This is an archive of past discussions about User:Swarm. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, thanks for granting me Rollback. Do you think I am eligible for pending changes reviewer right? Actually I got rejected at PERM more than a week ago. I want to review pending changes as a part of my anti-vandalism work. Thanks again. Sincerely, Masum Reza☎14:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello I am a Extended confirmed user .I am requesting Rollback permission because I have been reverting Vandalism for a while now, rollback would help me to do that more efficiently.-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 11:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Good morning. Sorry to bother you and apologies if this isn't the right way to resolve this, but as you relisted this discussion I thought perhaps you could help. Only a few hours after you relisted it, it seems to have been closed as Keep. That decision seemed odd as it was so quick, and there had been one of each votes since relisting, but then when I looked at the person who closed the discussion, they seem to be a new account openly claiming to be a sockpuppet. Are they allowed to close the discussion and is there anything I can do about it? Thank you for the help. --Hugsyrup (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
BLP policy enforcement
Swarm, I asked you a question here, but while I was typing it the arbitration enforcement report was closed, so you may not have seen my question. BLP policy says that editors who repeatedly violate this policy may be blocked, and it does not say that editors must be notified of the policy first, but where is the correct place to report such repeated violations? Wikipedia:BLPADMINS says to report them at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but when Randykitty reported a similar set of issues on the Linda Gottfredson article at that noticeboard, she was told that the proper venue was arbitration enforcement. [1]2600:1004:B127:94F9:E943:3C26:A260:725A (talk) 04:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
There is no correct place, we should take BLP enforcement vary seriously regardless of the venue. However, Arbitration Enforcement is more serious because it allows us to impose a wide range of sanctions that are not easily overturned. Without it, we're pretty much just limited to blocking or warning. There's no prerequisites to the normal blocking or warning or community topic banning at AN/I. However, in order to invoke Arb Enforcement, a few strict rules need to be met. Formal notification using a standardized template is one of those things. ~Swarm~{sting}02:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Stupid question
So.. Pakaran hasn't logged a single Bureaucrat action since 2015 (4 years ago). Doesn't that make them inactive? Is there a reason why no one has said anything to them? I am probably missing something here... Hence the name of the header.. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL‐Talk‐☖05:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Ah, the infamous Pakaran. This is certainly not a stupid question, but the answer is quite stupid. So, let's look at the requirements, a crat becomes "inactive" if they have:
No edits or logged actions in over a year -- This is a basic activity requirement that applies to admins as well, and it is very lenient. Pakaran has not edited in over a year, but they did log an action in September 2018 when they deleted and restored their user page, so this activity criterion will continue to be satisfied until September.
No bureaucrat involvement in over 3 years --- This one is just as lenient as the first. Bureaucratic activity is not measured in logged actions, but literally anything that can be construed as exercising the role of a Bureaucrat. So, even though Pakaran has obviously not been constantly involved since early 2006 and has not been involved with the project in any meaningful way since early 2010, this single comment at BN in December 2016 quite simply satisfied the "crat involvement" criterion for the next three years.
So, for now, Pakaran retains his permissions as an "active" crat until September of this year, by virtue of his having deleted and undeleted his userpage and nothing else. Beyond that, he will likely have to make another singular comment in his Bureaucratic capacity by the end of this year, which will buy him another three years. Pakaran is what I refer to as a "relic crat"; someone who was made a crat in the early days of the project by a small handful of editors without the extremely high standards that exist today, indeed without any standards at all. He was appointed by 13 people with no discussion, he has not been involved with the project since 2006, save for a few months in 2010, and based on his edit count and inactivity alone he'd 100% WP:SNOW fail another RfA much less an RfB. He got in the door before it was hard. I can't blame him for that. He failed to stay inactive long term. I can't blame him for that either. But the simple fact of the matter is that by modern standards, he has no legitimate claim to his cratship. He's simply not qualified. He's purely grandfathered in. It's ridiculous. I'm completely unapologetic in saying that these "relic crats" (I believe there are only one or two others left) are an embarrassment to themselves and to the project, and should resign their tools. ~Swarm~{sting}04:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I didn't know he was infamous lol. I guess I am rather surprised by this sorry state of affairs. Who would reasonably argue for this set up? –MJL‐Talk‐☖05:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello there, it was over a year ago that a consensus was reached to block Sander.v.Ginkel. Maybe it is time to unblock this user as I’m sure it would be an appreciated action and it has been a long time since the block. If you’re wondering why I am querying, it is because this user has been involved in some areas I am interested in. Best wishes, Willbb234 (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
@Willbb234: I can't unblock unfortunately. This user has been banned by the community, thus needs to be unbanned by the community. This is not really a big deal, as after six months we usually unban by default, but the user would have to request it for themselves. ~Swarm~{sting}02:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
"That doesn't make you seem like a reasonable human being" - What way is that to speak to an editor here? That's a personal attack and I think you should redact it. And as for "which is precisely the reason you were blocked"? If "not being a reasonable human being" was your rationale for blocking, you should be ashamed of it and should immediately unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
That's fine, but to be clear, I was doing nothing but being frank and honest with them. I was not trying to be mean. They're CIR blocked for a number of reasons, which, in fact, do boil down to "not being a reasonable human being", and the unblock request is clearly symptomatic of the problem. Pointing this out to them may have been blunt, but there was certainly no malice involved. Yes, if I were in a content dispute on a talk page, obviously it would be a personal attack to call someone an unreasonable human being, but when a user is blocked for bizarre, unhinged, unreasonable conduct, I don't think there's anything wrong with calling a spade a spade. I get that you're trying to "minimize damage", but I think that being direct and blunt is the only possible way we'll ever get through to this user. ~Swarm~{sting}01:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Anyway, even though I disagree with your intervention here I can respect your view as a colleague. I've reworded my sentiments in a more appropriate way, focusing on the user's conduct rather than the user as a person. ~Swarm~{sting}02:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. The thing is this is just a kid (who I think is well-meaning but just not very competent), and my fear was that he could be quite badly effected by being told something bad about himself as a person by someone in authority. Anyway, the new wording is good, as is the apology - and they've accepted it well. Good result, thanks again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
You know, for some reason it did not occur to me that it was a kid. That makes a lot of sense and you're right. I will be more careful with my wording. ~Swarm~{sting}23:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
having planned to contact you (as reaching already 4000 pages on watchlist), but I was quite busy, but here you may read my final incentive. As you are on the list of admins who may grant rollback rights, this is what I apply for. About my past, there was an issue - I understood only afterwards - a caring admin (NeilN) sanctioned me for educational purposes, on a good faith matter, after two other admins (El C & Edjohnston) joined the discussion and finally I was unblocked, because we understood each other and cleared all possible misunderstandings, that may be caused as well of not being native in English. As as summary I learned what really vandalism is what is not, and a careful evaluation is needed to decide on good faith or bad faith (being independent if the content of the edit is false or not). Having trained around two years - without any complaint, as the admins are supervising me - I think time has come, since many times I have to undo edit's one by one, and it is exhausting and less professional, with more thousand pages continously increasing. I kindly ask you to check my application and evaluate it. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC))
Swarm, just letting you that I have declined the request at PERM. If you believe they can use the right objectively you are welcome to override my decision. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I figured it was perfect back-end thing for me to do considering you are active in this area. I also have decent real-life experience with confidential information policies through my politics and activism. Would this be something you would approve of me doing? –MJL‐Talk‐☖19:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
This seems like he's not listening to your first or second warnings. He posted a joke-y comment on one AFD in March, participated in one other AFD in January, and otherwise hasn't edited a single AFD in almost two years, and suddenly shows up to two separate AFDs I am involved in? That seems suspicious enough, but he was also harassing me on ANI on two separate occasions in January[2][3] (when I was not in a position to do anything about it, for reasons I'd rather not go into -- I think I emailed you about the second incident since you did respond, but you were also posting on that thread before Pldx1 showed up).
The timing of the recent AFD following is also suspicious, since it happened one hour after another editor opened an ANI thread on me (and notified me on my talk page, which I suspect Pldx1 still has watchlisted), and he probably assumed I would be in hot water and unable to respond again, as happened in January.
Sorry to bother you with this again, but would you mind taking a look?
Hi Swarm, I wonder if you could help me with something that has me confused like a Tuesday morning.
Normally I just drop a "welcome for new users with possible problem editing" on confusing new users, but in this case I'm not sure whether maybe something actually needs doing.
Noticing the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTubers (3rd nomination), at first my attention was drawn to the assertion that all after the first Keep !vote were canvassed. As far as I remember mine wasn't canvassed. That assertion seems flawed. After at least a few more seconds of thought, why can't the canvassed editors be identified by the canvassing, and any bias quantified and countered? In the absence of that, isn't the logic also flawed - after checking the previous AfD, there were few (Keep) participants to be canvassed, so what makes the notification partisan? For the editors that were canvassed, what biases their Keep !vote? I couldn't see the ANI thread. Widefox; talk21:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your questions. You seem to be arguing that my reading of consensus was inaccurate. However, I did not read the consensus. I procedurally closed the discussion as compromised, in response to a behavioral complaint. When an editor literally goes down the article history, spamming notifications to previous editors, it can be presumed that the intent is to solicit "keep" votes. And when the result is an immediate "keep" pile-on, it quite simply makes it impossible to legitimize the consensus. I acknowledged in my close that the consensus may well have turned out the same, and that is definitely something to consider. I did not say the notified users were biased. I did not say the notified users were partisan. I did not say there was any assumption of bad faith on the part of any "keep" voter. I simply procedurally closed the discussion due to the fact that we can't assess what the consensus would have been in the absence of canvassing. It is not as simple as striking those who were notified. Consensus is not a headcount. It is not a vote. It is the result of organic discussion. It fundamentally governs this entire project. The prohibition on artificially manipulating these organic discussions is extremely serious, and must be enforced. So, it would be easy to justify a "keep" reading of consensus, sure. But it is more important to draw a line on canvassing. ~Swarm~{sting}00:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Sangdeboeuf
I'd like an explanation about this. Sangdeboeuf had been edit warring against several editors about several very different content edits, none of which are obvious vandalism. This level of indefinite page protection isn't justified by the types of edits the other editors made, and seems to only function to endorse Sangdeboeuf's edit war while not addressing his behavior. -- Netoholic@08:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.
Miscellaneous
The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
Hello and welcome to the June newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since March 2019. You can unsubscribe from our mailings at any time; see below.
Election time: Nomination of candidates in our mid-year Election of Coordinators opened on 1 June, and voting will take place from 16 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.
June Blitz: Our June blitz will soon be upon us; it will begin at 00:01 on 16 June (UTC) and will close at 23:59 on 22 June (UTC). The themes are "nature and the environment" and all requests.
March Drive: Thanks to everyone for their work in March's Backlog Elimination Drive. We removed copyedit tags from 182 of the articles tagged in our original target months October and November 2018, and the month finished with 64 target articles remaining from November and 811 in the backlog. GOCE copyeditors also completed 22 requests for copyedit in March; the month ended with 34 requests pending. Of the 32 people who signed up for this drive, 24 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
April Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the April Blitz; the blitz ran from 14 to 20 April (UTC) inclusive and the themes were Sports and Entertainment. Of the 15 people who signed up, 13 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed 60 copyedits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
Progress report: As of 04:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 267 requests since 1 January. The backlog of tagged articles stands at 605 articles.
May Drive: During the May Backlog Elimination Drive, Guild copy-editors removed copyedit tags from 191 of the 192 articles tagged in our original target months of November and December 2018, and January 2019 was added on 22 May. We finished the month with 81 target articles remaining and a record low of 598 articles in the backlog. GOCE copyeditors also completed 24 requests for copyedit during the May drive, and the month ended with 35 requests pending. Of the 26 people who signed up for this drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available 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.
There was nothing casual in deploying that invective, the easter-egg link to a definition of quisling. I have asked that one statement be struck, and request that you further modify those other responses and reactions. It cannot be helpful, no matter the circumstances, it is honestly the most chilling statement I have seen appear in this discussion. cygnis insignis12:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
There is nothing casual about calling out a traitor; a backstabber; a quisling. I grant you that it is inherently severe and unpleasant. But it's not unhinged rhetoric. If I were to say, "I understand and respect your [[Fascism|opinion]]", that's obviously an incendiary easter egg that's not okay. That's a supposedly-civil statement, which contains an unexpected attack or criticism. That's what an easter egg is, something hidden that needs to be uncovered. But my comment said, "Defending an all-powerful corporate entity against us horrible, bloodthirsty ''volunteers'' with our pesky moral objections. What a [[wikt:quisling|martyr]] you shall go down as." That's not an easter egg. That's a very direct criticism. My sarcasm was obvious, and there should be no misconception that I am openly accusing DJ of being a traitor to the community. Just because I used sarcasm and a piped link doesn't mean that I am concealing my meaning. There are many negative labels that have excessively dramatic rhetorical implications, but quisling is not one of them. Quisling is a straightforward common noun. It simply means "one who betrays their allies and sides with the enemy". I'm not calling or remotely implying that they are a fascist, or a nazi, or a genocidal megalomaniac. Political or historical implications are meaningless. The actual person who was Quisling obviously invokes such thoughts, but "quisling" has become a word with a specific meaning by now. It is not the same as calling someone "Hitler", where the meaning is subjective. It's a word that means something specific. And while you would be in the right if I called someone "Hitler" or "Saddam" or "Stalin", that's not what I did or intended to do. "Quisling" is a non-rhetorical common noun, with non-literal implications.
That said, if you have a way for me to restate my sentiments in a less personal or hurtful way, I will absolutely do so. However, I can't think of any superior or more sensitive word that contains the same sentiments about betrayal and siding with the enemy, and the sentiments themselves I can't retract. ~Swarm~{sting}06:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't have bothered to say anything but for my sympathy for purposeful solidarity. As it is, many admin or user actions and retirements were unilateral decisions, with a nod to broad sentiment about distaste for the situation, but there was no accord that they are breaking by changing direction. In a sense, that are not ceding ground if there was no specific demand that would meet their own satisfaction. Am I making sense? cygnis insignis21:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Hello, Swarm. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 12:43, 13 June 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
...start with "don't be a bully". I ask to reconsider your statements about TheDJ, which are so far over the top they may possibly have reached the "We The North" signage on the CN Tower at this point. They are bullying and they are inappropriate. I fully understand how distressing this situation is to many people in this community, whatever position they may hold; that's not an excuse for so personalizing what is really an argument about policy and its application. TheDJ has never done anything bad for this community, he has done many good things (including things that have entirely happened in the background), and he's not done anything to create the dispute that is happening now. Please cool off, reconsider your posts, and think about whether you'd want to be an admin on a project where your contributions are ignored, even derided, because you held a position different from some other people. Your bullying of a person who's well respected by almost everyone they have worked with on this project is precisely the kind of action that can, and probably will, be used to show that English Wikipedia can't manage itself or its problematic users. Please take the time to consider that you, as an administrator, do have a disproportionate impact on this project and its reputation. Risker (talk) 06:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I have always been fully transparent, accountable, and responsible for below-par actions. Any scenario where the community has disagreed with my approach, I have learned from, taken seriously, and apologized for. I'm not some asshole who just says whatever he wants or feels. But I have not seen that my defense of Fram was out of line. I have not seen that my condemnation of DJ was in the wrong. IRL, I am quite literally a serious student of history, and a serious student of medicine. I humbly consider myself a professional in both fields. So the implication that I'm just some bully with no regard for the consequences of precedent, or the consequences of permitting harm within a society, well I just can't take that seriously. I was very harsh with TheDJ, but my concerns were very serious, and I very seriously want them to run a reconfirmation RfA, with the assumption that the community will indeed stand against them. If you would call such a request from a user who directly attacks the integrity of the community "bullying", then I'm sorry to have to be on the different side of an RfA from you. If such an RfA were to reject my view as "bullying", then I would be completely humiliated. However I honestly don't think that the community would do such a thing. The community would agree with me. If I'm in the wrong for calling out an admin who denigrates the community, then explain to me how. Explain to me why. Explain to me why an admin rejecting the community is not significant and deserving of adamant and public rejection. Explain to my why such rejection should be tolerated, and dissent of community rejection is bullying. If you have any logic-based arguments, I will treat them as the word of God. But don't expect me to defend such behavior for the sake of an admin's reputation. You have to give me logical motivations to side with you. ~Swarm~{sting}07:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm on my way to bed. I'll simply point out to you that you're also being called out for your edits on BN by two other editors. You're personalizing this issue way too much, targeting someone you disagree with instead of the problem that you want to have addressed. I really recommend that you walk away from the computer for 12 hours, then come back and decide what response you'd want an admin to take if someone had written about you what you've written about TheDJ. Risker (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@Risker: All I can say is that I'm sorry for the conflict between us. I've always respected you. However, I don't think I'm personalizing this. I do not interpret any user I am in disagreement with as having a personal problem with me, nor vise versa. I do want a problem addressed, but I don't think that the act of merely speaking against someone who's defending the problematic institution constitutes inappropriate personalization of the issue at hand. I don't know DJ, and I'm not making the dispute personal. They're simply arguing in support of a morally indefensible position. Attacking the community is grounds for desysopping. That's not a nuanced, subjective, personalized argument, that's just common sense. I said: "If you would call ... a user who directly attacks the integrity of the community "bullying", then I'm sorry to have to be on the different side of an RfA from you. If such an RfA were to reject my view as "bullying", then I would be completely humiliated. However I honestly don't think that the community would do such a thing. The community would agree with me. If I'm in the wrong for calling out an admin who denigrates the community, then explain to me how. Explain to me why. Explain to me why an admin rejecting the community is not significant and deserving of adamant and public rejection. Explain to my why such rejection should be tolerated, and dissent of community rejection is bullying. If you have any logic-based arguments, I will treat them as the word of God. Rather than respond, you only said, "I'll simply point out to you that you're also being called out for your edits on BN by two other editors. You're personalizing this issue way too much, targeting someone you disagree with instead of the problem that you want to have addressed. I really recommend that you walk away from the computer for 12 hours ..." Not only did you address my concerns with a rational counterargument like I asked, but you suggested that I was just worked up and needed to step away for 12 hours. I just did step away for more than 12 hours. I will be the first to admit that I get too heated sometimes. But I genuinely do not think that I'm being irrational. If I am, I will accept such an impression as presented by the community, in whatever form that may be. ~Swarm~{sting}08:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I do think you can (should) dial it back a few notches. Not least because your message might be lost in the delivery, but also because reasonable minds can differ on what has happened the last few days. I don’t want to speak for TheDJ but I am not surprised that some of our more technically-minded users are showing deference to the TOU and OA pages and the rules within, even if or as these rules have are being deployed in a manner unpalatable to a significant segment of the community. Programmers and the like generally find comfort in following rules to the letter. –xenotalk10:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Going a bit beyond dialling it back might be the thing to do. None would ever question your rationality Swarm, your logical skills are first rate. The thing with rationality is, "if you start from unreliable assumptions, perfect logic can easily lead to bedlam" (Lord Keynes). So lets look at what these unreliable assumptions might be.
1) That the DJ really meant it when he said "I have ZERO trust in this community". ---- It's much more likely those words can be best understood as an expression of emotion. Not an objective expression of how the DJ really feels. As you well know, even the best will sometimes utter heated words in emotional situations.
2) That the overwhelming likelihood that you'd succeed in thwarting an RfA proves your position is correct. --- Long have I been aware of your skill at RfAs. On several occasions your badgering has turned a tanking RfA into a successful one. It's much easier to attack than defend. It's obvious how you could make a brief & compelling oppose. Given the law of numbers and the literal minded nature of many RfA participants, it's a near certainty you'd prevail. But RfA is not a reliable way to determine right or wrong. It's not easy to briefly explain why that is so, but you've always seemed to have a good understanding of RfA, so hopefully it's not needed?
3) That the DJ's motivation in siding with the WMF was to curry favour with the dominant power, regardless of that power's lack of morality. (i.e. a Quissling). --- It seems more likely that the pro WMF editors genuinely believe there are problems with the communities ability to handle harassment. Per harassment being a very serious thing, they welcome the WMF's bold actions. I don't agree with it, but it's a valid perspective. The reason Xeno suggests sounds feasible too. How realistic is it that that the DJ is genuinely corrupt, and just wanted to curry favour? How likely is it that WMF is going to have the backs of their supporters in any future on wiki disputes? If you think about, it should be pretty obvious that over 99% of the time, they're not going to get involved. All those who have took the unpopular side of the WMF are putting their necks on the line for what they believe in. They've took the risk of earning the lasting animosity of the admin crowd. From this perspective, they've been every bit as courageous as yourself, WMScribe, Flo & Bish.
As a history expert, hopefully you agree that it's almost always a red flag when someone polarises the two sides of a dispute on moral grounds, giving one side such extreme labels as "traitor" & "toxic, corrupt and invalid". Normally both sides have sound reason to think they have sound ethical reasons for their actions. This is what AGF is all about.
When one escalates to the max on moral grounds, it makes it extremly hard to have a collegial outcome. You clearly have a feel for this as you suggest you'll be "thoroughly humiliated" if you back down (or at least if your'e proved wrong.) You won't be humiliated at all. Exceptional circumstances like this demand exceptional actions, and it's most admirable you took such a strong position in support of your friends. But sometimes backing down is the very best thing you can do for the community. Yngvadottir was just told me she finds "win at all costs" type argumentation one of the most damaging things about our community. I totally agree with her, and my contribs these past few months have several examples where I've admitted that I was wrong, or at least backed down gracefully from an argument. So if you think I've not heard your concerns, pls lay them out, and if convinced happily admit Im the one who is wrong (as I'm sure would Risker, providing they have time to give this their attention.)
On the other hand, if you see any sense in the above argument, maybe you could make a brief apology to the DJ - something like "Please accept my apologies for ABF with your motivations. While I still strongly disagree with anyone who sides with the WMF, I now see you had good faith reasons, and I support your resysop whenever you want the tools back." IMO, doing this quickly before we learn the outcome of the board meeting, would not only be the best way to heal some of the hurt here, it would also (though only very slightly) increase the odds of the WMF reversing their action against Fram. (If their supporters are quislings, then the WMF are the Nazis, and how can they possibly back down in the face of that?)
Hope you don't mind me butting in here. Only taking the time to write this all out as you've long been one of the admins I admire the most.FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
(sorry for butting in here) Second the above. Swarm is one of my favourite admins (gave me one of my first tools), and I often find myself looking for their views in long sections as it usually a "rock of sense", and also given fearlessly, regardless of prevailing view or emotion. However, I do think things have gone too-far too-fast now, and BN is starting to look like a "suicide-wall", with some really talented and valable bodies at the bottom of it. It is time for such gestures as FH suggests on all sides. Britishfinance (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
As someone who shares your anger about all this, I hope you'll take on board what the folks above are saying. Consider channeling some (most?) of that righteous anger into a plan of action to get some changes made. Invective can be incredibly cathartic but it's unlikely to actually improve anything and much more likely to burn bridges that don't need to be burnt. 28bytes (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm just gobsmacked you called Megalibrarygirl "brainless" and a "pro-WMF shilling". She doesn't work for the WMF and never has done, and seems to me to be merely suggesting the WMF probably had a reason for banning Fram (even if you and I don't agree with it) and we should assume good faith. As everyone has said, you need to take a deep breath; as you can also see I have given my opinion on the thread which doesn't differ too much from yours, but personally attacking the WMF, no matter how justifiable you might think it is, isn't the answer. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, niceness is often taken for weakness. Nazi analogies are a third rail, but I'm sure they've occurred to many of us; Eastern European analogies have been flying. There is a distinction between being a decent person and tiptoing around the feefees of people who are bullying us. I don't get the bennies to justify being deferential to WMF staffers; it's important they realize that there's a difference between being civilized and tugging our forelocks. And this community does count for something, and yes it is distressing to see people assuming bad faith of us. This is the second time someone has accused me of being a Gamergater, and it is contemptible and makes me legitimately angry. And there I'll stop. But please don't tell me or anyone else to calm down. That's one of the oldest signs of disrespect. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@Yngvadottir: What you were accused of, for the second time, was a contemptible accusation. Many people are finding it distressing to see these labels thrown around, you are not alone, maybe supply a diff. cygnis insignis21:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Alright folks. Thanks for offering your calm and reasonable perspective here. I apologize to anyone who feels that I crossed the line. I will dial it back. I agree that unbridled anger is not constructive, however justified. Creating a sideshow at BN was not my intent either. Yes, I was assuming that TheDJwas actually declaring their contempt for the community, and anyone who resents the community shouldn't be an admin. If it was rhetorical, the underlying meaning was lost on me, and he didn't clarify any sort of misunderstanding. If DJ retracts or clarifies his statement, then I will of course have no problem with him asking for the mop back. But I squarely agree with Yngvadottir—being accused of being a Gamergater is contemptible and makes me legitimately angry. My anger at the WMF is genuine and I would say that it is well-earned. My anger at those defending the WMF is genuine as well. This is not because they disagree with me, but because they're backing the malicious narrative that everyone who questions the WMF is supporting sexist harassment. That's actual bullying, and it's coming from the top. However it's been fairly pointed out that these people may be supporting the WMF for their own reasons beyond "brainless pro-WMF shilling". So I apologize to Megalibrarygirl for personally attacking her. I do not think she's brainless or a shill. ~Swarm~{sting}01:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Swarm. Here's the thing. I'm a very lucky person. I'm a middle aged woman who's had minimal harassment in her life. I'm very lucky, since so many women and LGBT people face what I've never truly experienced. However, I understand the Dynamics of harassment. I have studied this over time and seen it happen to people I love. I've been the victim of emotional abuse, but it's not as bad as what I've heard from others. Sexism is everywhere whether or not we wish otherwise. Harassment is a tool not just of men, but of all people in power. Women can be just as awful. However, the status quo often supports the powerful. It supports those who do good work, even if they are toxic. I want us to look at who we turn away when we support the powerful at the expense of victims. I promise I'll always work to be a good admin, but my skills as an admin are surely not solely determined by me agreeing with you or anyone else. Please do strike any personal comments you apologized for above. Thank you. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Already done. And, to be clear, I'm with you. I'm not indifferent to harassment. I'm not just reflexively defending Fram in spite of suspected harassment. I don't suspect harassment. Losing Fram would be a small price to pay if it meant taking a victim of harassment seriously. You think that's what's happening here. I'm not convinced, because Fram has spun a story about how he's been banned for petty incivility, and that he was not even interacting with the complainant, that the complainant's ties to the WMF are what is actually behind this. If you're right, the whole backlash has been fabricated by Fram. Why would they allow a harasser to spin a narrative about how the Foundation is corrupt and the complainant is the bad guy, not a victim? That's where I'm coming from. Privacy is important, but the Foundation's inability to deny the story about this being a "hit" by a known user is probably going to damage anti-harassment efforts, regardless of the truth of his claims. ~Swarm~{sting}03:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Swarm. I really do hope that WMF can explain better what happened. I'm serious that I was gobsmacked that they got involved at all. And like I said before, that highlights the seriousness to me. I know how damaging not keeping something private can be to victims. I get where people are coming from who want more transparency. But what if transparency hurts those who report? I'm not sure how to balance these things. I'm not. However, given a choice of sides, I'm usually going to back the victim. They, like whistleblowers, are often at the receiving end of mistrust, scrutiny & disbelief. We always wish their allegations were untrue. I know I wish that. So I'm here batting for the whistleblowers. I don't know them, but I've met enough to empathize. Thanks for your time and please do ping me in the future! Megalibrarygirl (talk)£
@Megalibrarygirl: I've reflected on your words here, and... wow, you humble me. I sincerely mean that. We can't actually know for certain that there's an actual victim behind all this, because the WMF won't say anything, and the only other explanation is the one offered by Fram: pure malice and corruption. There has actually been an attempt to argue the latter, but not the former, leading many of us to believe that that is the only explanation. We only have one side of the story, and the lack of the other side of the story is explained by that opposing side. But you would still err on the side of that victim by default. You understand that when there is an abuser and a victim who needs protecting, this is exactly how things go. If someone was harassed and denigrated, this exact scenario would still be happening. Malice, corruption, the complainant being unreasonable or evil, the popular sentiments being swayed against the victim; that's always the narrative that gets spun. You're not so quick to take it at face value, even in the absence of evidence to directly disprove it. You're more inclined to support the victim. And that's important, because the institution (in this case the community) will side with the powerful by default, even if in the wrong. That's just the way things work, as demonstrated by endless real-world parallels. Yes, there are situations where the accuser is the corrupt one, but these are far outweighed by situations where the accuser is honest and yet they're buried by the person in power's corrupt narrative. So, it's not that unreasonable to take the accuser's side. I apologized to you because it was the right thing to do. Personal attacks are not acceptable from an admin. There is no solution other than to retract them. But I didn't understand or respect your position. I do now. You've very rightfully reminded me that I may be wrong, and that my actions do cause real harm if I am wrong. Your defense of a victim does not cause such harm. You are the honorable one. I am so, so sorry for dismissing you the way that I did. I will continue to call for greater transparency and accountability to the community. I do think that the Chair erred in invoking Gamergate. If you won't explain the problem, don't try to explain the consequences. I will continue to advocate for greater WMF transparency and accountability. But you're right. It's not easy to know where to draw the line between balancing the privacy of the complainant and being transparent to the community. The WMF may have been imperfect in this, but that doesn't automatically mean they're corrupt and in the wrong. I will keep your perspective in mind going forward. I am so, so sorry for what I said about you. ~Swarm~{sting}09:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Swarm, I am both sorry and glad that we have been involved in this discussion. Sorry, because of course it's been a difficult time for many of us on Wikipedia. But I'm also glad because it's not too often you meet people like you. Thanks for your kind words. I consider us to have a clean slate! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Don’t worry, I wouldn’t leave this project. I’m just stepping away from the admin backlog for now, which is really my only role here. I will not disappear, as that would only embolden that which I wish to oppose. Best, ~Swarm~{sting}08:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
hi there, in case you want to respond I mentioned you on my talkpage, the comment is in the header, please don;t reply there but open a new section if you want to respond, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Recommend you rephrase your comment to TonyBallioni and remove "an insult to those who deserve it more…" IMHO, this part may elicit more of an emotional response than a logical one. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I am dismayed/disappointed/surprised to see so many admins for whom I generally have a high degree of respect supporting this RfA. Are they simply running an experiment to test the process or do they genuinely believe that such a candidate should pass? Either way, it's not fair on the candidate. Thoughts? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
If I may comment, perhaps an admin should volunteer to take this person on and mentor them. Obviously someone interested enough to volunteer and wants to get involved. I am not an admin and don't know the rules, but shaping someone early would be a good thing. Maybe even a probation period. I think something along those lines is what people are suggesting with the addition of some tools. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
If he'll listen to you…
If MJL still listens to you, you might want to discreetly point out that at any time, but particularly in the current climate, unless this is a particularly elaborate attempt at Wikicide it is not a good idea. ‑ Iridescent22:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
MJL, if not getting your way in an ARE case over a minimal thing is a nightmare from which you can't wake up, it's maybe a good idea to do something else for a bit. Drmies (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
That was more of a response to the whole FRAM situation which never seems to be able to end. I forget if I made that clear or not. –MJL‐Talk‐☖23:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi there, I'm feeling very out of my depth here! I edited a Wikipedia page and it was reverted because I have a conflict of interest (fair enough). I'd like to draft a revised article for proofreading by an editor, can you please help me copy my work to a user page? It's for the entry Northpower, at the moment the info about the company is very out of date and I just want to update it with verified information signed off by the Auditor General of New Zealand as per the Electricity Regulations Act. Thanks so much for your help :-) OOA2019 (talk) 08:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)OOA2019
Hi Swarm. I won't be going to Stockholm most unfortunately, because I really can't afford $3,000 just for 5 days in the far north of Europe. I'll leave that trip to the Europeans and the 70-strong WMF junket. But next year Wikimania is right on my doorstep. I hope you will be able to come. I will be making absolutely sure that my friends who are able to come will have a great time. Regards, Chris. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@Kudpung: it's been confirmed as Bangkok? I thought that that was just a rumour/still up for voting or something. Where did you read that? Genuinely curious (though I regrettably won't be able to attend...and would probably melt anyways ). --TheSandDoctorTalk05:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)(talk page stalker)
TheSandDoctor, it is indeed finalised and will be officially announced at Wikimania in Stockholm where the 2020 Tha team will be presented to the audience. I had long talks with the WMF 2 years ago about Bangkok. I'm not on the local organising committee because I'm not Thai. However, I may be helping the team in some way. I will definitely be ensuring that some additional peripheral activities are organised for UK/US/ANZ. etc. attendees, of a kind that the committee will not be able to provide. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@Kudpung: Thank you!! I'm delighted by the notion of visiting Bangkok in general. Doing so for Wikimania and meeting/hanging out with you in person would be incredible! I have no doubt that you will show us a uniquely incredible time in what is your own corner of the world! I will be honest, I live in Orlando, so traveling to Thailand will not necessarily be a cheap, casual trip on my end either. I can't guarantee that it will be feasible for me to attend. But I am still very happy about your offer, and I will certainly be delighted to take you up on your offer if I can manage it! I'm very excited at the thought! ~Swarm~{sting}05:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Try to get a scholarship. Once here, Thailand is an amazingly inexpensive place - about one quarter to one sixth of the daily cost of restaurants, beer, cabs, subways, and budget hotels in the US. Worth staying on for an extra 2 days or more once here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
If you have more time, like a week, it is worthwhile not just see Bangkok but also travel around the country. It is beautiful, especially away from the crowds.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Ping~
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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
If being understandable and accountable is the resolution you're waiting on, I think you'll be waiting a long time. As I said, Bbb's name comes up far too often in complaints about extreme behavior that would not be tolerable from any other admin. From what I can tell, he really doesn't care that much about following our norms and, when confronted privately or publicly, he's obstinate and inflexible, will never admit wrongdoing or apologize, and will actually turn his ire on you for deigning to question him in the first place. He definitely takes it too far, but he's generally tolerated because he's the most active CU and most prolific anti-sockpuppeteer by an overwhelming margin. What are we gonna do, desysop him? He knows he's untouchable. I'll continue to call him out for such behavior any time it is reported, and I hope that, in spite of appearances, he actually is responding to corrections. But, you have to pick your battles, and realistically, the point has been made, and that's as good as you're gonna get here. ~Swarm~{sting}03:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Greater good, eh? For future reference, I'd be interested in being pinged if there are any discussions about abuse of admin power and the concept of untouchable editors, regardless of who is involved in the discussion and being discussed. Perhaps one day we can reach high enough number of concerned editors to deal with such issues. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here04:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
If it makes you feel any better, your report gained the strongest rebuke of Bbb's behavior that I've seen yet. It's clear that people are starting to catch on. Your complaint made a difference. Sometimes it just takes time to create a case. Your complaint may not have been fully resolved, but it makes a difference. ~Swarm~{sting}07:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I've been tracking down a whole bunch of socks of Pewdiepie and blocking them with talk page access revoked. I know you correctly blocked this one, but I'm not sure if it's yet another sock, in which case I'd revoke talk page access too. Happy to leave it with you, just a heads-up to make you aware of the problem. Cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me?12:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
MJL, what I posted was unhelpful, there were numerous accounts created this morning all promoting the PewDiePie site, see my block log. Although they are all socks with a single mission, you are right that the account I named doesn't actually exist, apologies for the confusion Jimfbleak - talk to me?13:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jimfbleak: [Thank you for the ping] Okay, gotcha! I'll look into the edits of these account and see if I can test out an edit filter for you. That seems like it might be fun to try a hand at! Cheers, –MJL‐Talk‐☖15:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:CEN came about as an idea I explored through a request for comment that closed last March. Recent research has re-opened the debate on Wikipedia's role in a changing faster-paced internet. Questions of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism are still floating around. That being said, there are still plenty of articles to write and hopefully this noticeboard can positively contribute to that critical process.
In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.
The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
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. Community feedback is invited.
Miscellaneous
In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Hi my name is Jack I am looking to be Adopted on Wikipedia
Hello Swarm, perhaps you remember me... I wonder if you think I might be suited to participating in this "adoption" thing and helping Jack? I do strongly share their interest in World War II historical topics. And I have made more than ten thousand edits over more than three years, including more than seven thousand edits to articles. And I have, just barely, never been blocked. Despite being rather boneheaded at times :)
On the other hand, I seem to get into arguments with other editors quite a lot, resulting sometimes in angry people on my talkpage. I would definitely not encourage that kind of thing, but, perhaps it just indicates that I am not suitable for this kind of role yet? I would be interested in what you think. MPS1992 (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@MPS1992: Honestly, as one of the users who once posted those angry talk page messages (which I actually regretted enough to put on my Wall of Shame), I would say MPS certainly has both the temperament and experience to mentor this user. That's just my limited perspective on the matter, though. (talk page stalker) –MJL‐Talk‐☖23:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jack90s15: Hey! Sorry I never got back to you! It looks like you've found an adopter, so great! That said, if you ever need anything, MPS1992 has also offered to help you if needed, and you are free to come to me as well for any reason. All the best! ~Swarm~{sting}00:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I didn't want to take the AN/I thread too far off topic, but if you have 5 minutes here's an essay I wrote comparing the BRD rule we're discussing with the "Consensus required" rule that I think you were alluding to when you suggested that nobody should have been able to reinstate Wumbolo's edit after BMK reverted it. In framing the BRD rule I spent a lot of time exploring possible scenarios and trying to identify loopholes. The conclusion I came to is that while the rule does have problems, those problems are less bad and easier to remedy through ordinary admin intervention than the problems created by alternative rules. But I can't claim to have thought of every scenario and I am definitely interested in feedback and suggestions for improvement. ~Awilley (talk)14:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Sigh. It seems like "consensus required" is the real BRD-enforced, and no one should have a problem with it. It's a bit bizarre that you claim to be averse to loopholes and yet have made it a personal project to implement a pseudo-BRD-enforced that goes by the name of "BRD-enforced", which applies only to the "B" in "BRD" and no one else, and you didn't foresee this type of edit war play out. ~Swarm~{sting}06:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually this is exactly the type of edit war I foresaw. (See the entry for "Tag-team edit war (many editors)" in the chart at the bottom of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive243#Rethinking_consensus-required) And it's not that I think that type of edit war is a good thing, it's that I have accepted that occasional tag-team edit wars (where multiple editors each use one revert) are a normal part of life at Wikipedia and that completely criminalizing them with "consensus required" creates more problems than it solves. As for how WP:BRD is supposed to work, you need only to look at the actual title of the page: BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. It's supposed to be BRD-BRD-BRD-BRD. "Consensus required" prohibits all reinstatement of material similar to the original BOLD edit, effectively mandating BRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD. That's not how BRD is supposed to work. ~Awilley (talk)12:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
[6] Tell me how you really feel. If you think the name "Enforced BRD" is too misleading I can call it something else ("BRD cycle"?) Also I think "full-blown edit war" might be a bit of an exaggeration...at a glance I see 3 users making maybe 6 reverts between them over 2 days, mostly involving categories and tags, with nobody reverting the same material more than once (ignoring BMK's revert-self-revert). In my experience these minor scuffles are quite common on Wikipedia, and they're one of the quicker ways to resolve disputes among multiple editors (seeing who supports what, and communicating objections via edit summary). It's more efficient than slamming on the brakes and doing a straw poll every time somebody makes a revert. At least that's my opinion based on my experience...you're entitled to your own view. ~Awilley (talk)04:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry if I came across as too harsh. Not trying to insult you personally. But I do feel the system you invented is broken. BRD is the overarching, guiding principle for content disputes. Anything less is unacceptable. Your strenuous attempts to make an exception in favor of allowing tag-team edit warring are simply not constructive. I can't believe that you would make it a personal crusade to subvert such a straightforward countermeasure against edit warring. Seriously. I can't believe this is the hill you've chosen to fight for. It's bizarre to me. I've never seen anything like it. And, rationally, it literally makes no sense. So, sorry, but I just don't get it. I dare say, the community would see it as a substantial cause for concern in regards to your judgment if you were to put yourself to a new RfA. "Consensus required" is quite simply enforcing BRD. The fact that you so severely find this notion offensive, and in need of countermeasures, is highly concerning. ~Swarm~{sting}05:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
It's fine.
Re: "Anything less [than BRD] is unacceptable" Actually there are several viable alternatives to BRD and our WP:BRD page even goes to the trouble of listing a few at Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#Alternatives. (Just a point of information...a bit off topic)
Re: "Consensus required" is quite simply enforcing BRD I understand why you say that and why you think that my BRD sanction breaks BRD by allowing a third party to jump in and reinstate a BOLD edit that has been reverted.
This ain't rocket science. BRD is a simple concept. BRD is the definitive editorial/DR/consensus-building standard. "Consensus required" enforces BRD. I simply cannot understand that, of all the things you could do here, you'd make it a personal crusade to subvert BRD. All your fabricated sanction is is BRD with the caveat that tag teaming is allowed. The notion that that's some reasonable alternative is silly. I'm sorry, but it's silly. And, the fact that you've attempted to implement this on a systematic scale is disruptive. I'm honestly not sure what your motivation is, but I can't see how enforcing the Arbcom ruling factors in. ~Swarm~{sting}06:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
My little vandalism on the Five Pillars page
Hi Swarm. I take it you are a devoted and powerful Wikipedian, which I support. Wikipedia rocks, so protect it. I knew I shouldn't do it, but couldn't resist.
I guess what I was thinking was that Wikipedia, like all of life, needs touches of humor. Of course, humor is not knowledge, but it can convey nuance that dead-serious narration cannot. [[7]] Perhaps crowd-sourced humor, which a large majority of editors agree illuminates the topic, might qualify.
Now, I agree my little joke was not that. But it did intend to make a point amplifying the guideline on personal attacks, rather than vitiating it: that we are all a little ridiculous, and should forgive as we wish to be forgiven.
@Magyar25: Hey, if you're gonna tell me that it was just a bit of lighthearted fun, it's all good. Don't worry about my warning. Obviously don't make a habit of vandalism, but I'm concerned about people with bad faith motivations and a potential for future disruption. That was my concern with the warning, and I'm glad to see that isn't the case here. I fully agree with you on the importance of humor. I'm not sure what discussions you're looking for, however, can you clarify? ~Swarm~{sting}04:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Request clarification on your remarks (it can just be here if you wish; it doesn't need to be on the WP:AN page unless you feel it's necessary:
You stated "Obviously there are issues with Buffs' behavior". Can you specify? I can't improve or address them unless I know what you're referring to. What would the IBAN entail? Buffs (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Possible Adoption?
Hi Swarm. I was curious to see if you were interested in the possibility of adopting me on Wikipedia. I've been on here for about 7 years, but I've never really taken it extremely serious, but I'd like to start the process of becoming a better member of this community. Hope to hear back from you soon, thanks! Jay Starz (talk) 12:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
What more is needed?
Hi. You had a message to me elsewhere stating "The user has not edited in six months, so you damn well better have an explanation for requesting an unblock on their behalf. I do not see such an explanation. Please come clean with what this is about, ASAP." I am just wondering what else you expected in my first message. I worked hard (anyway, as hard as I like to work on Wikipedia) to state my reason in a neutral way: That she contacted me, that I had admired some of her work, that I tried to reach the blocking admin, that I couldn't do it, and that I was seeking advice from other admins. Perhaps I should have mentioned that she had contacted me by e-mail. What do you think? Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
My apologies! Somehow I totally missed the part where you said they requested your assistance. Obviously it's implied that they emailed you, I just somehow skipped over the part where you said they contacted you, and thought it was extremely bizarre to request an unblock for an inactive user. I apologize again, that was a misunderstanding on my part. :( ~Swarm~{sting}03:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing my application for rollback permission. I understanding the denial reason was "didn't warn user as required in Recent Change Patrol". Could you help me understand that
when I Rollback an edit (which I don't currently have right to do so), do I need to warn user?
is the experience of RC Patrol be required for applying for rollback right? (I notice WP:Rollback did not mention warning user, but RC Patrol does.)
and another question is, what's actually different between Rollback vs Revert vs Undo. They sound very similar to me other than rollback imply the ability to undo/revert multiple revisions?
Thank you!
Yes. Our entire anti-vandalism system is based on the system of Revert → Warn → Report → Block. When you revert, issue a warning. You can easily do so with Twinkle. There are four levels of warnings, which should typically be issued in order for four consecutive offenses. The fourth is a "final warning", after which you can report the user to WP:AIV and we will block them. AIV reports often get declined if the warning process has not been properly followed. On the other hand, reverting a user without warning them prolongs the process and allows them to continue vandalizing longer without being blocked. Sometimes it's reasonable to skip the first warning if the vandalism is clearly very malicious, and in extremely severe cases, you can jump straight to an alternate level 4 "only warning".
Yes, because RC patrol is literally how we patrol for vandalism. You are not expected to get dragged into content disputes, but to focus on vandalism and obvious disruption. Recent changes patrol is what we review when screening candidates. We are looking for evidence that you are correctly differentiating between vandalism and other disruptive edits, employing the appropriate edit summaries, issuing the appropriate warnings, not calling good faith edits vandalism.
Rollback and Undo are both reverts. A revert is simply overturning an edit. Rollback is a special tool for performing instant vandalism reverts that need no edit summary. Undo is simply Wikipedia's default revert button. It treats the revert like a regular edit. Also of note is Twinkle's Rollback feature, which is a more advanced version of Undo, but can be used by anyone and is not the same as Rollback (despite the same name). ~Swarm~{sting}02:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you!
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For taking a substantial amount of time out of your day to reply to my post on ANI, and for treating me with politeness and kindness while answering my questions and explaining what I did wrong. Rockstonetalk to me!23:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome! You deserve it. As I said, once I get some free time I'll respond to your message on ANI in more detail, probably on your talk page. Best, -- Rockstonetalk to me!23:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Indef Semi-Protect Request
Could you Indef Semi-Protect this page in my userspace, please? I protect all my userspace pages after some trouble I had awhile back, especially talk pages. Thanks, I do appreciate it. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:00 on July 15, 2019 (UTC)
No worries! Thanks! :) Have an Awesome Day! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:42 on July 23, 2019 (UTC)
Request
Hi, is it possible for you to remove Amirmehdi joule from my article creation log? I don't recall creating or even looking at the page at all. I don't even have an idea what Amirmehdi joule even is. Thank you--BoothSiftTalks05:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Boothsift: It took me awhile to figure this out. I'm honestly not sure what happened, but somehow you were logged as the creator of that article. It looks like the user screwed up all sorts of things moving their talk page into the article space multiple times, so that probably had something to do with it. Anyway, it's been deleted from your logs. ~Swarm~{sting}00:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
It was Amirbannd (now blocked). You actually edited the article by declining it as a blank AfC submission, and he subsequently moved it to the main space, but I'm not sure how the log registered you as a creator.
A long response to your post on ANI (and another thank you!)
This is going to be an essay, most likely, but there's a bunch of things I wanted to say. First of all, the funny thing is that when rereading what you said, I noticed that you said many of the same things other people said, but in a much nicer manner. Politeness really does go far. But you also clarified things for me and didn't make me feel like I was being attacked. Again, thank you so much, you completely changed my perspective on the situation.
Upon reflection I think there's a couple of issues. One of the issues is that four things happened earlier at around the same time which got conflated in a lot of people's mind.
I closed the CBAN discussion, which apparently is frowned upon for non-administrators (something I didn't realize and that WP:NAC still doesn't explain).
I added the CBAN template to the user page, which I self-reverted and then, after the user was marked as banned by an adminstrator, I restored.
I switched the sockmaster tags from "blocked" to "banned" a while back, thinking I was helping by marking users who fell under WP:3X as being banned.
I edited the WP:NAC page to reflect my understanding about NAC closures of banned users.
These things unfortunately kind of coalesced into a perfect storm, as Bbb23 reverted my change to the NAC page, then went and reverted my changes to the sockpuppeteers pages, which looked to me as if he was stalking my edits and reverting them. It also didn't help that I misread "normally" as conferring to non-administrators the right to mark users as WP:3X. However, what was particularly upsetting was Bbb23 undoing my changes tagging the banned user as a ban, especially their claim that, as a non-admin, it isn't my place to tag banned users like that. However, since I had also initially closed the ban discussion as a non-admin, I guess tagging the user as banned and harping on it looked bad and as if I were paying attention to the wrong thing.
Undoing the banned user tag and the reverting of my changes to WP:NAC were why I brought his conduct to ANI in the first place (I did understand why he reverted my changes to the sockmasters, even if I didn't express that). Unfortunately, being told that I was close to a block and that I was an CIR case made me pretty upset, and because of that, it looked as if I was complaining about him reverting my edits and being uncivil, when that really was not my primary concern. In retrospect, I shouldn't have brought it to WP:ANI, it could have been worked out at the talkpage.
As far as nitpicking, I really was just concerned because it looked as if Bbb23 was saying I am not allowed to touch banned user tags or add/remove them. I'm not sure whether or not non-admins can tag users as banned or modify the template. Your clarification on ANI helps and I hope you're correct, but since Bbb23 said otherwise, I'm not 100% sure who is right. If I could get further clarification that would be helpful. In the meantime I intend to avoid touching banned user tags.
One more thing; Bbb23 is not a bad person. Though they may have been rude, you're correct that their decision was correct and I was wrong. That being said, being polite and courteous, like you were, really goes a long way, and I hope that administrators remember this when interacting with other users. Being civil is important. (and it's why, despite the fact that I've made plenty of controversial edits and was a real idiot in middle school when I first started on Wikipedia, I've never been blocked in my 11+ years here)
I'm sorry for this wall of text, and I hope this was coherent enough. Let me know if I'm off the mark.
That really helps, thank you so much! I do wonder if that's in the correct place since its under the "Deletion discussions" section (my original edit to the page placed it there, before I put it in the lead. But I'm not sure where else it should go. You basically did the same thing I did, so I hope your edit doesn't get reverted like mine. -- Rockstonetalk to me!05:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Jfc, Rockstone, when you're literally on your absolute last legs before being indefinitely blocked, you should be moving away from generic blocking discussions. The fact that you are attempting to get more, not less, involved with blocking policy, is an obvious CIR issue. Please take my advice before you commit wikisuicide. ~Swarm~{sting}05:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
If I seem oblivious, I'm sorry. I don't get the impression I was at risk of being indefinitely blocked (although I was at a risk of being at least temporarily blocked) but rather that my behavior was disruptive and that was the problem. But aside from that, my post on that talk page was on the recommendation of Bbb23. -- Rockstonetalk to me!05:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Viztor's PCR rights restored
Hi, I know this is really none of my business, but Viztor was stripped of PCR as of 1 July because, frankly, they were found not to be very good at it. Not entirely their fault, as English is not their first language (I notice that whole set of exchanges and complaints has been archived from their talk page. I only know this because we had a few exchanges when they nominated one of my articles for deletion--one of several such failed deletion nominations, among a lot of procedural errors made by this editor which bode very ill for their being granted any such privileges. Again, not my business and you can tell me to shove it if you want.) I get that people deserve second chances, but this editor needs a lot more experience on en.wiki (I know I'm far from alone in this opinion).ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
If you say so. And yes, I have. What I see are non-stop grammatical errors indicating the editor doesn't have adequate English to proofread their own writing, which does not inspire confidence (in me, anyway): we're talking about basic subject verb agreement, singular vs. plural, and so on; moreover, the editor (as I read them) still has not really taken on board the reasons why for the non-confidence in their abilities to perform PCR tasks. It's barely been three weeks since the "expiry" and I seem to recall the admin who made that decision recommending they get three months of substantive editing under their belt before attempting it again, of course we may all agree to disagree, and yes, I am, of course, biased. When you say they "laid all that out rather well", you appear to disregard all the other issues beyond PCR itself which suggest a more general competence deficit on Viztor's part (all of those complaints, etc., since archived (yes, I know that's their right)). I mean no disrespect to anyone concerned; I normally don't involve myself in such matters, but this editor's disruptive behaviour (for lack of a better word) in general makes me question the wisdom of this. But I'm sure the checks and balances will sort it out one way or the other, and I'll be happy to be wrong if that's what happens.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
@ZarhanFastfire: I wouldn't tell you to shove it. Viztor is not actually wrong in his rebuttal that he shouldn't be expected to investigate pending edits in depth. PC review is just a cursory check to make sure an edit isn't vandalism, a BLP vio, or otherwise-obvious disruption. Their requesting statement is absolutely in the right. But it they can't be bothered to check something like this, then it does become a CIR issue. The ability to spot subtle vandalism when there is a verifiable source right there is indeed a CIR issue, and I did not catch that. I'll have to review their edits to make sure this isn't still happening. ~Swarm~{sting}04:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
A "fair and balanced" answer. Not being an admin of any kind myself, I'm not familiar with things like PCR - I'd not even heard of it till I read about it on V's talkpage in June. I guess it's useful to have for pages whose original creators are no longer active and which are not on anyone else's watchlist. To the point, I'll just leave you with this to consider: During my conflict with V, their arguments were vague and unpointed, and their tactics extremely misguided: nominating article for the subject, a short film, being "not well known" and "impossible to find", for one (worrying in more than one way, these assertions); then attacking it because they thought one of its awards was from a festival they considered fraudulent "afer doing some digging" (their words), and to make that point stick (even though it's irrelevant since it's an argument by association), proceeded to nominate the festival's article for deletion too (the festival has been around since the 60s). Obviously, both nominations failed, but these were the last in a series of similar over-the-top deletion nom's, which only stopped when they were told to stop by an admin. Before the decision to keep the article in question was actually made, V actually had the temerity to come to my talk page and point me toward WP:NFILM, so that I could learn "how to write article that lasts", so confident were they of the result. I think they meant well, but the point is they lack not only sound judgement but patience to see things through (noted when they also attempted closing or re-opening lists, etc.). Right, I got all that off my chest. Sorry to bother you with all of this.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Swarm. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 03:23, 27 July 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi Swarm! I just wanted to leave you a message and wish you a great day and happy editing! I figured I'd message you to know that I was thinking about you... I'm glad to see that you're still active here and still dedicated to the project. Keep up the great work, and keep doing the great things you do. You're a valuable asset to this project, and we need you more than ever here. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)08:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.
@Cygnis insignis: Huh? I don't understand your comment, nor the weird edit summary, in the slightest, but it seems you'd like to make some sort of point. Would you like to clarify? ~Swarm~{sting}00:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@Cygnis insignis: What the hell are you talking about? I don't even know who who are. So if your intent is to troll, then nah, I'd much rather you stay the hell off my talk page. If, on the other hand, you have a constructive, good faith opinion that you would like to share with me, then feel free to articulate it here and I will be happy to engage you in good faith. I'm not sure what I could have possibly said to give you the impression otherwise, but I will even go so far as to reexamine my own statements if I have done so. Again though, if you're here to troll then you can fuck right off. ~Swarm~{sting}05:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
A trolling comment, I suppose it was, a frustrated response to your involvement in something I wanted suppressed and acted toward realising as a solution. And like a troll, I'm not dissuaded by the accusation, and here I am responding … someone you don't know. This was the second time I directly challenged your contributions to discussion, the first stemmed from your use of the word quisling. Those you do know later tamped that down, for a time, my own statements seemed dismissable to you, no reason it should be otherwise that I know of, That's it really, I have no wish to give oxygen to the circumstances that provoked my "trolling". cygnis insignis06:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
@Cygnis insignis: Oh, that? "Quisling"? Fair enough, but that was quite a while ago, and I did indeed acknowledge the objections to my overly-aggressive demeanor and pledge to tone it down. Looking through my archives, I do see that you were one of those who raised a complaint about my incendiary demeanor with regards to WP:FRAM. But, again, AFAIK, I appropriately addressed that complaint at the time and have certainly not risen to that level of aggressive/incendiary conduct since then. I'm not going to try to pretend that I did not get too worked up over everything, but I sincerely made an effort to respond amicably to those complaints, and that was all the way back in June. Have I done something to offend you since then? What did I subsequently say that you "wanted suppressed"? I'm genuinely open to critique, and I will not dismiss you as a "troll" if you have a concrete complaint against me. I seek to improve, not to shut down complaints. So please speak freely! ~Swarm~{sting}06:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Rather than revive discussion of the later incident, I would prefer that people label me a troll; if you work out what prompted my outburst, which was not a personal but community concern, then please keep it to yourself. Hope all is well with you and yours, I think we can carry on with our thankless and self-appointed tasks ... cygnis insignis06:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
@Cygnis insignis: So let me get this straight. You pop up on a completely random post on my talk page, to insult me, and when asked what I had done to offend you, your response is that you are indeed just trolling and should not be taken seriously but instead summarily dismissed? Really? Uh, okay then. In that case, can you please stay away from my talk page, until whichever point you actually have something constructive to discuss? ~Swarm~{sting}07:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
WP:AE
I largely agree with what you wrote, but I think that you may have failed to consider Sandstein's problematic role in all of this. For a sanction in a highly visible case like this to be effective (if that is possible with Eric) and widely accepted, it must come from a completely uninvolved administrator who follows all the procedures very carefully, and who has a reputation for impartiality. That ain't Sandstein. Cullen328Let's discuss it04:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@Cullen328: In case you don't know, I bow down to your word. Seriously, you're a legend and I respect you monumentally. That said, I'm not exactly on the same page. AFAIK, Sandstein is an active AE admin, and, sure, he has a reputation for being a bit of a hardliner. I actually wouldn't have endorsed the month-long block that Sandstein imposed, but I didn't see anything wrong with it, and it was reasonably justified in terms of policy and procedure and in the context of Eric's behavior (he expressly rejected the legitimacy of the sanction, right?). So what are you saying? That Sandstein was not "uninvolved" or "unbiased"? In that case, how so? I have no reason to suspect that Sandstein's involvement was problematic, but if you do, please enlighten me. ~Swarm~{sting}05:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
You are good at flattery, so thanks. But seriously, I am reminded of the parable that concludes "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion". As I see it, administrators ought to go beyond avoiding a conflict of interest to avoiding the appearance, impression or implication of a conflict of interest, especially in controversial situations where many experienced and productive editors are all riled up. I got mildly lobbied by my friend EEng to act against the editors who were attacking him, and I declined because it was a thread that started with one of the antagonists criticizing me. (He later partially apologized). I would have been accused of being involved or acting in retribution. Plus I am friends with Eric on Facebook. So, if I conclude that I am not the right adminstrator to act in this case, then perhaps 20X more so for Sandstein. I see this as a matter of human relations and organizational behavior. How can we help Eric return to the mode of most of the past four years, where he is a generally productive contributor? Hitting him harder and harder with a hammer each time he gets angry and frustrated cannot possibly be the best technique in these unique circumstances. Cullen328Let's discuss it05:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not trying to flatter you, just to make clear that I take your opinion seriously. But I don't see anything that tells me that Sandstein has it out for Eric. Prior to the recent one-month block, Sandstein has never blocked Eric, or his old account. If there's something else that shows some unreasonable grudging, then sure, but nothing about the previous block, which was in-bounds and supported by a consensus suggests that Sandstein is somehow "involved". And I don't get the suggestion that Eric is somehow being unreasonably bludgeoned by blocks to the degree that he isn't even given a chance to improve. He hadn't been blocked in nearly four years, and was only blocked after literally rejecting voluntary improvements and the legitimacy of the underlying sanction. Nothing about that is unreasonable. So coming back and repeatedly bullying the blocking admin is unacceptable. And that's not even getting into the "content dispute" which is the primary offense. ~Swarm~{sting}05:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
You yourself may not think that Sandstein has it out for Eric and I certainly hope that you are right. But Sandstein screwed up on the timing, and jumped the gun. That makes him look trigger happy and eager to block. As I emphasized above, community perception is as important in such highly contentious matters as rigorously objective reality. I do not think that anyone argues that Eric hasn't been given multiple chances to improve, as you and I define improvement. But anyone who has followed Eric over the years knows his "rough and tumble" ways in content disputes, and is familiar with his consistent conscientious objection, if you will, to administrative/ArbCom enforcement of civility standards. It is not just Eric's usual fan club who are expressing grave concern about Sandstein's role at this time. When a respected (revered?) administrator such as Newyorkbrad describes Sandstein's planned course of action as "blatantly excessive", then it is clear to me that Sandstein is exacerbating rather than de-escalating, and ought to recuse. De-escalation in this case means Eric returning to his mostly acceptable behavior of the last four years. In my opinion, Sandstein backing off and shutting up is far more likely to achieve that goal than blocking Eric for three months. That's how I see it. Eric, by the way, has known for years that I have wanted him to moderate his behavior. We are still cordial. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll go with all that. Sandstein jumped the gun to impose a draconian sanction unto a user who was already attacking him. The optics aren't great. I'm fine with that assessment. But I'm also of a mind to not toss out the original complaint itself over that error, as I find it to be legitimate. I am not endorsing Sandstein's action, in fact, I wasn't even aware of it when I left my comment. I'm endorsing the OP's assessment and proposal for a 72h block. ~Swarm~{sting}07:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Then I think that we mostly agree and I appreciate your reply, as well as your most recent comment at WP:AE. This conversation has helped both of us clarify our thinking. Cullen328Let's discuss it07:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for being the voice of reason Swarm. 72 hours is at least something. In comparison to the ”free him” brigade. BabbaQ (talk) 07:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Featured article complete fraud! Content creators exposed as poseurs have feet of clay just like other editors!
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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
It's my 8 year anniversary as an admin. This does not necessarily mean anything. But I've never observed any anniversary in 8 years. Not even my 10 year anniversary. So fuck it. Happy adminship to me. ~Swarm~{sting}02:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Could I politely ask you to moderate your tone at WP:AN? Man, that's stupid and Shame on Arbcom for such blatant corruption are pretty far from assuming good faith of your fellow volunteers. Consider a) you don't actually know the details of why Alex resigned from the committee; b) only four of the eight current arbs were on the committee when Alex resigned. Thanks. – Joe (talk) 05:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Sure. Your point is fair, I’m not assuming good faith as I should be. You guys probably feel like you’re just doing your best, and can’t do anything without getting savagely degraded, so I’m sorry. But I was under the impression that it was public knowledge Alex abused his CU permissions and was allowed to resign quietly without any information shared to the community. Apologies for calling that “corruption”, but I felt it was a mutual face-saving move, or, in other words, inappropriately hiding, or covering up, a scandal. The optic, to me, is...kind of corrupt? I’m not trying to be a dick, but I am honestly disappointed and frustrated at what seems like the coverup, or at least special treatment, in response to what seem like extremely severe offenses—more than one. And, I really don’t think it’s an unreasonable or unfair assessment. And the crazy thing is, I respect every current and former member of this current committee, more than I ever have before. That’s not an exaggeration. So it’s actually even more frustrating when I see concerning calls being made, and it looks like you’re all just okay with it. ~Swarm~{sting}06:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Would you consider longer term semi-protection instead of full protection here? To give a little context: antisemitic conspiracy theorists believe that Kalergi's book laid out a plan for Jewish-led white genocide through miscegenation (see here). The two quoted paragraphs occur about 20 pages apart in the text. They're crammed together in a misleading way to give the impression that Kalergi was laying out a plot for "white genocide" I've never seen any reliable source present these passages together, but I've seen lots of white supremacists do it.
I removed that quote from this page and from Kalergi plan back in September. The IP editor who added it opened a discussion on my user talk page, but they never opened a discussion on the talk page itself despite my requests. Kalergi plan is now semi-protected until December, so now a different IP (probably the same editor) is attempting to re-insert it in to Kalergi's bio instead. I doubt that its something that any competent editor would try to add. Nblundtalk00:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.
A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.
Administrator changes
Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Miscellaneous
). --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
–MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
.jpg)
Done. ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Arbitration
![[8]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cookie#/media/File:2ChocolateChipCookies.jpg){kind=link}
Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
Floquenbeam • Lectonar
Oversight changes