User talk:Swarm/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Covid-19 death rate

I didn't think it belonged at the other page so I decided to just share the thought here: the 2-4% death rate is of course not evenly distributed: in crowded habitations and facilities it raises, it also does in the elderly and fragile population; lastly, many do need medical assistance to survive (even some relatively young and healthy people, some immunosuppressants are also being evaluated because part of the damage is done by the overwhelming immune response). Meaning that the toll also raises dramatically whenever medical supplies and services can't cope, which is what most measures are attempting to mitigate (by slowing down transmission as possible instead of ending up selecting who to treat and who must die). There also are concerns about potentially more deadly future mutations (moreover we can't even vaccinate yet). My apologies if I'm stating the obvious, —PaleoNeonate – 22:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Swarm. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:57, 5 March 2020 (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.

Hope all is well, Swarm. Haven't heard from you in months. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Appeal for help

A week ago, you commented on a situation in which I found myself being pestered by multiple editors after fixing some grammar and formatting errors in an article ([1]). I really appreciated what you said there; thanks again for your input. I would appreciate any further input you might have now, as I later found myself once again under attack, and in fact, blocked, for my efforts to make the article grammatically correct and well-formatted. I attempted to notify you from my talk page while blocked but I'm not sure if that works. Apologies if you did see that already. Thanks. 37.152.231.22 (talk) 07:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi swarm!

Hi, you recently denied my request for Rollback. I believe you were misguided by the bot. at the time I made the request, my account was 1 edit away from the minimum threshold. since the bot left that comment, I have edited more, and that comment is now incorrect. If you wouldn't mind, I would love if you reviewed my request again, as I think I am fit for the permission. if your opinion still stands, that is also fine, I will accept it and I will try and get more experience and resubmit. thanks for considering. :) Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 21:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Scaledish: On the contrary, I'm not worried about something like being 1 edit below the edit count requirement, that's just silly. We simply don't grant extended positions of trust to brand new users. Edit count is irrelevant, in fact, oftentimes it's a red flag if a brand new user seems to be racking up edits too fast (not saying that applies in your case, just saying). We don't "rubber stamp" requests based on edit count. It takes time to fully understand the many areas rules, practices and norm's of Wikipedia. There's no sugarcoating it, it's a massive, confusing project. It's unrealistic to expect a new user to be a basically-competent editor within their first few months, much less to start granting them special positions of trust within the community. Also, on top of that, trust has to be earned. I don't mean anything crazy by that. Just that we need to be able to review your editing history and see that you're a trustworthy, competent, good faith editor who has not and will not cause any problems. You have to have sufficiently establish yourself as such before we can possibly even begin to do that. Anyone can game the system by racking up an edit count. We look at the bigger picture. Hope you understand that it's nothing personal. I'd be happy to reconsider a request from you in the future. If you want my advice, just give it another couple of months and focus more on simply contributing to and learning the ins and outs of Wikipedia. That should be your priority as a new user. Best, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Swarm: hi, and thanks so much for the responce! i am glad to know that that was not triggered by the edit count, and I am not offended nor have i taken it personaly. I strive to contribute effectivly to the community, and hope I have not been a burden to you or any of the admins. I 100% understand, and I look foward to contributing in the future. thank you for such a detailed responce. I will continue to strive to improve, and really want to help where ever i can. best wishes and deap thanks Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 02:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

sheepish sidenote: I look up to you guys. I really hope one day I too can wield a mop. thank you for all your work. (great, now its all cheesy ;))

A touch too much

Please take a look at this sort of agressive behaviour on Ivan Gundulić [2], calling out another respected senior admin [3] + calling another senior admin "a clown"[4]. and general slurs and lack of WP:Civility [5] [6]. Please note that this is an older editor, who has previously waged a full crusade over the same issue, some 5 years ago and than again ( WP:BATTLEGROUND). Naturally, there is no consens for the version which is pushed by the same user, which can be seen from the TP. Thank you kindly, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Sadko: I have blocked the user for one week for the repeated and blatant personal attacks. I have also reissued their arbitration enforcement alert, so that they will be subject to easier sanctioning for the next year (you may report them at WP:AE as needed). Not sure why you came to me with this complaint, but regardless, thank you for reporting bad behavior. Best, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
• @Sadko: Looks like he completely lost it when I blocked him and went on such a tirade that a second admin actually blocked him indefinitely with talk page access revoked. Weird. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 18:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Good God. I am sorry that you had to read that. Some editors simply can not understand that people from Republic of Ragusa are, naturally, styled Ragusan in the lead. The same goes for Prussians and some other groups as well. They claim that it is "propanda" etc. Quite disturbing. Once again, I am sorry for those words. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Sadko: No need to apologize, his response was so extreme and outlandish that I actually found it to be humorous. On the contrary, I am sorry that you and other editors are having to deal with this sort of behavior firsthand. Nationalist POV-pushers who are impossible to reason with are a big problem in many content areas of Wikipedia. We'll do our best to enforce order in these topic areas and we have special authority to do so thanks to discretionary sanctions. However we usually can't do anything unless users like yourself come forward and bring problems to our attention. I encourage you to issue {{alert}} templates to users who have not yet received them and to utilize WP:AE to report problems! Of course you're always welcome to come to me directly if you need anything at all. Best, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Question about imagery used in an ArbCom case

Hey, Swarm. Regarding this, I know that File:Flyer22-patterns.jpg notes that it can be deleted after the 2013 ArbCom case. And, well, its been years since that ArbCom case. But because the image has been retained for years and it was used in an ArbCom case, I'm wondering if it should be kept. There was also another image pertaining to my editing that was used, but I don't see it. It wasn't too long ago that I saw that it still existed, but maybe it was deleted. And the evidence page for the case is blanked (although one can look into the edit history to see what was argued); so I guess it's no big deal to delete File:Flyer22-patterns.jpg. Not to mention it's used at BoyWiki. So ugh. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Deep state in the United States RfC

I substantively accepted your suggested RfC language for deep state in the United States. I changed deep state to the page title deep state in the United States, and clarified that I don't want to deny that there are conspiracy theories of the deep state, but only to add that there are non-conspiracy theories of the deep state as well. That yielded three objections all on the same grounds you gave. It looks like you're no better than I am at creating neutral RfC statements. Or were my changes of a nature to make the RfC not neutral? You may be interested in their version of what a neutral RfC looks like. I gave them the exact same response requesting their version. I remain flexible and willing to compromise to push the article forward to a better status. TMLutas (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for standing up for NPP at ANI. I really appreciated it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you Swarm!

KittyCora

KittyCora (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

User rights changes

Thanks, Swarm, but according to an Arbcom that judges cases on prima facie evidence, I'm just not trusted and qualified - period. Hence it's unlikely, based on the increasingly poor environment here, that I will be doing anything much on Wikipedia in the future. At over 70, I'm proud of what I contributed these 14 years, but let's leave it at that until I publish my next book. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Kudpung: Wait, have you published a book before?! ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 09:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• In any case, I consider the Arbcom case to be unrelated to my grant. However, if you do not want these user rights, let me know and I will remove them. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 09:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Our very own Sam Johnson, Swarm :) ——SN54129 10:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversight changes

HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

• Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
• Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
• A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
• A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.

Technical news

• The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
• Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Just a chat

Hello Swarm how are you? I'm the administrator of Chinese Wikipedia. I noticed you gave a temporary block to User:祖正石. He also did non-constructive edit in the respective article of Gravitational wave in Chinese and Japanese wikipedia. I take a off-line chat with him and he refuses to cooperate. Please pay a little attention to his edits. Just let you know, thank you very much. English wikipedia is so quickly to counter vandalism lol--Xiliu※heshui · criticize me 17:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Xiliuheshui: Hey, thanks for letting me know! I will definitely keep an on his edits! ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Mushuukyou

Re[7], it's happening again at Circumcision. Could you take a look? Alexbrn (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Alexbrn: Topic ban implemented, thanks. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Help with first autopatrolled page

Hi! Thanks for the welcome to the new world of being autopatrolled. This is my first page in the "brave new world" María Odulia Nicola Ruotti - would have a minute to check I've added the right things? I know I've not done a rating - mostly because i couldn't work out how to install the rater you suggested. Will have another go tomorrow. Thanks in advance (Lajmmoore (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC))

• @Lajmmoore: Looks great. :) Keep up the good work. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

pblocks

Since your comment prompted my question, I thought I should give you a heads up. I've considered the same use for pblocks in the past. WT:PB#Do pblocks cascade? Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the info! I hadn’t actually thought about that but it’s a good question and I’m glad we got an answer. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

New page reviewers

Hi. Could you please remove me from New page reviewers, that you originally granted here. I have become tired of getting grief and even abuse over it, but the final straw is not being backed by an administrator.[8].

Thanks. --John B123 (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• @John B123: Damn, I'm sorry to see you've been discouraged so quickly. Given the dismal state of the NPR backlog, this is truly unfortunate. Still, I understand completely, maintaining your sanity is more important. I'll go ahead and remove the flag, and note in the log that it should be regranted without prejudice should you ever want that (of course you can come directly to me as well). Thanks for all the work you did put in during the past month. I'm extremely concerned by the abusive edit you received and will be issuing the user a formal warning. Regards, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. Best Wishes. --John B123 (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@John B123: Do you have any inclination towards any other user rights? I'd be happy to grant you anything you might find useful. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi. That's most kind of you but I'm not sure what role I could play that would require extra user rights? Regards. --John B123 (talk) 06:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I hope you are keeping well in these unprecedented times. Having had time to calm down (and seeing the Page Curation backlog is fast approaching 10K) I'm happy to give the new page reviewing another go if the offer is still open. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Did you miss my message above? --John B123 (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@John B123: My sincere apologies! It looks like I did.  Done, sorry for the delay! ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

No problem, thanks. --John B123 (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth

Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
• The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.

Arbitration

• A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Help with Harassing User

Thank you for your help on the ANI page. I am admittedly newer to this. I appreciate learning that targeting our campaign is a problem as I was worried nothing could be done since the content of his concerns are in fact valid. What I'm struggling to get him to see is that I'm not complaining about the content of his concerns it's the targeting of our campaign which is evidenced in social media posts from before this started and in his edit history being solely focused on us. So I guess my question would be how do I go about approaching that? What can I submit and what can I not submit and where do I submit it to? I don't want to continue to do things in the wrong format, in the wrong setting, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve42382 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi to both of you. I would assume Swarm is already writing up a reply. I wanted to also share that I have made Arbcom aware via email, with the little bit of evidence that was discoverable with what's already been shared at AN/I. I don't think Steve42382 had any idea they were going to violate WP:OUTING and I don't know if they have because I'm not familiar enough with the policy to say for sure, but the fact that I was able to find something so easily does give me pause. But I don't want this particular case to be easily brushed aside just because Steve42382 is newer to Wikipedia and so doesn't know where to go or how to go about reporting sensitive issues.

Not sure if there's more I should (or shouldn't) do, but I just wanted to make you Swarm aware that there's evidence to be seen, if that's the appropriate route to take. But, like I said, I did already send it to Arbcom.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Pinchme123 I definitely realize I started off wrong as I learn more about this and that's why I want to try to do everything the right way from here on out. I did not have any idea that I was in violation of the outing policy and will take whatever consequences my violation brings about if that's the case. There are so many policies that I'm trying to learn but don't have the time to search all of them and gain a thorough understanding of what to do when I have a full time job and this campaign is done in a few weeks. Any advice anyone gives is welcome even if the advice is that I'm in the wrong and can't do anything from a wiki standpoint and instead need to focus on other routes to try and educate.

--steve42382 (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Steve42382: Please email the evidence (ie the social media posts) to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Swarm, what would be the appropriate route to challenging the non-admin closure's language at AN/I? I don't think it's appropriate for the circumstances. I'm entirely unsurprised by the lack of action, but IMO the closure fully lays blame on OP, as if they made it up. It probably shouldn't have received a non-admin closure. --Pinchme123 (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pinchme123: I've brought it up with the closer themselves (diff). Does seem odd choice for a nac imo, but it's up to everyone that isn't me to decidethat. (talk page watcher) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pinchme123 and MJL: terrible close, absolutely unacceptable, I truly doubt the closer even read the discussion, and if they did, all the more shame on them. I've overriden their close. I would have overturned it outright, but the OP seems to have abandoned the discussion. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for rectifying it. And of course not much (if anything) can be done if OP's already decided engaging isn't worth it anymore. It's also sad to see a well-meaning, if misguided, attempt to diversify the project have this kind of outcome. --Pinchme123 (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Note re possible feedback

Hi! I see that you are an experienced editor, AND an admin, and dedicated to collaborative styles of interaction, AND willing to be an adopter. I was wondering if we could please establish some sort of initial process where I could periodically approach you for feedback? I am interested in making contact with individual adopters who are willing to provide feedback, input, insights, advice, etc, if and when necessary. your knowledge seems quite comprehensive, so I decided I'd like to contact you now, just to lay a little groundwork for this. we can communicate if and when it is convenient for you; it does not have to be overly voluminous; I simply wanted to initiate contact, and perhaps suggest a periodic working communication where you could provide me with feedback periodically. is that okay? thanks!! ---Sm8900★ 🌎 04:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Sm8900: Apologies for the delay, I've been out of town. But absolutely! I'd be more than happy to help you or provide feedback with anything you need. In fact I'm honored that you would even seek out my feedback as valuable. Feel free to drop by any time, you're always welcome! ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Swarm. that's terrific. thanks so much!! no problem; I'm sure glad to be able to get input from an experienced editor and admin. I will be in touch again in the future, to let you know of a few items that I've been working on. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. when you have a chance, could you please take a look over the main page and talk page for WP:History? I have a leading role there. I have been trying to improve the page steadily. I posted some new messages on the talk page there today, with some new ideas. I would welcome any comments you may have. I do hope you will like that page. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. could you please feel free to let me know if you got this message, when you get a chance? thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Hey, Sm8900, sorry. I've been overlooking some messages here lately it seems. My apologies. I think your head's in the right place here. It's looking like Wikipedia's history buffs simply skip the History WikiProject and gravitate towards the more specialized projects they're interested in. So I'm impressed to see your goals are specific and realistic and not merely some generic attempt to "revive" the WikiProject. I think you're on the right track in making the project a tool or resource that once built will act as a general introductory service or "hub". Very smart. I will watchlist the talkpage to at least provide some additional staffing. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Swarm. that sounds terrific. and I'm really glad to hear your thoughts on our core goals. thanks for your input! see you. ---Sm8900 (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello

I am new user looking for adoption will you please act as my mentor to edit wikipedia because I am not familiar with Wikipedia policies so well. I will be obliged if you will be my mentor. Note:I have interest on increasing the content of short article with improving the quality of the article with adding citations also grammatical mistakes removing, I will be obliged if you will consider my request thanksFaster than fairies (talk) 07:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Still waiting for replyFaster than fairies (talk) 09:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2020 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the June newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since March 2020. You can unsubscribe from our mailings at any time; see below. All times and dates stated are in UTC. Current events Election time: Nomination of candidates in our mid-year Election of Coordinators opened on 1 June, and voting will take place from 00:01 on 16 June. GOCE coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought about helping out at the Guild, or you know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. June Blitz: This blitz begins at 00:01 on 14 June and ends at 23:59 on 20 June, with themes of articles tagged for copyedit in May 2020 and requests. Drive and blitz reports March Drive: Self-isolation from coronavirus may have played a hand in making this one of our most successful backlog elimination drives. The copy-editing backlog was reduced from 477 to a record low of 118 articles, a 75% reduction. The last four months of 2019 were cleared, reducing the backlog to three months. Fifty requests were also completed, and the total word count of copy-edited articles was 759,945. Of the 29 editors who signed up, 22 completed at least one copy edit. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. April Blitz: This blitz ran from 12 to 18 April with a theme of Indian military history. Of the 18 people who signed up, 14 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed a total of 60 copyedits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. May Drive: This event marked the 10th anniversary of the GOCE's copy-editing drives, and set a goal of diminishing the backlog to just one month of articles, as close to zero articles as possible. We achieved the goal of eliminating all articles that had been tagged prior to the start of the drive, for the first time in our history! Of the 51 editors who signed up, 43 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Other news Progress report: as of 2 June, GOCE participants had processed 328 requests since 1 January, which puts us on pace to exceed any previous year's number of requests. As of the end of the May drive, the backlog stood at just 156 articles, all tagged in May 2020. Outreach: To mark the 10th anniversary of our first Backlog Elimination Drive, The Signpost contributor and GOCE participant Puddleglum2.0 interviewed project coordinators and copy-editors for the journal's April WikiProject Report. The Drive and the current Election of Coordinators have also been covered in The Signpost's May News and Notes page. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 15:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

appeal for pardon (On unblocking)

I will note, I will definitely add sources later. I will also contact you if you will reduce the permanent block. My request is to unblock me because I don't agree with the indefinite block. I assure you not to edit any texts without refering the sourse. I am a Georgian Wikipedia editor and the reason of my request is that only.

The reason for my blockage was the editing of the Tbilisi page, which I considered to be the source in the year of its establishment (455 years). Currently the source is indicated on this page and this problem is corrected, which was the reason for my "life blockage" (There was no source that Tbilisi was founded in 479 (I wrote about this above).). Please give me a small block and not an indefinite one. Sincerely:--Lasha-george (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.211.148.207 (talk)

"People who can't breath can't speak"

@InedibleHulk: As a medical professional I feel the need to correct this statement. Dyspnea (difficulty breathing) and apnea (literal lack of breathing) are two different things. Anyone who signs up for a CPR class understands the "ABCs". The inability to speak caused by an occluded airway is an emergency, but a person who has a patent airway and can speak and articulate the fact that they feel like they "can't breathe" is still a medical emergency. The only thing their speaking tells us is that their airway is patent. Could you imagine if an ambulance rolled up on a person who said they felt like they "couldn't breathe" and the paramedics just said, "well, you're talking, so I know you can breathe"? Could you imagine if a person in public started panicking and telling people they "can't breathe", and the bystanders refused to call 911 because "you're talking so I know you can breathe"? It's just a silly argument. A person feeling like they can't breathe is a serious medical emergency in any context and it can be caused by any number of things other than an occluded airway that renders them unable to speak. The physical act of moving air in and out is called "ventilation", and it is only one of the components of "breathing". I am sure that if you were having a heart attack, or a pulmonary embolism, and felt like you couldn't catch your breath, you wouldn't want someone saying, "well, you're talking, so you're breathing". I do not wish to get involved in that user's particular case, or any of the relevant politics, but please, I must ask you to not spread false medical information. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not false, just potentially misleading. I meant "ventilate" by "breathe". Not belittling the feeling of breathlessness at all, it's a bad sign and a bad symptom, often the worst. Just not the same as suffocating in a stranglehold or on a piece of cheese. I'm not saying the cop did anything like a good job here, and personally think he should never wear that uniform again. Anyway, bit scary how you rolled up on me there, whilst discussing the Box of Silence. If you can make me reverse my timestamp, you can make me reword "breathe", I don't want any trouble. Or any politics. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "roll up on me", the discussion was advertised at the admin's noticeboard and in my routine review of the situation I noticed you making inaccurate statements that I felt the need to correct as someone with a medical education. I'm not sure why you find that "scary", I'm just attempting to discuss simple facts with you as a human being. Nothing administrative about this, nothing political about this, certainly no "trouble". And I'm not sure what you mean by "Box of Silence" at all. Assuming you reword "breathe" with "ventilate", I'm not sure what you're arguing. If someone says "I can't breathe", and you counter, "well, you can physically move some degree of air in and out of your lungs", that's a fairly meaningless statement because it doesn't mean the person can't "breathe", so I'm not sure why you'd feel it's important to make such a clarification. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

NPOV Resolution

Hello. In response to a NPOV discussion originating on May 5th, you fully protected the page Toxic_masculinity, and said to let you know once the dispute was resolved. I'm not sure if this counts as resolution or not, but we had 3 editors supporting the inclusion of one piece of info, and one editor opposing it. The editor who opposed it has now stopped responding to replies; the last reply to the discussion was by me on the 16th of May, more than 3 weeks ago, and the discussion has now been removed from the page either automatically or by a moderator (I'm not sure how it works on the NPOV Noticeboard). I'm hoping you can un-protect the page so we can put in the information that was being disputed, although I'm not sure of the exact criteria for the noticeboard so I'm not 100% certain this counts as a resolution, but considering that the only editor opposing the change hasn't replied in 3 weeks, I assume it is. Either way please let me know whether you can un-protect the page or if additional criteria must be met first. I've included links to the relevant revisions of the relevant noticeboards.

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=954969263#User:Sangdeboeuf_reported_by_User:EditSafe_(Result:_Page_protected_–_consider_dispute_resolution)

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&oldid=956950584#Toxic_masculinity_Neutrality_Dispute

EditSafe (talk) 01:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@EditSafe: Your last response in the discussion was to accuse me of "selectively applying Wikipedia's guidelines" while avoiding engagement with the substance of my concerns. Therefore there was nothing for me to respond to. If you want people to respond to your comments, then comment productively. On the other hand, if you're simply trying to wear people down in order to force through your preferred edits, then your behavior makes perfect sense. Be advised that consensus is not a vote, and that "Withdrawing from communication with a tendentious or quarrelsome editor does not give that editor consent to do what they like." —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: Your last few responses were just repetitive and ignoring what I said, so if anything you were in violation of WP:REHASH. I responded to your complaints repeatedly, which you repeatedly ignored, so rather than restating what I already said 10 times I asked you to re-read my previous responses, thinking you'd respond again if you had any further questions. EditSafe (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Another user's talk page is no place for this debate. So @Swarm:, you've heard both sides of our argument. Since you are the moderator please let us know what you would like us to do. EditSafe (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Okay, I will review the discussion. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Swarm: Any updates?

vandalism on afro-polish page

Hello Swarm, Thanks for protecting the Afro-Polish page, but wrong data are given on the protected page... See discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gryllida#vandalism_on_page_https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAfro-Polish. Thanks in advance.

• I checked the source and I can't find those numbers provided by the source at all, so I've deleted them. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  Please check my talk page, there is a discussion of where these numbers came from. Do you think this is sufficient to re-include it, or you would rather continue to keep it out? Gryllida (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Pending Changes Reviewer

Hello Swarm, I am Megan, I currently have the rollback rights on the English Wikipedia. I am requesting if you could grant me pending changes reviewer rights. I have created articles which most have been reviewed and I have tried all my best to fight vandalism and sufficiently warn the vandals. I have familiarized myself with NPOV,WP:Vandalism, WP:GF, WP:V and many more just to mention a few. I belief that the rights would increase my scope on the English Wikipedia. Regards Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Synoman Barris: Done! Best, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Administrator changes

Malcolmxl5

John • TheCoffee • Tim!

Creffett → GeneralNotability

DeltaQuad → AmandaNP

CheckUser changes

Bbb23

Interface administrator changes

TonyBallioni

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to remove the T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) speedy deletion criterion.

Technical news

• Protection templates on mainspace pages are now automatically added by User:MusikBot II (BRFA).

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community.
• The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Walter Breuning

The answer turns out to be NO, the contents of the death certificate cannot be used in an article. Per discussion on the Reliable Sources talk page. Had I thought of that route, I could have avoided the grief at the AN page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Had you bothered to look into this at all, instead of gleefully hitting the "block" button, you would know exactly what this is about. Futurist had sought information on Breuning's death certificate which was not available except behind a pay wall. I was involved in that discussion. When I saw it had carried over to AN (a site I almost never used even when not "banned" from it), I raised the question there. Instead of anyone bothering to answer it or look into it, it was "Ha! A ban violation! WHAM!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

And since it's too late now for you to do anything about your snap to judgment, I'll just say that I am hopeful. Hopeful that we never cross paths again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: No, I read the discussion, I know what your comment is in reference to, I'm just not sure why you're posting about it on my talk page. Our enforcement of bans is not dependent on whether you've made a good point, which is surely something you already know, which is why I'm not sure you're bringing it up. It was not a "snap to judgment", it was a minor sanction that was carefully verified and rationalized as an apparent intentional breach of a topic ban, with an open invitation for you to respond if there was any confusion or forgetfulness on your part or errors on my part. There were none. Instead, you claimed to have never been aware of the TBAN, in spite of the fact that you were notified of it and acknowledged the notification. When I presented this rebuttal on your talk page, you archived my comments with no reply. If you were coming from somewhere rational, and I was really in the wrong, I will certainly learn from my mistake and apologize. However, when I explain to you why I don't believe your excuse, and you simply delete my comment rather than engaging with me, that makes me think that I was not, in fact, wrong. It's true that TBANs can be met with a warning instead of a block. This is usually done in "gray areas" or when the user has a convincing defense. Neither was the case here. The TBAN was black-and-white, from two specific pages, and not a topic area. You were notified of the TBAN, which you acknowledged. You stopped editing the relevant pages, which means you were conscious of the TBAN and made an effort to abide by it. Contrary to you and Guy's implication that this was some blind, heavy-handed power move, I looked for any reason not to block you, and could find none. It appeared and still does appear to me that the ban violation was intentional boundary-pushing, which is a common behavior we see. I literally explained this to you and asked you to tell me how my interpretation was wrong. You could not do so. You can only claim that you were in the right contentwise.

I really don't know what else to tell you at this point. It seems you're unwilling to engage in good-faith communication. I get it. You're mad. Can't hold that against you. I can only reiterate that this was not personal, heavy-handed, or a rash decision. This is not "fun" for me, it's simply part of my role as an admin. It was you and only you who suppressed my attempts to reasonably discuss the action on your talk page. If you don't want to talk to me, that's fine, but don't ignore and delete my good faith comments on your talk page and then simultaneously harass me with personal attacks and aspersions on mine. I am not hopeful that we never cross paths again, because this is a collaborative project and I have no problem with you. Nor should you have any remote personal problem with me. If we cross paths again I expect that we will be able to interact without having a grudge get in the way. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I fixed gramatical errors on Shannon Messenger

Hi Swarm. I'm KittyCora. I recently edited an article about Shannon Messenger. Within minutes, I got a message from you on the talk page, and you said that my changes were not constructive. But I fixed some gramatical errors. They had commas in the wrong places, and it was just horrible. I just ask that you review my edits and get back to me as soon as you can.

Best regards,

KittyCora

Adoptee?

Hi....I'm new to Wikipedia as a creator and am working on a bio page for a living person (Everett McCorvey) and have a lot of questions about how to format it and the sourcing requirements. I've gone through the Wiki Adventure sequence and tried to read some of the help pages but must say they often leave me more confused than when I started. I'd really appreciate it if you could help me get this first page up to Wiki standards. Jacalyn Carfagno (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Sting ping

Hey, Swarm. Since the discussion has been archived, I thought I'd just drop you a personal note. First, I like you too and often appreciate your wisdom. However, in this last instance, I found the sting to have been a bit too potent. Exclamations like pathetic disappointment and [t]here is no middle ground. You either make excuses for abuse out of loyalty or you stand against it. If you do the former, you're no member of this community. I don't know if I ever interacted with Bearcat, so no loyalty there. They have acted contrary to admin norms and, as I said in that thread, risk, at the very least, an admonishment if not an outright desysop at Arbitration. But I don't necessarily agree that it would be an uncontentious desysop. Regardless, I think there is a middle way, where Bearcat is allowed to acknowledge without an outright mea culpa. I just don't think it's that key to resolve this. I assume in good faith that Bearcat will make the necessary corrections; that they would avoid further action which in the Wikipedia admin world, indeed, are nothing short of bizarre. The point is: this isn't an RfA or an unblock request. This is an out-of-touch admin who was asked to immediately self-correct, which they agreed to do, plus some defensive wall of text (oh well). So, to sum up, I hope this middle way works, because it would be the path of least resistance which benefits the project the most. Time will tell, I suppose. But I digress. Thanks for taking the time. Best, El_C 15:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• @El C: Thanks for the note. I always appreciate this kind of thing. I'm aware that I spoke strongly, far more strongly than is reasonable in any routine civil, erudite conversation on this project. It is fair that you found it excessive. I bristled at you calling me out on it, I won't deny it, but it's not because I didn't recognize this and think you're in the wrong, but because I do recognize it, and in spite of it, I feel no shame or guilt; I feel it's justified. Sure, I'm worked up, but if I'm reviewing a situation as an uninvolved admin with no dog in the fight, and it's so blatantly egregious that it gets me worked up, then I can't in good conscience hold back in my assessment of just how wrong the situation is. I have no desire to be cruel or irrational, I simply mean to speak my assessment honestly and plainly, harsh though it may be. I like to think that my track record proves that I am not an unreasonable, aggressive bully, and when I'm speaking out that strongly, there's a good reason for it. In any case, I appreciate you explaining your view. What you describe is a pragmatic approach, and I can respect that. It's a reasonable and wise approach, and I can see that it was wrong of me to accuse you of excusing Bearcat's behavior. Truthfully you were being the realistic one and I was being the unrealistic one. I'm aware of the fact that it takes a lot more than one incident, however blatant, to desysop an admin of that caliber. I'm aware that nothing beyond what happened was going to happen in that report. All the more reason, in my mind, to speak out strongly, for the record, and for the user to see that not everyone will make excuses for them or eat up their excuses. Sure, they would probably not be uncontentiously desysopped based on that incident alone, but pointing out that they could or should be is better than letting them think that they're untouchable. My heated response is reactionary. If "power users" weren't systemically given free passes to engage in abuse, I would have no reason to respond aggressively. Unfortunately, they are, and the many injustices I've witnessed due to this have always been part of what motivates me as an editor. Aggressively calling out the wrong is all that one can do. I hope this clears up where I'm coming from, even if you think I took it too far. Best, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Swarm, thanks for the in-depth and reflective response. I appreciate and admire your stand against injustice. I acknowledge that it may occasionally lead to some strong rhetoric. But I suspect you also believe in redemption. I also realize Bearcat's responses throughout the report were not especially direct or succinct, which they should have been. Anyway, I will the first to call for the immediate revocation of their sysop flag if they commit the same violations again. At the same time, I am reasonably confident that they will be cognizant of ensuring they live up to admin norms from here on out. Here's hoping. All the best, El_C 02:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@El C: It sounds like we're ultimately on the same page. You're absolutely right, I believe in redemption, and I believe anyone can voluntarily adjust their behavior after a backlash from the community (having done so myself on more than one occasion), and I believe most reasonable people can, should and would do such a thing. I felt my "dragging down" was needed, you felt it unnecessary and excessive, perhaps either of us are right, perhaps the answer lays somewhere in between. Regardless, there's a complaint on the record, with a voluntary resolution offered, and we both desire that a voluntary resolution will be enough and that additional steps will not ever be necessary (the day an admin with a million edits who joined in 2003 gets desysopped is a sad day). Even if the concessions offered appeared to be nominal, we can both hope that the underlying understanding and the commitment to change is real. That's good enough for me. Your trust and faith in the resolution is enough for me to trust that I need not worry, even if I would not have trusted it at face value. In spite of our disagreement, I'm happy to stand by your good faith optimism just as you will stand by my accusations of bad faith misconduct should the need arise. I appreciate you coming by to talk this out. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

ANI

Probably not worth replying anymore to the IP. I actually do wish I had just looked at the range before closing the thread. I'd have ranged blocked them since the collateral seems next to non-existent (haven't looked in CU, but in terms of public edits.) Now that they're challenging the close seems a bit too involved for my tastes. Anyway, I'm sure someone else will come along and re-close it either way. No need to get worked up over one person. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

A little over a year ago you blocked me due to my edit warring. If it weren't for the way you explained CIR to me, I would never have understood what I was doing was wrong, and probably would have left the project while still indefintely blocked. Your great admin work saved me from leaving and I just wanted to thank you for that. I'm also sorry for how I acted back then; I was an idiot. This is genuinely appreciated. Thanks, IWI (chat) 01:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• Good stuff. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 18:40, 11 August 2020 (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 22:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

cookie cutter

Hi. I hope you are doing well. What does mean by cookie cutter in general, and in this edit by you? My understanding is, cookie cutter means something very common. Maybe it was multiple double negatory sentences that confused me. Also, apat can be abused for UPE. Hat collecting is also a trait of some paid editors to collect perms and show them off to get clients. I dont know that particular editor, but maybe they are trying to get the apat for bypassing the review process. That was just very broad generalisation from my side, and one/I shouldnt make such statements without knowing the person in discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• A cookie cutter is a template that makes identical copies out of dough. So, when I refer to "cookie cutter" stubs, I mean a user is using the same structure and wording over and over again. Using the same two sentences over and over again, and only changing a few words here and there. This is a common WP:GAME tactic used by COI editors, UPEs, and hat collectors. It's easy to spam uncontentious stubs using this method in order to reach the numerical threshold for Autopatrolled. It doesn't count because it doesn't actually show any level of the required experience or policy-understanding, and indeed it usually indicates a bad-faith motivation. Whether editing in good faith or not, granting under these circumstances has never once proven to be a good decision, and every single case in which I have given these users the benefit of the doubt, we've had to revoke Autopatrolled almost immediately after. I don't know if this editor is a UPE, but it's certainly possible. They could just be obsessed with gaining power on this project. Neither explanation would be strange. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hi. Yes, you are right. Thans you for the response. See you around —usernamekiran (talk) 04:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

TH1980

Thanks for the close. It was raised that TH1980 should be required to link to his previous appeals, as these issues keep coming up, and the participants in the last appeal obviously were not aware of previous ones. Could you amend the close to require that? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but should I take the lack of response as a rejection? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Whether we say it's a requirement or not, I don't exactly trust a sanctioned editor to disclose self-incriminating information without "forgetting" about it, so I just went ahead and amended the closure and the log so that they highlight the links to the previous discussions, and therefore can't be overlooked no matter what. From my reading there is just the one declined appeal, but let me know if I'm leaving something out. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 15:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I can't think of anything missing off the top of my head. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

YGM

Just sent you an email as a followup to the conversation at WT:RFA. Not urgent in any way, just stuff I don't want to continue discussing on-wiki. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Minor Page Deletion Request

Hi, could you delete the redirect at WZYQ so that I could create a new page in it's place, for that same call sign? Per MOS and naming rules. Much appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:31 on August 12, 2020 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter

Taken care of by Only. :) Have an Awesome Day! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:10 on August 12, 2020 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter

@Neutralhomer: Sorry I didn't see this in time! Glad you got it taken care of! Best, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

It's OK. I normally ask two admins when I have questions like this, in case one is busy, one has signed off, whatever. That way, there is always a Plan B. :) It's no worries. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:24 on August 12, 2020 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter

Feedback

Hi Swarm/Archive 19, in July 2019 you helped me understand the the necessary follow up actions for patrolling. I am adding them to the page WP:Rollback, see Special:Diff/973025333, I boldly added your feedback and would like to seek your comment on that edit. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 00:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks and a brief note

Thanks for stepping in at 3RR. I do want to note that I prefer they/them pronouns; I only didn't correct the other editor because I didn't want it to blow up into yet another fight. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, Rosguill. I try to always use they/them pronouns if a user does not have their gender set in the preferences, and I was actually surprised to see this message. I had to go back and look, and I see I referred to you as "he". Don't know why I did that. My apologies. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Re AN

• @BrownHairedGirl:

If you seek to further discuss or debate the notion of power users receiving special treatment, and how and why it applies in the Koavf situation, feel free to follow up about that topic here. I am happy go more into depth about this, especially if you feel that I am assuming bad faith or seeking to discredit you, neither of which is the case. Don't feel obligated, just want to leave you this opening rather than have the thread end up getting derailed by an extended meta-discussion. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Swarm, if you don't want the thread tpo end up getting derailed by an extended meta-discussion, the the best way to do that is to stop assuming bad faith ... and to apologise for that rather than sneeringly accusing me of being defensive at your bogus allegations.

You can put an end to any disruption if you want to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I'm not assuming bad faith though. I have no doubt you're acting in good faith. There is no reason for you to feel personally attacked by me bringing up a well-known dynamic that exists in the community and is obviously in full effect here. There is no reason for you to think that that translates into me accusing you of bad faith, nor do I want you to feel that way. Hence my offer to discuss this further. This is a cultural problem within the community, and I highly doubt that you don't know what I'm talking about or would disagree with me. So, if you're feeling attacked just because you're the OP, then that is a defensive response, because this is not about your good faith motivations. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. Swarm, you assumed that Koavf is being defended because of friendship. That's ABF.

You assumed that Koavf is being defended because he is a power user. That's ABF.

And you used those assumptions of bad faith as the basis of completely inverting the clearly-stated intent of my request for a block review.

The cultural problem I see here is that you don't recognise your own ABF :(

And please, I really do mean that you should cut the repeated accusations of defensiveness. That's a really obnoxious way to respond. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you two are talking past each other to some extent, but for what it's worth, I don't see arguments for overturning this block as necessarily being rooted in Koavf's long contribution history at all. Speaking for myself, I probably would have felt even more strongly that this block was overlong if it had been applied to a less experienced editor. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

We are talking past each other. BrownHairedGirl, it's not ABF, and you're wrong to think it's ABF. Good and bad "faith" refers to benevolent vs malicious intent. You can be in the wrong and still be "in good faith". I am not relying on any assumption of bad faith to justify anything I am saying, I am relying on my knowledge of policy and practice, nothing more. Power users getting special treatment is not a matter of "bad faith". Power users get excessively defended in good faith from users, due to the fact that their perceived importance to the project outweighs "petty" policy violations such as 3RR or Civility. Not only is it not bad faith, but it makes sense. I get it. I myself am guilty of it. It's a sympathetic cause, not a malicious one. However, that doesn't make it okay. When power users get blocked, community members find any excuse in the book to excuse and defend the user, even when the case is cut-and-dry. As an AN3 regular, this type of block in this situation is absolutely routine. And yes, I fully account for disruptive editing in my handling of cases. I am not some obsessive policy wonk who ignores common sense and blocks both parties without considering the context, because "it takes two sides to edit war". No, this is simply not the level of "disruptive editing" that leads to us granting extraordinary 3RR exemptions, which is a controversial practice in its own right. This is simply not disruptive editing at all. Policywise, everything is in order. There's no logical reason to go out of your way to initiate an extraordinary hearing to review what should, by all measures, be an uncontentious block. That doesn't mean either of you are acting in bad faith in opposing the block, however, this is extraordinary special treatment. That's not some subjective assumption I'm making, that's an objective fact. We do not humor third-party block reviews at AN in practice, and your own power user status is what is protecting you from having it shut down, and Justin's power user status is what's granting it legitimacy. Not an objective assessment against policy. Yes, I am truly disappointed to see both of you overlooking standard policy application practice to grant leniency to a vested contributor. No, that does not mean I am accusing you of having malicious intent. Yes, I'm still suggesting that you're trying to give special treatment to a user in a situation in which all of the relevant policy disagrees with you, and the only explicable variable to account for this is that we're dealing with a power user, in the cultural and historical context that power users are almost always treated exactly like this, and this state of affairs has led directly to Framgate, which was supposed to be a wakeup call, and yet we're seeing the same patterns of unenforceability play out over and over again. No, I am not accusing you of having ill motivations. I am objectively examining policy, finding that it is all justified here, and lamenting at the fact that we're arguing over this. This is exceptional, special treatment that is contrary to policy and practice. I am not saying the underlying reason is malicious motivations, that misses the entire point. However, it is special treatment, and it is special treatment that serves to inhibit the enforcement of the community's policies. That is wrong. That is a problem. That needs to end. By every metric, norm, policy and practice we have, the block was justified and invalidating it is wrong. If this unprecedented third-party "review" is not an example of special treatment, then it's still important to bring up our problematic culture of giving these users special treatment, so that we can be cognizant and guard against it. That should not be something that you feel attacked for. That should not be something that gets personalized. That should be something that you agree with. Frankly, I'm shocked that you're so apalled by me bringing up this well-known fact and are feeling attacked by it, rather than agreeing with it. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Swarm, speaking for myself (although I suspect that BrownHairedGirl may be in the same boat), my view that this block should be overturned or shortened has literally nothing to do with the fact that Koavf is a long-time contributor. If Koavf were a less experienced editor, I would feel even more strongly that the block was too long than I already do. For what it's worth, I have never interacted with Koavf at all other than perhaps in an occasional noticeboard thread, and BrownHairedGirl has pointed out that far from her being a wiki-friend of his, they have clashed in the past. Whether or not it's a serious problem that we sometimes treat long-term contributors more favorably than others (and I personally think that the severity of any such issue is frequently exaggerated), this is not the dynamic at play in this specific instance. (Also, noting that Koavf has now pasted his own unblock request, so the concern about whether we can unblock based on a "third-party appeal" is moot.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, the Fram situation was about (rightly or wrongly) perceived harassment by a longstanding editor, and is of minimal relevance here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Re GALLERY

@Johnbod: First of all, I didn't call you a "drunkard". I asked if you were drunk, because you were, and still are, aggressively arguing with me without actually disputing anything that I was saying whatsoever, the exchanges seemed bizarre and irrational, and it was an honest question that came to mind. That's not an insult, that's me honestly asking you a question that I have. Now, is that an appropriate thing to ask on an article talk page? Probably not, mea culpa, but it's absolutely not meant as a rhetorical personal attack, it's just a genuine expression of my pure bafflement, which continues unresolved to this very moment. I told you it seemed you were not reading my comments, that I did not even know what you were arguing about, and I asked you if you were drunk. Do you really think I'm just casually trolling random editors for fun? Does it not concern you that an admin is so confused and absolutely bewildered by your behavior, that they are honestly wondering if you're drunk? If someone asked me that, I would tell them hell no, we're obviously having some sort of huge misunderstanding that we need to resolve ASAP, and I would accept their invitation to clear up that misunderstanding.

My policy explanation was an "admin action", meaning I was not involved and had no personal opinion, I was merely stepping in to educate a new user about what a relevant policy said. Part of our role is to enforce policy, and the way we enforce policy when it comes to new users is to educate them before problems arise. This is all I was doing. I was literally just trying to educate a new user in good faith by summarizing a policy that pertained to them. So if I got something wrong, that's important to bring up. Hence my invitation for you to discuss any perceived errors on my talk page. Even though I'm fairly confident I didn't get anything wrong, it's important that you actually explain why you think I'm wrong and that I genuinely hear you out. Dragging out such an unrelated discussion on an article talk page is disruptive, though, hence my closure of the thread. I think your deletion of my closing comment and my other comment were certainly aggressive and out of line with policy, yet I am not blocking you, warning you, reporting you, or engaging in your edit warring. I'm merely inviting you to discuss, conceding to your out-of-line deletions of my comments, and working to diffuse and deescalate whatever is going on here. Does that really make me the "aggressive" one here?

I don't seek to denigrate anyone. I don't seek to be uncivil or hurt anyone's feelings. However I do speak plainly. If I am not sure what you're talking about, I will state that. If you're making arguments that don't even seem to pertain to my comments, to the point where it seems like you're not even reading my comments, I will point that out. If you're communicating with me in a bizarre, belligerent way, with no apparent reason, to the degree where I'm genuinely wondering if you're editing under the influence, I will ask. None of that is meant to be "aggressive", and I sincerely apologize if any of that hurt your feelings. However I will ask you to consider that this entire sideshow is prompted by one core issue which I keep begging you to get back to, and that's your allegation that I erred in explaining WP:GALLERY, and then did not present any specific text from the policy that disagreed with any of my words, and that the arguments that you presented do not seem to even address anything that I said. I'm not sure how many edits we've exchanged at this point, but to be quite honest with you, all of these exchanges and I'm still not sure what you're angry about or what you're disputing. I beg of you, let's move past whatever squabble just happened so you can get back to addressing your objections with my explanation of WP:GALLERY. If you intend to be civil and friendly and calm, you will be welcome to discuss and debate here. If you're going to continue to cast aspersions, make personal attacks, and threaten me, then I'm sorry but you will not be welcome here. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Alex 21

Per User_talk:Alex_21#Warning_of_a_post_to_an_administrator's_noticeboard_regarding_your_actions, see the thread immediately below that telling him that he was harassing me as well as the thread I started at WT:HARASSMENT. Seems like a serious case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The fact that he refuses to acknowledge what he has been told repeatedly is harassment and evidently thinks that kind of behavior is fine is definitely a concern of mine. I mention this because he and I edit topics that overlap sometimes and I'm very much not interested in his inappropriate behavior and furthermore, his stonewalling on listening to others telling him that he's in the wrong with at best some ropy reasoning that I frankly think is just a cover for him ignoring rules and norms. I reckon this conversation is more-or-less petered out but this is a perfect microcosm of the problems of interacting with him. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

Red Phoenix

Euryalus • SQL

Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

GB fan

Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

• There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
• Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
• Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
• There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Assistance with a CCI

Hello. I came across your userpage after discovering Homosexual Behaviour: Therapy and Assessment was RevDeleted by you in 2018. The reason why I'm contacting you is that article and several other articles listed at User_talk:Swarm/Archive_16#Thanks,_and_a_request are part of a CCI listed at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/FreeKnowledgeCreator. They are:

• The Foundations of Psychoanalysis
• The Memory Wars
• The Structure of Science
• Knowledge and Human Interests - all except the first listed edit at the CCI page.
• Homosexual Behaviour: Therapy and Assessment
• Philosophical Problems of Space and Time
• Freud, Biologist of the Mind
• The Anita Bryant Story
• The Sexual Brain
• The Freudian Fallacy
• Natural Law and Natural Rights
• The Homosexual Matrix

As I do not have access to revdletions, I was wondering whether these edits did have copyviolations or not so the CCI can be updated. Also, Reason and Morality is also listed but it has been checked off already. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

MrLinkinPark333, Note that I've now cleared all of these out. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 22:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Editor safety?

Should I buy a gun? EEng 01:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Arm a bear. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 03:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Just so you know [9]. EEng 03:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

know everything I do. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 03:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For everything you do around this project. I don't give enough of these (barnstars) out and probably should give them out more often, but wanted to recognize you for the work that you do. ♥ TheSandDoctor Talk 00:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• @TheSandDoctor: Thank you so much! ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 18:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

♥ Please check your email when you get the chance too ;) TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Rarely in recent times has anyone been bold enough to speak out about the perennial nonsense and silly claims that get churned over and over at WT:RfA. Thank you for sticking your neck out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Haha, thanks, Kudpung. Honestly it sickens me that I only stepped in to reinforce your point about WT:RfA being an utterly-insane circus that I refuse to participate in, and immediately got ganged up on and dragged down into the mud, trapped in endless debates about nothing. I had to walk away for my own sanity and I don't think I'll be going back anytime soon. WT:RfA is truly a fucking horrible place. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 18:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Now you know why I finally gave up on RfA reform 2 years ago after persevering like an idiot for a decade ;) Actualy, I'm surprised some of the more mature, intelligent, and highly experienced admins such as TonyBallioni and WereSpielChequers still put up with the nonsense. Boing knows it's a waste of time and even Floq has unwatched the page! I unwatched it when I retired, but for some masochistic reason I still check out the pings. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. About eleven years ago I set out to convince people at WT:RFA that we were indeed in an RFA drought. Perhaps I should have given up after the surprising time that took, but it happened eventually. Since then we have had few successes, but the nonsensical "percentage of edits that are automated" opposes seem to have stopped. Though sadly not in time to get an RFA run from one editor who had worked out that he would need an additional 30,000 manual edits to pass RFA in that era. Maybe I'm a glass quarterful guy, maybe this is a longdrawn out rearguard action that is worth fighting as long as the site still functions and I care about it. ϢereSpielChequers 11:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

"Seymour Schwartz" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Seymour Schwartz. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 6#Seymour Schwartz until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Royalbroil 13:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Request for advice

Hello Swarm, I wanted to kindly ask for your advice on something. I'm interested in applying in the near future for Rollback and PC Reviewer rights and wished to know what you consider a qualified applicant to be? What is your criteria for granting these permissions? (particularly in the area of counter-vandalism experience). Thank you very much for your time and keep up the good work in the Adopt-a-user program :) History DMZ ^{(talk)+(ping)} 14:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Adoption

Hello! I'm interested in the Wikipedia adopt-a-user program. Are you still participating, and would you consider adopting me? I chose you because your interests/philosophy seem to line up broadly with mine, because of your stated dedication to helping out new Wikipedians, and because you seem reasonable and well-spoken (well-written?). I have been on Wikipedia for some eight years, but only seriously engaged starting about a year and a half ago. Despite a fair number of edits, I still feel pretty rough around the edges and, as a result of being self-taught, I spend an inordinate amount of time figuring out how to do simple things. I'm mostly interested in help streamlining my Wikipedia working style and navigating the labyrinth of Wikipedia community guidelines/norms. I appreciate any help you're willing to give. I should note also that due to a lack of free time I tend to only edit about once per week on average, so I understand if you feel it's not worth your time. Thanks! --Shmarrighan (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at m:Merchandise giveaways/Nominations § Shishir Dua

 You are invited to join the discussion at m:Merchandise giveaways/Nominations § Shishir Dua. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Request for reduction in protection level on Kamala Harris

My apologies. I did not realize I was supposed to reach out to you, as the protecting admin, before requesting reduction in protection level. My only excuse is that this is the first time Im approaching this procedure, and I did not find it clear, and muddled my way through it.

The page has calmed down dramatically from where it was a month ago. Vandalism has disappeared. The talk page is active, edits generally have consensus, and there is no recent edit waring.

The time to go back to semi-protection seems right. A level of sanity has been achieved, and if things don't work out, we can go back to Extended confirmed protection.

Thanks for your consideration. Rklahn (talk) 07:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• Of course the disruptive editing has calmed down dramatically since last month, that's the point of the page protection. Saying the disruption has stopped since the page was protected, thus the page can be unprotected, is circular logic at its worst. I can think of no remotely-plausible rationale for unprotecting a high-profile political candidate's article immediately before an election. It's unthinkable. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• It never ceases to amaze me when whenever I see requests to downgrade protection on the basis that disruption from accounts restricted by that very protection has ceased for the duration... Vandalism has disappeared — of course it has. Extended-confirmed accounts engage in vandalism so (so) infrequently so as to be deemed statistically insignificant. El_C 22:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Amkgp

Hi Swarm,

you previously warned Amkgp that they would be indefblocked from PERM if they made another request there. [They https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback&oldid=976834411#User:Amkgp have]. Can you tell me where to go for this? Thanks. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 20:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Mail call

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.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).

Administrator changes

Ajpolino • LuK3

Jackmcbarn

Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM

There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely 1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.

Technical news

• The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).

Arbitration

• The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
• Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.

Miscellaneous

• The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
• Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

FYI about Aroniel2

Hey! You dealt with Aroniel2 a little while ago back in 2018. They were unblocked, but seem to be off at it all again. Just wanted to give you a heads up that I've just brought it back up on the ANI after they're back here POV pushing. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 04:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

REQUEST FOR ADOPTION

Hi Swam,

I bumped into your profile at the adopt-user page, I sure like the good works you've been doing hence my choice of making myself your adoptee...

I actively became a user about last week ago, It dawned on me that choosing to be self-taught in this space will be a nightmare, hence my request to have you adopt me as your adoptee...

I intend to learn how to create notable and publication- worthy articles through your tutelage. I'm open to learn whatever pleases you to teach .

I hope and will be glad if my request is considered...

Thank you...

• Felixeshiet (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Administrator changes

John M Wolfson

Bduke • Nilfanion • Philosopher • Rspeer • Yunshui

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

TonyBallioni

CheckUser changes

EdJohnston • Oshwah • Yamla

Yunshui

Oversight changes

Anarchyte

Yunshui

Guideline and policy news

• Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.

Technical news

• Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
• Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
• Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.

Arbitration

• The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
• The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.

Miscellaneous

• A reminder that standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. (American Politics 2 Arbitration case).

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Swarm for your honest comment. -Darouet (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Guidance for improving chances as to being granted template editor rights

Hello Swarm (talk), I just thought I would take you up on your offer to ask questions on your talk page about my recent application to be granted template editor rights. I read through what you had posted in denying my request. You make a lot of salient points. I get it now. Specifically, my right to WP:TPE was revoked because what I did wrong was that I failed to engage other editors in a discussion about the Denver Broncos color scheme over at WT:NFL (that discussion is here). I get it. I know now that what I should have done differently is that I should have engaged other editors in that discussion and should not have unilaterally made changes at Module:Gridiron color/data without first engaging in a discussion that should have resulted in a WP:CONSENSUS all interested editors could live with. If I were to submit another request to be granted WP:TPE rights, what I would & should do differently is to not unilaterally edit protected templates that go against the WP:CONSENSUS. I also know better that I definitely should not constantly revert myself repeatedly over protected templates. OK, on to your next point. Let me specifically explain my current understanding of the rules. I understand that the template editor right is a right reserved for highly technically competent editors. It's reserved for editors who are experienced in dispute resolution and for editors who are highly competent with coding. As you said, it is a high stakes user right. I understand that changes to protected modules (unless they are fixes of obvious markup errors, for example) should only be made after substantial discussion, and should conform to the agreed upon WP:CONSENSUS, per WP:TPECON. I also understand that I need to know WP:TPECON front and back. That part I get. The last thing I want to say is this: I need guidance as to how to improve and become more competent in the Template space, and to understand the rules and conditions of the Template editor user right. Could you please help? Also, have I addressed some of your concerns? If not, how can I address them better? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Another twist

Following up from AE, it looks like nobody has objected to the topic ban, but I noticed something else when I went to log my removal of the Consensus Required sanction: the Consensus Required sanction had never been logged in the first place. JzG only logged a 1RR restriction. (Not sure if it was a one-off mistake or their real intent, but the next month they correctly logged this one as Consensus Required.) In any case I'm not sure what to do with this now. I'd feel weird enforcing the sanction down to the "letter of the law" while ignoring the other "letter of the law" stating that for a sanction to be valid it must be properly logged. ~Awilley (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind. After closely reading the page at AC/CS I didn't find anything that explicitly says that the mis-logging makes the sanction invalid. And Thucydides411's latest comment (showing SPECIFICO correctly explaining the sanction to other users when it was to their advantage) convinced me that this is a clear case of gaming. ~Awilley (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Is there some reason why you would not have this discussion in view of the participants at AE? If you'll take a close look at the AE and my many other comments on the subject of "longstanding" and "consensus" on talk pages and Admin talk page threads, you'll note I said "longstanding consensus", not "longstanding text." I have emphasized that in my view, age alone is not implicit consensus and that any text that actually has consensus will have been discussed on talk or can easily be confirmed to have current consensus. That is not the case here, as shown in the talk page thread. Anyway, I think it's clear from the AE thread that at least @JzG: does not appear to think a sanction is in order and that others, who enabled Awilley to deprecate the Consenus Required sanction, cannot implicitly be taken to favor a restriction that was removed for cause. Main point is just that I don't think side discussions on an open matter are the best approach. I just happened to see this by chance, and others may not have. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy adminship day!

Wishing Swarm a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! History DMZ (talk)+(ping) 01:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Happy adminship anniversary!!!! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Adoption

Kia ora I'm hoping you will adopt me to get my page up and running. I'm a complete novice who has been given the job of creating a page for The PumpHouse Theatre Takapuna in NZ. I will possibly need a lot of hand holding :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by PumpHouse1 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Potential adoption!

Hello! I have been advised to be adopted and mentored to improve my editing here on Wikipedia and I feel like you are the best fit for me! Let me know if you are willing to do this and we can start on the first of January! Regards, Heart ^(talk) 17:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC).

Flyer22 and WanderingWanda arbitration case opened

The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Possible sock

I stumbled across an IP whose edits on two topics resemble a editor you blocked to implement a ban. I'm not sure there's enough for an SPI – nothing suggests that the editor has registered a second account – but I'd value your opinion. Can I post an Interaction Timeline here or elsewhere for a second opinion? I've reverted a few of the IP edits but they generally seem to be in good faith. Checkuser evidence would be stale. Certes (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

Administrator changes

Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

Izno

Guideline and policy news

• There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.

Technical news

• Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I really appreciate your hard works and efforts! Keep it up! ArriehM (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• @ArriehM: Not sure what I did, but thanks! ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Hulk has pretty weird humour. In my view, that was a bad joke of his, not meant to insult. He has said he isn't mad at you. I hope that you will be able to let this go, Swarm. starship.paint (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Starship.paint: Fair enough, like I have said repeatedly, I literally have no problem with InedibleHulk, in fact I had to go back and look up our interaction because I didn't even remember him. Whether he was trolling me or simply making a joke that he didn't want to make behind my back, I'm not concerned with what he said as much as I am with the perception that he has some sort of grudge against me for a legitimate block I issued a year ago. It was not my intention to escalate things beyond simply noting that sentiment. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you for the response, Swarm. Indeed, you didn't escalate things. Shit happened, but no fault of yours. I suppose that's life, we just have to keep swimming on. starship.paint (talk) 08:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Palmer Report protection and the use of rollback

Palmer Report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi,

In April, you extended-protected Palmer Report for six months, using discretionary sanctions. The protection expired in October, but the talk page header (which you added[10]) still says that one "must be extended-confirmed to edit this article". I think per DS you are technically the only one who is allowed to edit the header. Recently there have been some problems in the article, but they are not exclusively a result of edits by unregistered or autoconfirmed users.

Short description of recent problems

On November 28, Airplaneman fully protected Palmer Report. After the protection expired, Eraserhead1 made an edit, similar to their November 28 edit that, in part, led to full protection. Few days later, they made a series of controversial edits, introducing more improper synthesis and using palmerreport.com to make controversial claims about third parties. I partly undid those edits and Eraserhead1 almost immediately restored their version, apparently using rollback. I have started a discussion at Biographies of living persons noticeboard – my focus there is on this edit and the rest of discussion should probably be kept on the article talk page or moved to other fora.

Right now I have a question about the use of rollback by Eraserhead1. They seem to have used rollback in a content dispute and the rollback also involved undoing my copy edits, which were uncontroversial, I think. I would argue that they were restoring BLP violations. Is this a proper use of rollback privilege? Politrukki (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Politrukki why don’t we have a sensible conversation? I won’t use rollback like that again. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Politrukki: For future reference, no, that's incorrect. Removing a notice of an expired restriction is not prohibited, it's an uncontentious technical edit. We're not a bureaucracy, you're free to use common sense in situations like this. As for the rollback, it's improper, but as long as the user's admitting it was a mistake which they will not be repeating, I don't see it as a big deal. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

While I think Wikipedia should not be a bureaucracy, AC/DS proves that some areas are treated as one. By "technically" I was referring to discretionary sanctions appeal instructions criterion 4, and implied that I was being hypersensitive.

I didn't think you would oppose removing the header unless you wanted to re-evaluate the situation and extend the extended-protection. To be clear, I didn't ask you to re-evaluate nor am I asking it now. I actually didn't notice the talk page header until yesterday, but in a different situation – for example if there were no edits since the expiration date – I would have removed the talk page header myself with a mention in the edit summary.

With regards to the use of rollback, I concur and add that Eraserhead1 has, at least partly, self-reverted.

Thank you for removing the header and thank you for your opinions. Politrukki (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha, well in that case, thanks for checking with me, rather than just making an assumption. That was a good thing of you to do, Politrukki. Best, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

A question

Hello Swarm, how are you? Here is the deal, I created some of the tamplate about Most populous cities of the province in China such as Template:Most populous cities in Guangxi yesterday, and I put them at the bottom of the cities article like lots of articles did. But User:TJRC reverted my edits with the reason "that's not navbox". I state some examples that used the same Largest cities navbox at the bottom, and I have also added a Template:Navboxes to collapsed as his requirement. But he insists revert my edit in Guilin and Yulin, Guangxi. I think if English Wikipedia prohibits the Largest cities navbox at the bottom, he should also remove these navbox from Osaka, Bangkok, etc, not only concentrate on my new edits. Here is our conversation: User talk:瑞丽江的河水#Most populous cities in Guangxi. I want to know can we use the largest cities navbox at the bottom? And what should I do for next? I want to hear the suggestion from administrator. Thank you very much.--Xiliuheshui · chat 20:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

IBAN clarification and modification

Swarm, I haven't had any luck getting clarification for my IBAN; could you help me with this? I believe I received inaccurate advice[11] about appealing my IBAN. I would like to eventually appeal the IBAN (to change it to one-way in the opposite direction) by relitigating the cases which led to it; would that be appropriate? But my immediate concern is about how to deal with behavior which I have encountered since the IBAN. I was told that I should demonstrate that I am no longer bringing complaints against them, but I feel I must bring a complaint against them to immediately amend the IBAN to two-way. May I discuss my recent experience with the editor here? I read the following from "Important: Appeals and administrator modifications of sanctions" at WP:AE: "Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied", which could mean a noticeboard complaint is unnecessary to expand the sanction to two-way, depending on how broadly that is interpreted. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I mean, my endorsement of your IBAN had nothing to do with SPECIFICO, it had to do with your own disruptive editing, which existed regardless of anything SPECIFICO had done wrong. You seem to be claiming that SPECIFICO's subsequent sanctioning proves that your conduct was justified, but I can't see how that is the case. IIRC SPECIFICO was sanctioned for breaching AE restrictions, unrelated to your case. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

There are a lot of misunderstandings here which I would like to iron out before taking up more of the community's time with this (and you are the only admin who seemed to have looked at the editing background). I feel that my editing which you based your endorsement on cannot be understood without me explaining what was going on below the surface, and in an appeal I would hope to explain this and the behavior I was reacting to. I don't know if what I am trying to say makes sense; I would like to freely discuss this by email so that I know that at least one person understands my perspective, but it is not clear to me whether I am permitted to do so.

In addition to asking for clarification on the appeal process, at the moment I am asking about making a complaint about their behavior towards me as recently as this month; I am not referring to their existing sanctions. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas Swarm
	Hi Swarm, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and healthy New Year, Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia,    –Davey2010Talk 20:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Swarm!!

Hello Swarm: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Here's hoping that 2021 is a better year all around. From my family to yours, wishing you a very Merry Christmas and a happy new year! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Swarm: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Autopatroll for Thepharoah17

I have seen that you gave User:Thepharoah17 an autopatrolled tag. I would like to question this decision, as I sometimes actually copy edit his pages like the Amanda Figueraswhich he created on the 7 October, just 10 days before you granted him autopatrolled rights. This article was mainly a copy paste of a biography of hers which I also wrote in the edit summary of the edit. I guess ThePharoah17 could wait a bit for being granted this rights.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

FYI, this is coming from somebody who accused me here of being an "ISIS sympathizer" just because I said there is no difference between them and the PKK here. And by the way America does not even support the YPG. They just used them to defeat ISIS and once ISIS was defeated, America abandoned them as it did last year when Turkey invaded northeastern Syria since they are in fact no different from the PKK. Thepharoah17 (talk) 13:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Swarm, I am here again because I have found other articles of Thepharoah17 where they just copy pasted. Mohamed Anwar Esmat Sadat,Amal Kassir also had issues. It is not really helpful for Wikipedia to grant them autopatrolled rights if they just copy paste whole phrases and sections from articles into Wikipedia articles. Their articles are noteworthy, but they might better read WP:CV before they are given autopatrolled rights.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: I've run these articles through the duplication detector and this is a bit borderline.[12][13][14] While there are some matches, it seems obvious that Thepharoah is attempting to paraphrase sources and is not straight copy-pasting them. Most of the matches are brief phrases in sentences that have been paraphrased. I see only one significant match in 2/3 articles, and while Thepharoah17 needs to be more careful about paraphrasing, it doesn't corroborate the allegation that their articles are "mostly copied and pasted". Also I'm concerned about this complaint coming from someone who is not a neutral New Page Patroller, but someone who's accused the user of being an ISIS sympathizer. It just doesn't strike me as a good faith complaint, more along the lines of WP:HOUNDING. Still, Pharoah, we take copyright violations so seriously, that all that might not matter. I see that you are trying to paraphrase sources, but you cannot be lazy and let even single copied sentences slip through the cracks. I will have no choice but to revoke your Autopatrolled if violations continue, even if they are minor and isolated. Please be more careful. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. And we are hounding each other all the time, if it is called this way. We do mostly constructive edits in each others pages. And the first page was mostly copy pasted, the other ones were a bit better, but still included copy pasted and very closely paraphrased phrases. Thepharoah17 could have addressed the issue, but they didn't, so I insisted. The ISIS part is that he compared the Kurds who are defending Kobane from ISIS, are similarly as terrorist as ISIS. The Kurds were are not! from the PKK and adhere to gender equality, women's rights and direct democracy while ISIS fought for the opposite of this. If I was wrong to point this out, I apologize.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: Understood. Well, let's just keep the status quo for now and if you catch any more copy/pasting issues (or other major issues) feel free to drop by again and I'll re-consider revoking Autopatrolled if necessary. Hopefully the warning will get through and we won't be seeing those issues anymore. I reviewed their articles prior to granting and they do generally seem decent enough for Autopatrolled, but it seems like you're keeping an eye on them enough to where we don't have to be worried about anything flying under the radar for now. As for the ISIS/PKK issue, I didn't understand the context and I can see it's not black and white. You should obviously not be calling anyone a terrorist sympathizer, that's a personal attack. However I do acknowledge that the issue is complex; the PKK is considered to be a terrorist organization by some and heroes by others. I see how emotions can get heated to have someone equate them to ISIS, which is inappropriate on its own, per WP:SOAPBOX. Wikipedia is not the place to preach controversial opinions and it is a serious concern. So, don't say things like that in the future, but I understand where you're coming from. Let me know if you need anything else. Best, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, this dispute is just going further and further and I am bringing this dialogue up at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kurds. Thepharoah17 is there mentioned as one who removes multiple mentions on Kurds. Just to clarify: I have not called Thepharoah17 an ISIL sympathizer nor a terrorist sympathizer. I mentioned a surprising tolerance towards ISIL by other editors and that Thepharoah17 shared similar views. It's clearly shown in the diff he shared. Also the issue was not between the PKK and ISIL, but the YPG (which is not! designated as a terrorist organization by any EU country and any other NATO country except for Turkey) and ISIL who is designated as a terrorist organization by almost any country, the EU and even the UNO. To trying to equate an ally in the fight against ISIL as just as terrorist as ISIL... and even defending this. It's your call, but I made you aware of it. Then also, I was applying once for reviewer, so I was practicing for it for a while and was used to reviewing also after having been deemed as not suitable for the job. I still sometimes review new pages, but far less than before and mainly on Kurdish issues.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

	The Adopt-a-User Barnstar
	Jeez, I never really thanked you for adopting me way back when. I guess I never really appreciated it until recently now that I have my own adoptee. Thank you for being there for me Swarm! You were honestly the best adopter I could have ever asked for!! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• It's been a pleasure, MJL. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)