrictions and depending on those terms of restrictions, how do I request to have it modified to TWO-WAY IBAN? I am concerned that the complainant may not have been interested in resolving a conflict, but possibly exploiting the IBAN as a leverage to advance his editorial position.

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nina_West here, he tried to challenge my input on a AfD which occurred prior to ANI decision and brought up IBAN into it, trying to invalidate my input.
• Here, he came into an article he's never touched in the past to revert my contents he doesn't like unilaterally. It occurred soon after I remarked (not towards him) that comment was casted to ANI decision. diff which is the same type of edit that lead to edit war at Embers Avenue prior to the ANI. I feel like I'm getting followed by this editor and possibly baited into reverting him to get me to violate IBAN.
• Portland Loo, he pounced on my edit he didn't like as soon as ANI closed to apply his editorial discretion.
• here, he pushed forward with his proposal which I don't agree with that was outstanding prior to ANI knowing that I can't revert him. A 3PO was pending prior to ANI being started, but the 3PO reviewer got scared off after ANI.

I feel he's exploiting the ONE WAY IBAN to advance his editorial position and retaliate and I feel reversion by nobody but him on topics we've never interacted on is an indication, such as on the Oregon Bottle Bill. What can I do to get the IBAN changed to TWO WAY, or am I still ok to revert him as long as I don't interact? Graywalls (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I stand by my 2 image removals. Swarm, if you think either of those images are worth keeping (File:Removal of containers from recycling bins without permission.jpg, File:Portland Loo with Sharps drop box .jpg), by all means feel free to revert. I am not following this editor or interested in interacting with them. If working in this way (getting editor feedback on talk pages instead of making changes based on Graywalls' edits) is preferred, I'll try harder to do this. Also, pretty sure the 3PO reviewer wasn't "scared off", and I was given permission to move forward. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Graywalls: The straightforward provisions of WP:IBAN apply, broadly construed. In other words, if something feels like a "gray area", it will be considered a violation. You may propose that your one-way IBAN be converted into a two-way IBAN at AN, with convincing evidence that AB is retaliating against you. "Baiting" you, or maliciously prodding you into violating the IBAN is certainly not tolerated, and it's certainly inherently implied that AB will not abuse the sanction to retaliate. That said, let me be clear: the community intentionally made it a one-way, rather than a two-way IBAN, which is a major, major difference. This means that you are formally considered, on record, to have engaged in harassment, and that AB is considered to be an innocent victim of harassment. AB is intentionally allowed to continue interacting with you, without restriction, and you are forbidden from interacting in turn. So, something like reverting you in the content space is perfectly valid and allowed. If you disagree, you may pursue a discussion on the talk page, and subsequent dispute resolution, like normal, as long as you abide by the interaction ban. Casting normal edits as harassment is likely to be interpreted as continued harassment, and an attempt to sanction a user who is literally considered to be your victim is probably more likely to be met with a BOOMERANG, rather than patience and understanding. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Review Requested.

Hey Swarm,

As you probably noticed, I've come back from that month-long Wikibreak. I have since stayed away from (A) AN/I, (B) AN/RFC, and (C) clerking discussion threads. I have also not been involved with any advising, mentoring, mediating, flattering, and chatting in non-article-related discussions. Well okay.. Flattering and chatting is hard to not do, but I want to believe there was improvements made in these areas in terms of their productiveness. I have tried to keep to a minimum all exclusively unproductive discussions.

I have been trying to help with the portal clean-up since coming back and have been leaning on the advice of BHG for that task. It's obviously a contentious issue, and I would have preferred less drama surrounding it... However, the work can be boring though for most, so I therefore enjoy it. Anything even remotely related to the disruptive dispute between that now blocked editor and the aforementioned admin I have stayed away from as much as I could.

I must say that my experience on Wikipedia has been a series of ups and downs. However, I will hold up one edit I made here above all the rest. Special:Diff/882119355 is the edit I look back on as probably my best one up to now.

In that spirit, could you please take a look at my contributions? I would like some general feedback with my handling of this, this, and this. Any advice moving forward on those fronts would be appreciated.

Your ever grateful adoptee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 08:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Just following up because I don't want this to be a bother for you. I'll understand if you are too busy. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't been around much lately. I'll take a look when I get the chance. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Awesome; Thank you! I was worried for a bit there that I proven myself to be too much of a handful. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Two questions:

1. While sanctioned, do you think that it is a good idea to request additional rights (in particular, I would like rollback)?
2. Do you think I would be ready for additional rights and earned back the trust from the community?

Awesome Aasim 15:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah I see no problem with you requesting additional rights, as long as you have a straightforward need for them! Regarding question 2, what did you have in mind? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

In particular, I would like to get rollback permissions so I can revert vandalism. Awesome Aasim 04:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Chiropractic

There are problems with the chiropractic page including failed verification content and a MEDRS violation in the lede. If IPs or new accounts try to remove the problematic content the article should not be semi-protected because others disagree. Readers have been complaining for years about the chiropractic page. This time the readers are correct. QuackGuru (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for catching this. I'll try to keep an eye on things over there. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It is no secret my draft for the lede fixes the problems. I will likely end up at arbcom if I try to fix the problems. I am familiar with the topic and wrote a significant amount of content. The original editors who helped build the article are no longer interested in the article or have left Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Can you summarize what the issue is, so that I know what I'm looking for? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Chiropractic is a form of alternative medicine mostly concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, especially the spine.[1][2] Some proponents, especially those in the field's early history, have claimed that such disorders affect general health via the nervous system,[2] through vertebral subluxation, claims which are demonstrably false. All of this is very poor writing. The first paragraph should mainly be about the profession.
      • Its foundation is at odds with mainstream medicine, and chiropractic is sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation and "innate intelligence" that reject science.[4][5][6][7][8] Failed verification and misplaced content.
      • Chiropractors are not medical doctors.[9][unreliable medical source?] MEDRS violation.
      • The first paragraph is problematic. I proposed this. QuackGuru (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

A reader removed some of the problematic content from the lede. I went ahead and added my proposal. If the bias content and failed verification content is restored we can go to AN/I or arbcom. QuackGuru (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Failed verification content and other policy violations were restored even though others objected to the previous version. QuackGuru (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: I can impose AE page restrictions. Do you think that will help? Will also weigh in on the talk page. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The only thing that will help is to get back to this version. A RfC may be the only way. QuackGuru (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

See what the editor wrote on the talk page: The current and long-standing lede section [1] provides an accurate, well-sourced, general summary of Chiropractic. Removing sourced material such as "... through vertebral subluxation, claims which are demonstrably false" doesn't help inform the reader, it simply misleads them. You also want to remove "Its foundation is at odds with mainstream medicine, and chiropractic is sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation and "innate intelligence" that reject science."[7]

That reject science is duplication of "pseudoscientific" and the editor did not acknowledge the content failed verification and the other content was unsourced. That is grounds for a topic banned or a block. Shall we go to AN/I or Arbcom? QuackGuru (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The editor is refusing to acknowledge any content they restored failed verification and is commenting on the editor rather than the content.[8] QuackGuru (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a policy called consensus. It was originally added here.[9] There is no consensus for the content.[10][11][12]

See the latest edit.[13] through vertebral subluxation, claims which are not based on scientific evidence. is duplication of chiropractic is sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation and "innate intelligence" that reject science.[4][5][6][7][8] Click on the citations such as citation 8. It does not verify chiropractic is sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation and "innate intelligence". I can't improve the lede as long as the other editor does not acknowledge there is any problems. The lede is too long and can be trimmed. I can't trim the lede or make any improvements. It is a waste of time to argue on the talk page for weeks or months. QuackGuru (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

See "Some proponents, especially those in the field's early history, have claimed that such disorders affect general health via the nervous system,[2] through vertebral subluxation, claims which are not based on scientific evidence."

"Some proponents" fails verification "claimed" is not neutral per WP:CLAIM "through vertebral subluxation" is misleading content to state it is "through" vertebral subluxation. It would need to be rewritten to make any sense. There is a problem with each and every sentence in the first paragraph. QuackGuru (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)