Open main menu

Home —— Talk —— Email —— Contribs —— Awards —— Dash

Question mark.svgThis user replies where s/he likes, and is inconsistent in that respect.
@This user can be reached by Wikipedia email.
~~~~Swarm signs their posts and thinks you should too!
Navy binoculars.jpgBeware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.
TalkThis user used to think having too many talk page messages was a bad thing and now doesn't mind them.
Peace symbol.svgThis user does not understand mean people. Please be nice.

Black Panther (film)Edit

Hi Swarm, I completely understand if you don't want to get involved in this, but I am having a problem with Hijiri88 and was hoping you could step in here and help resolve the issue. I was involved in getting Black Panther (film) promoted to GA, but due to the toxic relationship I and several other editors have with Hijiri (and my wish to generally avoid him where possible) I have not been involved with the article again until recently, and it has since been delisted from GA due to Hijiri's efforts. I would like to get the article promoted up again, but in multiple discussions Hijiri has made it clear that he will not allow this unless the issues he has seen in the article are addressed. He has also refused to aid in identifying these issues so they can be fixed, so I opened a peer review to try get help from other editors before I renominate the article. However, Hijiri has just left a hostile comment at the review that will definitely deter editors from getting involved and helping to improve the article. It also conveniently means that the review is no longer "unanswered" and so will not be as likely to receive responses. I don't want to make a big deal out of this, I just want a fair shot at improving the article and renominating it to GA. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

in multiple discussions Hijiri has made it clear that he will not allow this unless the issues he has seen in the article are addressed. He has also refused to aid in identifying these issues so they can be fixed I have identified the issues multiple times, most recently here and here. In fact, I have repeated myself pretty much every time I was asked to give a list of concerns. Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
You have never made any genuine attempt to work through all the problems with the article, and you literally refused to do so when I offered to work together to address the issues. And now you have made the situation even worse with this comment, which includes overtly false statements that again will be swaying the opinions of neutral third arties who otherwise may have actually helped out. What you are doing is so clearly a cynical attempt to stonewall me and prevent the article from ever being promoted to GA out of spite, it's almost funny in how unsubtle it is. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
If I recall it was me who spontaneously posted a peace offering on your talk page, offered to help cleaning up the plagiarism, and made a whole bunch of other concessions, and you spat in my face.[1] Twice.[2] Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Adamstom.97: Is your concern that the delisting was not legitimate, or that you're being stalked? If there were copyvios, then that's a quick-fail criterion for GA. If you feel the concern was illegitimate, or if it was legitimate but has been resolved, then you can just renominate it for GA. I don't know why you seem to think that one user can stonewall the GA process. Copyvio concerns are objective, they're either there or they aren't, it's not up for debate. If your complaint is that you're being harassed, that's fine, but you need to present your evidence. ~Swarm~ {sting} 17:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I think a user can stonewall GA because I've been watching Hijiri do it: he came to the original GA review and almost succeeded in derailing it with WP:BLUDGEON, until the reviewer pointed out how ridiculous his actions were. He then succeeded in having the article delisted because he had scared off anyone who would want to try improve it, not because it genuinely met quick-fail criterion. And he has now successfully stonewalled my attempt at resolving the problem by adding hostile comments to the peer review, making it harder for other users to find and also presenting prospective reviewers with an argument that they surely would not want to get involved in. Whether this counts as harassment is not something I want to get into, I don't have the energy to try and stand up to him for much longer. I just want to give the article a fair chance, as I believe it deserves to be GA and not to be caught up in this personal fight between editors. I have made a genuine effort to address Hijiri's concerns through use of the copyvio tool and a peer review to try identify problem areas that can be improved, but this has been shut-down. If I just went ahead and re-nominated for GA, hoping that any further issues would be identified then, I would do so knowing that Hijiri will definitely be showing up to try stop it and I don't know if I can deal with that at the moment. I realise that life isn't fair and Hijiri generally gets what he wants, but my hope is that somehow I can find a way to put the article first here. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
until the reviewer pointed out how ridiculous his actions were That reviewer was obviously either a sockpuppet or a NOTHERE troll. That anyone could continue defending his actions is frankly bizarre. Hijiri 88 (やや) 06:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • And now he is trying to stop two more GA nominations: Captain Marvel and Spider-Man: Far From Home. At Captain Marvel he blames plagiarism, which he has conveniently discovered just now after I nominated the article and is of course not interested in trying to help resolve himself. At Far From Home he blames the "problematic" resolution to a move discussion that has been held three times already at the article and always ended in the same result, but because he doesn't like that result he is going to try stop the GA nom. And if it wasn't clear enough, he has now added cleanup banners to Captain Marvel since he knows that they are criteria for immediate failure of a GA review, despite admitting that he hadn't even checked the sources that he was tagging! The fact that he is allowed to get away with this blatantly cynical and vindictive behaviour is absurd. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Adam, you need to make sure the articles meet the GA criteria before nominating. You also need to stop attacking other users who disagree with you, and take their advice when, as I was with the copyvio and the cast sourcing and the like, they are right. These are essentially two separate issues, and Swarm has never expressed any interest in the former, so your bringing it up here hardly seems constructive. Hijiri 88 (やや) 06:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
And here he is again, making it very clear that he will oppose these GA nominations but refusing to help fix them. I have brought these concerns to Swarm because I wanted a neutral third party with knowledge of our history to help mediate this issue, but if Swarm is not interested then we can take this discussion elsewhere. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Again, Adam, every time I try to make even minor tweaks to these articles, let alone "fix" them, you respond by making my life as unpleasant as you can. I asked you in January to stop this, even offering some carrots in return, and you spat in my face. What on earth is it that you want me to do? Hijiri 88 (やや) 21:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
You are the one making my life as unpleasant as you can, and part of that is pretending to "fix" articles by filling them with maintenance tags, outright removing chunks of content that you don't like, and blocking genuine attempts to improve them by editors who just want to spend some time working on the encyclopaedia rather than having to fight with you all the time. What I want you to do is stop using these articles as a way to personally attack me and others, but I'm not sure you are even capable of that. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
If something I am doing is making editing unpleasant for you, please tell me what it is. As far as I am concerned, 90% of our interactions have consisted of me doing copyedits and the like on these articles shortly after I see the films and/or TV episodes, and you autoreverting me. There's not a whole lot I can do to make this a more pleasant experience for you. Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Also, it seems a bit unfair for you to start demanding that I sink time into helping you fix these articles that have nothing to do with Asia in the first week of Wikipedia Asian Month. Can't we discuss this at ... pretty much any other time of the year? Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Adoption requestEdit

"Hi! Could you adopt me? I'm a new user in Wikipedia, in Hong Kong, and want to be a WikiDragon or a WikiOtter. :)" InsaneScholar (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I'm not very active at the moment. Let me refer you to WP:TEAHOUSE for anything you need help with. ~Swarm~ {sting} 16:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


I understand what you mean to say but the issue is more complex. See for example: [3][4][5][6][7]. There is a nuance you are missing. In many sources, "Ethiopian Prime Minister", as a whole, is treated as a title when in front of a name. But this is not a hill I am willing to die on. The blurb was originally written as "Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed of Ethiopia", exactly to avoid this problem. But then it was changed to put "Ethiopian" in the front of the sentence. Then later the "prime minister" de-capitalized. This happens every single time this issue arises on the Main Page. It is unnatural and annoying, at least to me, to see a de-capitalized title in front of a name. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

You will notice that we are not the only publication grappling with this issue. The New York Times bends over backwards to avoid this issue. It is an unsettled grammatical issue that publications avoid. In the past, when the world was less globalized, it was not an issue because the modifier was not necessary. When The Telegraph says "Prime Minister John Smith", it was understood and assumed that the reader knew that it was the U.K. prime minister. In the internet age, that is not an acceptable. I, like you, understand the difference between common nouns and proper nouns. But the issue here is very specific. There is no "the" at the front of the sentence. So, is "Ethiopian Prime Minister" a title or is "Ethiopian" modifying the position "prime minister"? That is not a question I can answer definitively. The solution of many publications is to treat "Ethiopian Prime Minister" as a title or to avoid it with a parenthetical. The only solution that may be acceptable to editors maybe to use "... of Ethiopia" construction. But your solution is jarring and in my opinion the wrong one. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

More examples for your consideration: [8][9][10][11]. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes, we have no jurisdiction over journalists who choose to use the title "Ethiopian Prime Minister". However, that is not the actual title of the office, but a creation by independent writers. Our policies allow us no license to invoke an unofficial title. As the unofficial title "Ethiopian Prime Minister" is otherwise indistinguishable from the common adjective-noun "Ethiopian prime minister", we will err on the side of the grammatically correct usage over an informal title created by some writers. ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for clarificationEdit

You said here that:

Of significant concern, you saw fit to warn a WMF board member against edit warring via a template.

Are you saying WMF board members are above policy? And that editors are required to know who they are by username, so as to treat them deferentially? If that's the case, I must ask: are you a WMF board member? Thank you. — Guarapiranga (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019Edit

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

Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Rossendale and DarwenEdit

You've chosen the wrong stable version! One candidate promoted with no others mentioned is bias and against electoral law. Change it. Change it quickly. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  • @Doktorbuk: Sorry, what? There's only one "stable version", see WP:STABLE. It's simply the no-prejudice, pre-dispute revision. Secondly, my reading of the dispute is that the candidate is not being "promoted", but simply listed. It just so happens that there is only one candidate at the moment, thus only one on the list. Am I wrong? Dudley Miles? It's a bit odd, and unreasonable, to interpret the listing of the only candidate as "excluding" the other candidates, who aren't known to exist. Also, Wikipedia is not under the jurisdiction of whatever electoral law you're referring to, though invoking the law to make an editorial demand is likely to be construed as a legal threat that you will be blocked for. Even in cases where an edit does violate a law, Wikipedia's legal disclaimers state that the editor is responsible for their own edits. But to be honest, you're coming across as the hysterical POV-pusher here, because the situation seems fairly innocuous. ~Swarm~ {sting} 20:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
    • You've misunderstood the situation. We now have an article where one candidate is the sole candidate for this constituency for a good number of days, giving the impression that there are no opponents, giving the impression that the one sole candidate is a "shoe in" for the seat. That is bias. That is misleading. That is not encyclopedic. The stable version - my version - is to have no candidates at all, so at least Wikipedia is not seen as favouring one over all others. If you want to misrepresent my post as a legal threat then that's on you. I don't want to be blocked, I have been a proud Wikipedian for many many years. On this single page, on this single point, I am most adamant that my position is the correct one and you are misunderstood and wrong. Please please lock the page with no candidates rather than the current page with one: it's a matter of bias and prejudice, and a matter on which I am not budging an inch. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • In the great majority of cases, lists of candidates are created when an editor finds details about one candidate and starts a list. Other candidates are added when information becomes available. This seems to me reasonable and innocuous. However, I do not see any point in continuing this dispute as nominations close in four days time and official lists of candidates will then be available. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • To be honest I'd rather not drag this out much further either, though I really do feel like I must say one more thing. I reverted an edit on the Preston constituency page a few days ago because there was only one candidate. That edit has NOT been reverted nor part of an edit-war. It has been left as I left it, with no candidates rather than one. R&D has been part of an editing bun-fight. I can't see why one constituency article has been the centre of a to-and-fro while Preston has remained untouched since my edit. As you say, nominations close soon, and this can be left behind us. I just feel that my correct editing decision, based on WP:BIAS, has been misconstrued. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Doktorbuk: Again, the stable version is a procedural revision, you claiming that your preferred version is the stable version is a bit disruptive. Second: "giving the impression that there are no opponents" Who are the other opponents? If we only know of one, then it's accurate to list one. If you think it's misleading that's a legitimate point of view, but that doesn't mean it's biased or meant to promote. Wikipedia is nothing but a reflection of sources. ~Swarm~ {sting} 23:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Dereck ChisoraEdit

Hello Swarm. I have a query regarding the recently resolved dispute I was involved in. I was going to try and get an outside opinion on my initial edit from WP:3O but as there was no discussion whatsoever on the Dereck Chisora talk page with the other party involved, it seems like it would be ineligible for a 3O. I would still like to make the change to the lead section but I presume it would be a continuation of the edit war, which I obviously do not want. If leaving it be is the only option then left be it shall. Just thought I would ask your advice. Thanks. — 2.O.Boxing 00:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Loosening my RestrictionsEdit

Hello Swarm,

I hope your veteran's day goes well today (if you are not in US that's OK). I requested again for my restrictions to be lifted on WP:ANB and, while it was not declined, it was archived with comments from only two admins. What should I do?

Awesome Aasim 01:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

User asking for rollbackEdit

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback#User:Masumrezarock100. Your name is in their userrights log mentioning some concerns, from a few months ago. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach processEdit


The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!Edit

Happy adminship day, Swarm!! :D –MJLTalk 03:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!Edit


Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Looking for Help Getting Started - Would you like to Adopt Me?Edit

Hi there Swarm!

I hope you're doing well and that you find fulfillment and happiness today.

I am new to Wikipedia and looking to make an impact in the realm of Communications, a fervent passion of mine. In a world that is currently facing unprecedented disaster and large-scale problems, I'm hoping to make a difference by teaching others about the power of effective communication. In my humble opinion, nearly any problem can be solved through effective communication. If we can learn to effectively communicate and love one another with without judgment, maybe humans can finally come together to choose to protect life above all else.

Looking on the list of Wiki-adopters, you really stuck out to me because you specifically noted a specific passion for helping out newbies (yay!). You come across as honest, kind, and experienced. I'll admit that I have very little Wiki-knowledge, and I'm always excited and willing to learn!

I would love for your help teaching me the ins and outs, and I want to specifically make edits to, and improve pages related to human connection and communication. Eventually, I'd like to take a shot at creating a page or two!

Looking forward to hearing back from you (would that be on my own talk page?)

All my best, --CoreConnector (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)CoreConnector

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019Edit

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


Administrator changes

added EvergreenFirToBeFree
removed AkhilleusAthaenaraJohn VandenbergMelchoirMichaelQSchmidtNeilNYoungamerican😂

CheckUser changes

readded Beeblebrox
removed Deskana

Interface administrator changes

readded Evad37

Guideline and policy news

Technical news



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

GOCE December 2019 NewsletterEdit

Guild of Copy Editors December 2019 Newsletter
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Hello and welcome to the December 2019 GOCE newsletter, an update of Guild happenings since the September edition. Our Annual Report should be ready in late January.

Copyeditors progress.png

Election time: Nominations for the election of a new tranche of Guild coordinators to serve for the first half of 2020 will be open from 1 to 15 December. Voting will then take place and the election will close on 31 December at 23:59 UTC. Positions for Guild coordinators, who perform the important behind-the-scenes tasks that keep our project running smoothly, are open to all Wikipedians in good standing. We welcome self-nominations so please consider nominating yourself if you've ever thought about helping out; it's your Guild and it doesn't run itself!

September Drive: Of the thirty-two editors who signed up, twenty-three editors copy edited at least one article; they completed 39 requests and removed 138 articles from the backlog, bringing the backlog to a low of 519 articles.

October Blitz: This event ran from 13 to 19 October, with themes of science, technology and transport articles tagged for copy edit, and Requests. Sixteen editors helped remove 29 articles from the backlog and completed 23 requests.

November Drive: Of the twenty-eight editors who signed up for this event, twenty editors completed at least one copy edit; they completed 29 requests and removed 133 articles from the backlog.

Our December Blitz will run from 15 to 21 December. Sign up now!

Progress report: From September to November 2019, GOCE copy editors processed 154 requests. Over the same period, the backlog of articles tagged for copy editing was reduced by 41% to an all-time low of 479 articles.

Request archiving: The archiving of completed requests has now been automated. Thanks to Zhuyifei1999 and Bobbychan193, YiFeiBot is now archiving the Requests page. Archiving occurs around 24 hours after a user's signature and one of the templates {{Done}}, {{Withdrawn}} or {{Declined}} are placed below the request. The bot uses the Guild's standard "purpose codes" to determine the way it should archive each request so it's important to use the correct codes and templates.

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

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Swarm".