User talk:Swarm/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Revdel request

Hi Swarm, Hope all is well,
I was wondering if you could revdel this edit and all edits after that, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

•  Done Swarm ♠ 19:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

University of Chicago Law School

• University of Chicago Law School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please see a complaint at AN3. You had recently done a one-week full protection of the article (August 12-19). This seems to be a dispute between someone who looks at first sight to be a promotional editor, and someone who thinks of themselves as a defender of WP values. Appearances may not be correct, and another admin has already commented. If this were the first time the issue was at AN3, a spell of full protection might be the obvious choice. Two full protections in a row might suggest that somebody is getting away with something, though it's hard to tell who. Any thoughts? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thoughts shared. Swarm ♠ 20:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Jeong – "and social media"

Greetings. The discussion on mentioning "social media" in the Jeong bio got archived without a formal closing. Would you mind assessing consensus on the issue? There looks like a potential edit war brewing. Thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Sangdeboeuf:  Done. Let me know if you notice any other contentious proposals getting archived before they're formally closed. Swarm ♠ 22:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I feel like I missed something

Hi Swarm. I see that you reverted me here per consensus on the talk page. However let me assure you that when I removed it I had looked through the talk page to find the consensus for when Openlydialectic removed it here. I've just been to the talk page again and noticed a long discussion that you closed regarding the comment that I am nearly positive wasn't there when I checked earlier. My reversion earlier wasn't an attempt to get around this consensus, as I can now see it. Thank you for reverting back. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind - I've just seen the above comment by Sangdeboeuf. There was no intention to edit war. I thought I was reverting to the status quo. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For [1]. I really hope it works. GRuban (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree, great analysis. (I am less optimistic whether it would work though).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@GRuban and Ymblanter: Thanks! It's unfortunate that the closing admin decided not to address anything else from that discussion rather other "bad block", but at least enough editors endorsed my comment to draw attention to it. I doubt either of them will be put my advice before their own heated emotions, but perhaps I will have planted a seed if they ever decide to cool off. WP:DGAF is a legitimate editing philosophy for exactly this reason. Swarm ♠ 22:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018

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

Administrator changes

None

Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz

Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news

• Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

• Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
• Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
• Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Just for the record

With respect to your comment here [2], I bat for the other team. EEng 23:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

About rude users

So what should I do then if I want to report users who are rude to Wikipedia staff members and other users? Anyways here's the messages the IP user and me exchanged.

First I messaged him about his rudeness and that I would report him, then he messaged on my talk page:

"And I'll report you if you keep on back-seating moderation or administration. How about that? No? Alright then. 68.197.237.168 (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Like your funny trolling. :P Luigitehplumber (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I like your funny snitching. Get a life. :P 68.197.237.168 (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

You're a complete idiot anyway because those "rude comments" were a while ago. This one was just most recent. Find something better to do with your life besides reporting people just so you can further boost your ego, squirt. 68.197.237.168 (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

And don't ever comment on my talk page ever again as well as that IP who recently vandalized the cartoon episode articles recently. You can remove or restore anything on your own talk page but not anyone else in this site. 68.197.237.168 (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, stop trying to be edgy because you fail at it! Luigitehplumber (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)"

His replies were more silly than threatening, so I understand why you rejected my report against this IP user. Still one thing he needs to know is that a Talk Page can be used by anyone. Luigitehplumber (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I suspect none of that would have happened if you had simply left them alone to begin with. They're reverting vandalism, if they want to insult a vandal, there's really no response necessary, save for perhaps directing them to that essay. You gotta pick your battles, you know? Swarm ♠ 00:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Учхљёная

Hey - I'd like to unblock this user per WP:ROPE with an editing restriction that they may not edit Soviet related articles. The technical evidence doesn't exist and the case is based on DUCK so I think a ROPE response to their unblock request is reasonable. Any objections?--v/r - TP 18:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Well, yes, actually, the user is clearly a sock of banned user Diabedia, who continues to engage in extensive sockpuppetry, which cannot be corroborated by checkuser purely due to their use of VPNs to avoid detection, but is overwhelmingly obvious in terms of behavioral evidence. Their explanation for this evidence is quite simply that they were intentionally framed as a sock by Diabedia, which doesn't make sense, but even if we choose to believe it, still wouldn't explain why they would spontaneously became involved in a dozen articles that Diabedia was actively socking in (while they were already suspected of being Diabedia's sock, mind you), and engage in the same exact unusual, esoteric behaviors that Diabedia is known for, such as the obsessive addition of lyrics and transliterations and edit warring between his own socks in attempts to confuse and deceive, nor why the user can be seen to have previously engaged the exact same behaviors and interactions with Diabedia's socks previously, for example, see here, when they jumped in to re-add the lyrics to an article which was being repeatedly re-added by numerous socks of Diabedia. It's not just a slight suspicion here, the overlap in behavior is absolutely clear and persistent. So, yes, they were initially blocked for simple block evasion, but I have subsequently been investigating the continuing sockpuppetry apparently associated with this user, and it's become clear that this account is behaviorally indistinguishable from Diabedia. Diabedia comes across to me as an unhinged, LTA-level sockmaster, who engages in both self-outing behaviors as well as manipulative, deceptive behaviors to evade detection, and while I'm not sure what unblock request you're referring to, I'm quite sure they're trying to play you. I've spoken to this user off-Wiki, I understand how they come across as an innocent, sympathetic character, but I've had to resist my own empathetic urges and recognize the fact that the behavioral evidence quite clearly disagrees with the user's storytelling. Swarm ♠ 19:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Copyright infringement report on my post.

• Draft:ION Group

First of all, sorry for the unprofessional draft, I am new to this. I thought I copied the stuff from crunchbase (https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/ion-trading#section-overview) which was public domain, and I gave a reference to everything I wrote. I think i must have missed something, can you please tell me a little about how I can improve upon this, and how do I recover my deleted draft if needed. Also, it was a draft and I was expecting that it wouldn't be evaluated till I made it public. So I kind of was saving my progress there till it was ready. Sorry again, but please help me out here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BananaSenpai (talk • contribs) 05:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry, @BananaSenpai: your article text was tracked back to those two sources provided in the deletion rationale, and I just double-checked them to make sure that I hadn't made a mistake. Secondly, even if you copied it all from crunchbase, I don't see any indication that it would be in the public domain, and in fact that site displays more than one prominent notice indicating that the content is copyrighted. See WP:Public domain for more information on this concept. I understand it was a draft article, but copyright violations anywhere on Wikipedia are very serious. This is because edits made to Wikipedia articles are automatically released from copyright status as free content to use, modify and redistribute by others. When you copy text to Wikipedia, you are taking the content away from the original author and making it free, which is something you don't actually have the legal right to do. It's okay to make mistakes, but please do not copy text into Wikipedia unless you can prove that the content is not copyrighted. All text is assumed to be copyrighted by default. Swarm ♠ 06:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Your "alert" / warning

Hi, I'm confused by what you wrote on my talk page. What difference does it make that DCist's reprinted my comments? The author didn't quote the entirety of what I wrote and they appear out of context. Evans and I were discussing his position on an issue. I have no animus with Evans, though I am dismissive of claims to be working in the public interest at the same time as he's employed by law firms representing large corporate interests. That's nothing specific to Evans, I would have that view of any politician. Bangabandhu (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter that the DCist reprinted your comments, your comments themselves are the issue. The article described you as having apparent personal animosity towards Evans, and the quote they provided to corroborate the claim appears pretty damning. If you're going to say you have no COI on that article, your comments were taken completely out of context and misinterpreted, and that we won't need to worry about it being an issue, then that's great. Swarm ♠ 20:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • It seems like you're privileging the analysis of some random DCist author. I shouldn't have those comments highlighted just because they happen to appear in print. None of the editors had an issue when I wrote it before and, in context, they're really not objectionable. I don't have a COI on editing the page. I don't know why you'd mar my talk page suggesting otherwise. Bangabandhu (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• I mean, the writer's analysis and the fact that it was printed publicly by a media organization is irrelevant, that's just where I saw it. It's the comment itself, which could be reasonably construed as evidence of a COI, and on a BLP, that can get you in trouble. I'm sorry you felt I "marred" your talk page, the DS notice is a neutral notification that does not imply wrongdoing, and everything else was meant to be friendly advice. You do not have to defend yourself, nor heed my message. In fact, I'd appreciate it if you don't get worked up about it and simply move on. Swarm ♠ 22:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

This is the full quote. TBH when I saw it i was struck by the tone as well as apparent animus, but held my tongue for fear I might be overreacting; plus I try to avoid personalizing what may just be editing disputes, of which Bang and I have many. I have no view on the matter of discretionary sanctions but did not want to let stand the suggestion that everyone else thinks these comments were fine.

That sounds so noble, but you don't really believe that what you're doing is courageous, do you? You're no more honorable than any lawyer working on behalf of their client. What's reprehensible, and possibly criminal, is that your client isn't the citizens of your ward or the district, as it should be with any elected official. Instead its Patton Boggs, NSE, Wilmot - actually, we don't even know, because you haven't fully disclosed all your interests. I realize that its far too great of an ask for you to stop accepting corporate or LLC donations. But why don't you renounce outside employment? The six figure salary is more than adequate for most of your colleagues. Doing so might make your claims to be working in the public interest somewhat plausible, or at least not laughable. Did you offer the same platitudes when you overturned (oh, sorry, when you lead the vote in the council to pass new legislation to annul) the referendum on term limits so that you could serve ad nauseum?

Anyway, please think twice about voting to pass new legislation overturning 77. I have no doubt that your donors oppose it but the people have spoken. I may start a Wikipedia entry about it, perhaps you will contribute.

JohnInDC (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised to read that, John, as it never seemed like you had an issue challenging my edits or contributions. Swarm, I'll take your comments as friendly advice and move on. Bangabandhu (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, certainly, I've never been shy about challenging your edits. I've never, however, suggested that they result from personal animosity toward the subject, and was discouraged to see such plain evidence of it. JohnInDC (talk) 02:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@JohnInDC: Bang is free to do what he will with the information I have provided him. I would certainly agree that the additional context that you have provided serves only to reinforce the notion that there's an obvious COI, and I believe uninvolved admins would agree. If they decide to return to editing the article, and you ever feel that their involvement is becoming has become problematic for any reasons, you can report it to WP:AE, where a TBAN which can be implemented by any uninvolved admin now that Bang has been made aware of the discretionary sanctions. Or, you can report it to me and I will be happy to initiate the report for you. Regards, Swarm ♠ 22:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For your willingness to help out other users to grow up on Wikipedia. cheers. ---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you! I appreciate the barnstar! Swarm ♠ 07:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Jeong

Hey thanks for taking the time to close that mess of a RFC. I appreciate it. PackMecEng (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• Hey thanks for the kind words. Swarm ♠ 07:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

You were

mentioned at User talk:DGG#Pramod Kharel.

On a continued note, I will add that assigning auto-patrolled bit to editors indulging in cases of mass-article-creation about places or politicians is usually disastrous and leads to vital slip(s) from NPP-radar.

As long as these editors stick to a rigid domain of article creation, it's all good and it might seem unnecessary burden on NPPers.

But, there's a difference between understanding an extremely narrow SNG as compared to broader aspects of GNG.

Creating 50 un-deletable articles about rural municipalities (with sourcing to census and a boilerplate format) can be executed easily.NPLACES guarantee an article. Same goes about sitting with a list of elected Members of Parliament or Cabinet-ministers and filling up the red-links.NPOL guarantees an article.

But, once one moves over to generalized article-creation like this, (where a strong understanding of the reliability of sources, GNG, concept of significant coverage et al are required), they often fell short or so does my experience in dealing with them leads me to believe.

It'll be interesting to hear your perspectives.Thanks;∯WBG^converse 15:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Winged Blades of Godric: I've revoked Autopatrolled and declined the RFPP request. Your concerns over the draft are valid and you make some good points. Spamming municipality and politician stubs is easy, and constructive in its own way, but doesn't necessarily demonstrate a user's overall grasp of core content policies and quality control. Swarm ♠ 17:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Jeong close

Talk:Sarah_Jeong#RfC:_Separate_section_on_tweets? A really thoughtful and well constructed close. Should practically be a part of WP:ADMINGUIDE. Even more, kudos on a great job on managing the talk page of that article. (I know this calls for a barnstar but I'm technically all thumbs and haven't quite figured those out yet!)--regentspark (comment) 17:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• @RegentsPark: Thank you so much! Your kind praise is very much appreciated in lieu of a barnstar. Hopefully the drama on that page will not return! Swarm ♠ 17:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Request For a Retired Actress Biography to Be Changed

• Meghan Markle

Dear Swarm.

Have you ever watched Suits a USA Network drama series that has been running since June 5, 2011?

You know that the woman who played Rachel Zane Meghan Markle is now a British royal after she married Prince Harry on Saturday, May 19 which was four months ago. Her departure from the show happened on April 25 from the Season 7 finale.

However the info/bio on her page said that she is "an American-born member of the British royal family. Markle was born in Los Angeles, California and is of mixed-race heritage."

It should be changed into "an American member of the British royal family. Prior to her marriage to Prince Harry she was an actress who was best known for her role as Rachel Zane in the USA Network drama Suits from 2011 to 2018."

And yes you're a sysop in this site. It will be strongly appreciated for those who watched their wedding.

Sincerely,

67.81.163.178 (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• It looks like it already contains the information you want, two sentences later: "From 2011 to 2017, she played her best-known role, Rachel Zane, on the American legal drama series Suits." If you think something's wrong with the way it is, start a new section on the talk page! As a sysop, I have no special say in content matters, which are decided by ordinary editors. Swarm ♠ 02:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Kaniz Almas Khan

I have make a draft article- Draft:Kaniz Almas Khan. Please review it and move main article namespace if possible. Thanks-Shahadat Hossain (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

This page, which seems to have been salted by you at one time, has been moved into mainspace once more and is still grossly promotional so I am once more nominating it for deletion. The creator has even taken the trouble to recategorise it as being of high importance for WikiProject Bangladesh! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I took the liberty...

...of posting your final warnings to Accesscrawl and GenuineArt in the "Final Warnings" section of WP:Editing restrictions. I hope you don't mind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you! I was going to do it when I had a chance but I appreciate you taking care of it. Swarm ♠ 18:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Your ANI closure

Seems very one-sided and completely ignores the blatant forumshopping for a content disputes, spurious paid editing accusations and also includes false allegations of misconduct. Like EdJohnston had already noted that there was no need of any admin intervention,[3] until you started turning the dispute into one-sided and completely ignored the misconduct of other parties, I would strongly urge you to revert your closure because it reads too non-neutral and you have basically allowed yourself to block me over a frivolous reason since your own closure stands without any basis.

I would also remind you that back in April 2018, you were involved in a similar situation[4] "start of this incident was a minor content dispute that quickly escalated into the mess" and this happened only after your own comment on the ANI.[5]

I need evidence for: battleground (cn) ownership and other disruptive editing behaviors, including edit warring, reverting without citing specific objections or providing disingenuous objections,(cn) failing to engage in good faith discussion (cn) and dispute resolution during content disputes,(cn) refusing to listen,(cn) making unsubstantiated accusations,(cn) failing to assume good faith.(cn)

Making a "final warning" without any evidence of misconduct and completely protecting the actual disruptive side is not how you do the service. You had been already asked for evidence but so far you failed to provide any and made a closure equivalent to a supervote. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• Okay, your strenuous objection to the fairness of the warning is noted for the record. Given that the warning was specifically issued due to the fact that you seem impossible to reason with, I’m not going to continue debating it. That’s the formal result of the thread. If you think it’s not fair, simply don’t be a disruptive editor, as you claim you’re not, and it will have no effect on your editing. Swarm ♠ 18:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Disputed at here. Accesscrawl (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for securing a community endorsement of my warnings, I guess... Swarm ♠ 06:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Ability to Protect a Page

Not intending to be mean but why was a star is born page semi-protected ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surajvedula (talk • contribs) 13:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Protected due to vandalism, until after the release date. Swarm ♠ 06:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Recent discussion at WT:EDR

I was going to post this in the thread, but reconsidered and am now asking for your comments first:

• It's possible that Accesscrawl's concern about this section is a response to Swarm's recent logging of a warning to him in WP:Editing restrictions/Unblock conditions. If his concern about the nomenclature of the 'Unblock conditions' section is correct, then the best response to his argument might be for Swarm to move the entire sanction into WP:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community instead of the Unblock conditions section. In Accesscrawl's case the community action was simply to uphold Swarm's previously-given warning. But it is not 100% clear that this should count as a community sanction. To avoid a lengthy and complex discussion, the simplest course might be for Swarm to remove his newly-logged entry.

My argument is in part motivated to save us from lengthy review of WP:Blocking policy. Any such discussion could go on for thousands of words, even from an original point that was quite technical. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I've commented in the discussion explaining my view. In my view, there's no need for a formal policy review here, it's simply a matter of whether "final warnings" are actually intended to be logged in that section, or if the header is misleading and it's only intended for conditional unblocks". If it's the latter, a non-controversial solution would be to split out the "final warnings" into their own section. If AC is unhappy with either of these options, I have no problem moving it to the "community" section, since it is, in effect, a formal community warning at this point. Swarm ♠ 18:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Like EdJohnston has already, I would add further that this is not a community sanction since there was no community consensus for since it was never proposed on ANI or supported by editors on ANI. What happened in AN was my misunderstanding that this was a sanction since you had logged it on a sanction page, and even on AN, several users echoed that this is just a warning (similar to any other editor leaving me warnings on my talk page) and not a sanction. What you see in WP:EDRC (Placed by Wikipedia community) are community supported sanctions, the real sanctions like topic bans, interaction bans, etc. Accesscrawl (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

BTW, my request on EDR was posted after a respected admin allowed me and it also concerns multiple other loggings by you of similar nature that also lacked a community consensus or unblock in exchange. Thanks.Accesscrawl (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• It's a formal, community-backed warning at this point, so I'm going to log it in WP:EDRC if it's ultimately decided that that particular section is not intended for final warnings, or that discretionary final warnings should not be logged as a general rule. The "respected admin" you're referring to told you that there's no clearly-defined rule on this, so let's see where the discussion goes. Swarm ♠ 20:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Review of a warning is not an imposition of a sanction. Closing admin Beeblebrox has himself said on the talk page now that "Logging it on this very, very long and bloated list should not be required".[6] That means it does not belong anywhere in the entire page. I would urge you to simply follow the emerging consensus because there is no benefit in looking for loopholes. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not required, nor should it be. I agree with the users who say so. Swarm ♠ 18:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Close?

You indicated you might close WP:AN3#User:Sbharris reported by User:Jytdog (Result: ). The war seems to have quiesced, so if it is left to me I'm unlikely to do a sanction. Some issues do remain that may need to be addressed elsewhere. But if you have a concrete idea of what to do, please go ahead. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

American Bucking Bull

Hi Swarm. I found your name on the Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests page. I noticed on your User page the user box that said "This user finds copyright paranoia disruptive." I think I might have experienced that with my article American Bucking Bull. The copyright clerk put the template on which blanked the article page, and I had the option to rewrite the article. Oh, it was for close paraphrasing and for copying in some text when I was writing it in the very beginning in my Userdraft. Nothing was copied into the mainspace article. Ok, so I was fine with that. So, anyway, I worked really hard on writing a new article, including going in a new direction with much of it, almost half of the new article I wrote was new content from new sources. I even had Nikkimaria, former admin, look it over for me. There was an issue once I told the editor it was ready, but I showed him the answer. But then days passed and no word about moving the new article in to replace the original. Finally, my mentor, montanabw contacted all parties on diannaa's talk page about getting it done. The editor grudgingly agreed, saying, "It's a paraphrase of a paraphrase of a paraphrase, but the underlying violations are mostly no longer identifiable, so no objection at this point."

He then proceeded to ask Diannaa to move the article and replace the original. He then had Diannaa hide all revisions of my rewrite except the last one. Next, he made a copyedit to that last version, with this edit summary: "(rm a bit more of the remaining copied stuff)." He didn't tell me about his editing. He gave me no opportunity to view things before the hiding was done, so I am totally in the dark about what the copied stuff is and I can't run a diff comparison to see what he removed because the version before is hidden. I'd like to see what was removed, so if there are important facts removed, I can add them back in, but rewritten if necessary. But I sure I didn't copy anything on the other hand. Also, I thought only the versions that had violations had to be hidden. I find it very hard to believe that my entire rewrite had violations in it, especially the early versions. Is there any chance you can help me see what was deleted? Is this one of the things you do? Naturally, I asked Diannaa first, but she has not seemed willing. I have all the proof of what's occurred if needed. dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

rev/del request

I see my rev/del message about the American Bucking Bull has gone to your archive page. I waited patiently while you answered other queries on your talk page and did other work. I saw a rev/del request you responded to on the archive page where my request now is. Otherwise, I would say perhaps you should remove your username from Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests. Did I do something wrong in my request? However, I see your message about being very busy and being patient. But once a message moves to archive with no response, I think it's fair to assume it is done. Assuming good faith but need to move on and pick another name from the list now. Best wishes... dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry, I saw but forgot about your message. Let me take a look. 𝖘𝔴𝔞𝔯𝔪 ^𝔛 17:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks a bunch!
    • @Dawnleelynn: Okay, I've restored that revision for you so you can see what was removed. 𝖘𝔴𝔞𝔯𝔪 ^𝔛 17:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Okay, I'll let you know when I'm done...thanks.
        • Thanks so much for that. It was a big help. I now know what supposed issues were. They don't encompass the entire rewrite by any means. The supposed violations are on very shaky ground but at this point it is not worth the battle. I'll just restore the facts that were removed but using different writing to be sure that editor doesn't see anything he removed back again. Probably all versions do not need hidden, but it's not worth it like I said. Thanks a bunch! :) Happy Trails!

SQL

I don't wish to carry on at that page and muddy SQL's rights request, but I wanted to address your comment. I feel that you are misrepresenting what I said, and I would appreciate if you would strike or correct the portions of your comment that address me. What I said is that I asked SQL what the policy basis was for his action, and he was unable to provide a satisfactory response other than to dismiss me. The reason I asked is because I and many others have a different interpretation of WP:PROXYING. So it's a grey area? That means caution and discretion should be exercised before taking action. A conversation had started in which I challenged the request for TPA to be revoked, and boom, SQL steps in and takes action. It's a big problem with our admins, and I think I have a legitimate concern with such a person asking for more permissions. I was within my rights to simply reverse his action, but I decided to discuss it instead and he continued to be dismissive of my concerns. I was among those who advocated for IHSO to be blocked in the first place, but I will also continue to advocate for editors as such. --Laser brain (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, LB, I didn't mean to misrepresent you, so I've just gone ahead and deleted the part of my comment which referred to you. I'm not intending to argue the merits of SQL's actions, nor your opposition to them, just presenting my take as the uninvolved admin who assessed the discussion. Ultimately, you're just on two different sides of a legitimate dispute, which makes it difficult to fairly judge someone's behavior. So, I don't think it's fair to oppose based on a single interaction, in which you had a dispute, and neither party is objectively in the wrong. 𝖘𝔴𝔞𝔯𝔪 ^𝔛 19:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello dear!

I am new on Wikipedia and searching for a mentor. I liked your description most and would love to ask if you can support me to develop an article about myself. My name is Nataliya Stefanac. I am German Actress and Model. Would be really appreciated if you could help me. Please check the information about myself in Google and reply on my Mail: nataliemunchen@hotmail.de

Kind Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Munichlife (talk • contribs) 12:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Your signature

I noticed you updated your signature recently, and I also noticed some time later that something in the code you're using is affecting the size of the line of text that your signature is placed on (the one line has extra whitespace, or something). It could be that it's just my browser (Chrome 69.0.3497.92, Win7 64-bit), or it could be something to do with the characters you're using. I noticed you changed the font size of your S, but I think you were always doing that? I'm not sure, I just thought you might like to know. (Who doesn't like free, unsolicited opinions?)

It also doesn't render at all on my mobile, which admittedly has terrible emoji support. It's one large black box, four small black boxes, and a blue box just out of line with the others. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Thanks for letting me know. I've been fiddling with it recently, the letters just didn't line up right unless I resized the "s", which slightly threw off the spacing between lines. I'm not saying it didn't slightly bother me, but I thought it looked cool and figured maybe no one would even notice. I've been prepared to change it if anyone complained. More importantly though, I don't want a signature that doesn't render for some people, so I guess it's not a good idea to use Unicode deep cuts. I'm making a new one. (Swarm ♠ talk) 20:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• Do me a favor, let me know if my new signature renders for you. Swᴀrʍ ♠ (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Damn, looking at the two I kind of like the old one better. It'll be a process, I suppose. :P Swᴀrʍ ♠ (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, your new one shows up fine for me. Actually the a and m are boxes in the editor but they render fine in markup. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm just gonna stick with this more basic one. No crazy Unicode script! (Swarm ♠ talk) 23:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Turkey

Could you reduce the protection of Turkey to semi-protection? It's been fully protected for a month already, which is pretty drastic for such a highly visible article; the original discussion has stalled for nearly a month, there's another discussion below but it isn't exactly progressing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• Done. (Swarm ♠ talk) 11:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:PERM

Hi greetings, I would like to use AWB access in Wikipedia and I placed my request in WP:PERM/AWB. I have not received any responses in 5 days. All requests placed after me are fixed. If you like, please give any responses in there. If this message is inappropriate, kindly please forgive to me. Kindly please help, if you like.--PATH SLOPU ^(Talk) 13:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi greetings, I placed the request is for my normal account. Not for my bot. First I used python for my bot and then I tried for AWB. Some users advised me that before using AWB for bot, I should be experience with AWB. I would like to use and get a good experience in AWB. So I placed the request in PERM. If I made any mistakes kindly please advice me. Thank you.--PATH SLOPU ^(Talk) 14:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi greetings, should I place another request for AWB? Please help. Before placing a request, what should I take as requirements? I think experienced administers like you will help us. --PATH SLOPU ^(Talk) 01:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I mean, most people don’t confuse bots with themselves. You can re-request if you think I made a mistake, but like I said, you should probably just move on. (Swarm ♠ talk) 11:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I would like to place a request for me in WP:PERM. I have 440+ non-automated edits. So I tried for AWB. I will work for wikipedia with all my efforts. Kindly please tell, what should I do? Thank you. Please help--PATH SLOPU ^(Talk) 12:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I gave you my advice, you’ll have to try another administrator if you want a different result. (Swarm ♠ talk) 13:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Should I withdraw my request and place anew request? I am approaching you because, an advice from admin before placing request is good for me. So I can place a perfect request. Please help. Thank youPATH SLOPU ^(Talk) 16:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

No, the old request is closed, you don’t have to do anything with it. (Swarm ♠ talk) 17:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back. Just ask for a second opinion in the current request! (Swarm ♠ talk) 17:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of IK Ogbonna

hello swarm you deleted the IK ogbonna article and i would love to create the article again. he is a notable person, a nigerian actor and has bagged awards in the entertainmnt industry--Teemah 24 (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• Go for it. The version of the article I deleted was procedurally deleted because it didn't indicate the significance of the subject. You're free to create an article about him that does! (Swarm ♠ talk) 08:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Open proxy

Hey Swarm, you may have seen my accidental mess-up message this morning (sorry!), but on second thought you may actually be helpful for this situation! Since July, there has been a series of mass vandalism from an IP hopper on Scooby-Doo related articles, inserting gibberish into the article. However, the IPs are all operating from the 107.77.1* range, which leads me to believe they are operating from an open proxy. Their original two IPs (107.77.161.4 and 107.77.161.12) were blocked in late July for vandalism. However, they have now returned under the IP 107.77.194.168 and have begun inserting the same gibberish into the articles again. I would suggest protecting the page, but they are targeting far too many articles to protect. Could you possibly block the range and/or look into the situation to see if they may be operating from an open proxy? Best, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 18:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• @KatnissEverdeen: This is a good catch. I can't figure out how large of a range to block if we only have have that one IP being used recently. A range block encompassing both the old and the new IPs would be very large, and include too much collateral damage. So, for now, I have simply blocked the new IP, and protected all the pages they are active on. If they return, drop by and let me know and I'll be on it! (Swarm ♠ talk) 21:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
• Can page Scooby-Doo be semi-protected? For a very long time, page Duck had to be semiprotected because of jokey vandalism. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, it does look like semi-protection is needed on that page. Another good catch! (Swarm ♠ talk) 19:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Recent ANI

Hi Swarm Thanks for closing this WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:HOUNDING with the intention of WP:DAPE. Just for future reference, regarding your comment Both users are encouraged to reflect on the criticisms they've received. that you mentioned in this diff can you tell me what what criticisms I've received? I'm not aware of any (apart from RaviC's obviously, which I addressed here). --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I was indeed referring to the comment by RaviC, as well as the sentiments expressed by Mr rndude and Ivanvector. (Swarm ♠ talk) 19:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I addressed RaviC's criticisms here, I will take note of the comments that Ivanvector made here and I will give Mr rnddude's comment *Insert gifs* of John McEnroe's "You cannot be serious" and Captain Picard(?) face palm. all the consideration that it deserves. Thanks. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

re genre warring

@TonyBallioni: (cc: @FlightTime and Widr:) These are just the standardized warning templates for this type of disruptive editing. Genre-warriors are handled the same way as any other disruptive editors or vandals, and we expect competence to be able to read and abide by templated warnings. It's not some weirdly-controversial content area, it's just a widespread issue we're constantly dealing with. Frankly, I think you're being a bit naïve here, trying to reason with an SPA genre-warrior—it's practically no different from trying to reason with a VOA after a final warning because "the warnings are confusing and hard to read" (they're not, and arbitrarily giving correctly-warned users a free-pass is counterproductive). In doing so, you're just protracting the process, and wasting the time of the editors who are reverting disruption in articles, and discouraging users who are doing their jobs by invalidating their use of templated warnings, when in reality they're doing the right thing. These types of SPA genre-warriors are NOTHERE tendentious editors, if not outright VOAs. (Swarm ♠ talk) 21:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping: my view of it is that it is a content dispute, and that they should be directed to the talk page. I know this area can be controversial (see the latest ANI over it). I have been ignoring the threads in general since FlightTime asked me to, but for that user in particular, I thought the warnings were way over the top in terms of how to interact with a new user (and I don't think they are worded well at all). Hopefully the RfC will get rid of the parameter, but my biggest concern with blocking in these cases is I don't know of any other area of the encyclopedia where we are so strict on sourcing: even BLPs will (unfortunately) have uncontroversial claims added uncited for weeks and then we just try to find the source. Maybe I'm being naïve here, but I really don't like the idea of admins blocking new users changing content because a WikiProject wrote an essay. I'd rather explain it to them and then give them a chance to discuss it than block without the opportunity for discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what essay you're referring to, but everything about these users is objectively tendentious and disruptive. Just because a handful of users at the drama boards don't understand the magnitude of the issue and "don't see what the big deal is" doesn't change the fact that it's a constant pattern of disruption by SPAs who refuse to be reasoned with, heed warnings, use sources, contribute in other ways, etc. The only thing we can do is revert and block them, because otherwise it would never end. (Swarm ♠ talk) 21:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Fair point on the time required thing, I feel I'm having this conversation in two places, but I suppose my biggest concern with the way that user (and many of the AIV reports that come) is that no one's bothered to actually explain how to cite sources to people, which from my work in NPP/AfC, I know is really hard for new users just from a purely technical standpoint. I couldn't figure out anything beyond bare URLs with ref tags for months, and even that took my time to understand. I guess my basic premise is that if we're being asked to block someone for being disruptive in an area that looks at first glance like a content dispute, we should be trying to explain to them how to actually cite the content they're being blocked for not citing. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay. I can appreciate that your heart's in the right place here. This is something that can be rectified, too. Yes, deprecating genres is one way of handling it, but until/unless that happens, the wording in the warning templates can be modified to provide more information/explanation/assistance/accommodation to new users. I can see absolutely no harm that making such a change would bring. (Swarm ♠ talk) 22:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Saw your reply to the ping, and here, just acknowledging I agree with you and that I think making it so it is clearer as to what we expect is a good way forward. Also, as an aside, even if you were "hardline" it wouldn't be bad thing: diversity of opinion is a good thing within the admin corps (and the community as a whole.) TonyBallioni (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Turkey, again

Hi Swarm,

Seraphim System (talk · contribs) has started revert-warring again [7] [8], after falsely claiming there are "no objections" to her edit in the talkpage. In fact there are objections, as you can see in the discussion here [9]. I don't want to get involved in an edit-war again, so please advise. Thank you, Khirurg (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry, what's the history here? Particularly that which involves me. I'm involved in a lot of situations on-wiki and I can't keep track of everything. (Swarm ♠ talk) 07:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Question regarding my Final Warning

Hello. I have been unblocked for about a month and have not had any further issues. I am not sure if I am allowed to use WP:RFPP since I disrupted that process in the past using Twinkle, but I have two articles which may be eligible for protection. Can you please clarify? UpsandDowns1234 (talk) 04:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• You're allowed to use RfPP, as long as you make requests with good reason. (Swarm ♠ talk) 07:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Millicent Simmonds

Millicent Simmonds was protected from unsourced edits for a while, and after it expired, it appears that the same IP editor is continuing as seen here. Any possibility of a range block for that IP, or longer semi-protection? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• I semi-d the article for three months. (Swarm ♠ talk) 19:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

RevDel request

Around a month ago I tagged the article Valley Ranch, Irving, Texas with an advert tag. I decided to take a deeper look at the page a few days ago and I discovered that the problematic content was in fact a Copyvio from the neighborhood's website. I reverted to the latest revision without the problematic content. I still need someone to remove the Copyvios completely. funplussmart (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done.  Swarm  talk  19:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

RFC closure

Greetings Swarm. I'm a little confused about your closure here. My understanding of the proposal was that individuals falling between the 50% current threshold and the 60% proposed threshold would receive a one-year term. Your closure suggests that there is currently a threshold of 50% for a one-year term: and I'm just not seeing that. Or to put it another way; your closure seems to introduce the possibility of a one-year term in this election, but implies that such a term already existed. Or am I missing something here? Are you simply finding support for WJBscribe's second proposal, and I'm getting lost in the verbiage? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Vanamonde93: Yeah, in short, I found support for proposal #2 but not proposal #1, but I can see how my wording might be confusing, and I've attempted to clear it up a bit (if you think it could be further clarified, feel free to make suggestions). One-year terms actually do exist to fill vacancies when applicable. For example, if any of the current Arbs whose term is not expiring resign before this election, their seats will go up in this election for a one-year term, so that someone else may serve for the second half of the forfeited two-year term. Alex Shih's vacated seat was originally slated to be filled by a one-year term in this very election, but it was abolished in order to shrink the committee instead.  Swarm  talk  23:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• That's clearer, yes, thanks. I was aware that we had used one-year terms in the past, but was under the impression that there would be none this year given the shrinking (which had clear support). I was reading your closure as "there is no consensus for the sixty-percent threshold...therefore we will continue with 50% if and only if there is an election for a single term". I (obviously, based on my !vote) don't agree with the proposal that had consensus, but I cannot fault your closure. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, Vanamonde93, I don't disagree with your position in the RfC, and it greatly pained me to close that section without it having been given a full month, particularly with the late opposes coming in. Unfortunately, it was already two days overdue for the planned closure, and there was still a strong consensus (nearly 8-in-10) in favor of #2. On the other hand, the support for #1 since #2 had been proposed was only 9-7 in support, which is a much sharper divide. I don't think I could have reasonably interpreted the consensus any other way, and I appreciate your understanding.  Swarm  talk  05:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah it was a tricky one, but the difference in support was clear. Thanks for picking it up. Vanamonde (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018

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

Administrator changes

Justlettersandnumbers • L235

Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes

Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333

Oversight changes

Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the process for appointing interface administrators has been established. Currently only existing admins can request these rights, while a new RfC has begun on whether it should be available to non-admins.
• There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.

Technical news

• Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
• The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
• Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
• The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
• Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
• Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Open proxy (again)

Hi Swarm, regarding this conversation, it looks like the vandal has returned under this IP to vandalize Scooby-Doo and the Alien Invaders and Scooby-Doo and the Samurai Sword. Thanks, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 23:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Katniss, I have blocked the IPs and protected the pages. Thanks,  Swarm  talk  06:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Help sought from a seasoned Wiki user

Hi Swarm,

Someone started an article on an artist and writer. As I have an interest in the same figure I began to rewrite that page but decided to stop and perhaps start a fresh page about the same person. Should I do that? I don't want to offend whoever started the first page. I'm worried about screwing up and having my new article purged (I keep hearing about that happening), although I have done some editing here. I could really use someone to assist me getting an article completed, start to finish. The good news is I've done lots of homework gathering the material for the page.

I hope you may be looking for someone like me to adopt. I'm loyal, good natured, and only need to be let out twice a day.

PaulThePony (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Paul

• @PaulThePony: Hi Paul! You should not create an actual second article, however you can write it as a draft first (in your userspace, or in the draftspace), rather than simply replacing the current article without discussion. In theory, you're allowed to completely rewrite any article. Bold editing is encouraged as a matter of policy, and article writers do not "own" articles. However, you might get some resistance from people who prefer the old one. There's really no way of knowing unless you do it. Therefore, it may be ideal to rewrite the article as a draft, then post on the talk page and notify the people involved with the article, directing their attention to the proposed rewrite. I'd be happy to adopt you if you're interested in becoming involved.  Swarm  talk  19:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you much for your fab advice and for offering your time and support. I shall proceed as you recommend and keep you very much in the loop. Hopefully I won't get too tangled up in it.

With gratitude.

PaulThePony (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Paul

Swarm, how do I adjust spacing in the article? There are lists and each item contains three lines in some cases. I'd like to have each separated not by a single space and not by a double space. Where is it in visual editor to change such spacing? Thanks, PaulThePony (talk) 03:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)Paul

Nilo Cruz

I’m repeating this here, as it may soon disappear from the protection request page.

Please, anyone can claim anything on the internet. Didn’t you know I’m Joan of Arc? Given what the only reliable source cited on this matter says, it is virtually certain that no editors are or know Nilo Cruz. And the editor you refer to can be variously interpreted. He or she may simply be saying that, as he or she considers his or her own sexuality private, we should keep others’ sexuality private as well. That is not Wiki policy, btw. What we do know, via a reliable source, is that the real Nilo Cruz gave an interview with a well-known gay newspaper in which he discussed being openly gay. Does that sound like what someone wishing to keep his sexuality private would do? In light of the reliable source, can these outrageous internet claims (even if someone was claiming to be Cruz) from essentially anonymous people pass the sniff test? Hardly. And even if the editor were Nilo Cruz, a gargantuan if, Nilo Cruz doesn’t get to decide what information that he himself has publicly declared to the world ends up being included in his Wikipedia article. And also note that the editor in question has refused to discuss on the talk page, even after being directed to do so. In short, you are far too gullible. Antinoos69 (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Wow.  Swarm  talk  01:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

How elucidating. Also note that the editor in question, whoever he or she might be, has not adhered to WP:BLPHELP, clearly linked to at the top of the talk page. (That is hardly surprising, given the likely brazen fiction he or she would have to construct.) In any case, there is nothing defamatory about the simple fact of one’s sexual orientation (the very thought is homophobic), nor can that simple fact be any breach of privacy when one oneself has already breached that supposed privacy by declaring one’s sexual orientation to the world at least fifteen years earlier. There is nothing to see here, except the homophobic and differential treatment certain sexual orientations are receiving around here at the hands of some, a far too common problem on Wikipedia. The removal of LGBT content is one of the most common forms of homophobic vandalism, and claims of “privacy” and “irrelevance” (“irrelevant” to whom?) are classic justifications for this bigotry. Antinoos69 (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

You really need to brush up on WP:AGF, WP:BITE, WP:DR and WP:NOTVAND. I've been an admin here for seven years, and an anti-vandalism worker since before that, so you can spare the lecture on how you're reverting obvious vandalism and I'm the one who should know better. You're edit warring over content you added, and using a bad vandalism accusation to justify it, even though you were the one edit warring over out-of-policy content. Based on your block log, this is a long-term problem with you, and frankly, if I had known that at the time, I would have blocked you rather than rendering myself "involved" by editing the article, because you are way past WP:3RR, which is normally an automatic block. Be advised that if this edit war continues, I will recommend your block at WP:AN3. You're making no effort to communicate, assume good faith, or pursue dispute resolution, you just going straight to getting your opponent locked out of the article. Unimpressive.  Swarm  talk  06:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Your ignorance of how homophobes go about vandalizing is your problem not mine. I have decades of lived, first-hand experience on the broader matter, among many related ones. And your inability to see my talk-page references in my edit summaries and user talk-page notices is similarly your shortcoming, not to mention astonishing. There can be absolutely no question that my content is very much according to policy, and that its flat out deletion was very much contrary to policy. Properly sourced content cannot just be removed without cause, and there is no cause. What there is is homophobia, in droves—something else with which I have decades of first-hand experience. Wikipedia has LGBT categories and an LGBT project for a reason. And I have not been the only editor seeking to preserve this relevant and important material. I’m afraid you’re not the only one left thoroughly unimpressed. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so it seems like you're pretty clearly an advocate for LGBT+ rights, and I can certainly sympathize with that that on a personal level. I recognize the importance of protecting important points of view that forces are actively seeking to suppress on Wikipedia, and I absolutely consider non-heteronormativity to be one of those points of view. This is not a matter of my ignorance to your cause. However, the Wikipedia community does not abide the degree of reactionism you're exhibiting. According to Wikipedia's values, norms and customs, you're in the wrong if you invoke "homophobia" without evidence, just because a mention of somebody being gay is removed. Ultimately, you may not be wrong to restore the content, or even to assign bad faith to the underlying motivations. Regardless, you're expected to reach out, establish a line of communication, a pursue dispute resolution in good faith, and attempt to clarify the specific issue before you jump to a bad faith accusation. If you've made an effort without success, then great, we'll have your back 100%. But if you just jump straight into edit warring and personal attacks, then you're in the wrong, even if you aren't in the wrong ideologically. Wikipedia is not the place to make ideological points or to right ideological wrongs. You have to abide by the fundamental dispute resolution/conduct standards, no matter how "right" you are. It's not even uncommon for a user to get too worked up about a suspected instance of homophobia in which there isn't enough substantiating evidence. I just recently stepped in to defend such a user who the community wanted to ban. You need to be reasonable and moderate, and treat these situations like you would any other routine content dispute. Being the "right" one doesn't protect you in these situations. WP:DR is king. Personal "rights" and "wrongs" are nothing here. You can't be boneheaded and obstinate. You need to work within the system we employ. Just my advice to you.  Swarm  talk  08:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I thought you might find this of interest, especially the final paragraph. Antinoos69 (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Another question regarding my Final Warning

Am I allowed to rename/move pages? Renaming pages automatically creates redirects, and you told me redirects have to be created through WP:AFCRD. UpsandDowns1234 (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Rise of Macedon --> HELLENIC KINGDOM

New WP:CONSENSUS Building -->Hellenic Kingdom. "Greek" or "Hellenic" precedes "kingdom" in the first sentence based on sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragao2004 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:James Gunn

The same guy has continued trolling and violating BLP on the talk page since you protected the article. I'm not sure what the procedure here is beyond simply blanking their comments, but he's also been using different IPs to edit-war the offending comments back in while pretending to be someone else. Or maybe there's more than one troll -- it doesn't really matter. Is protecting the talk page out of the question? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

BTW, this probably needs revdel and edit summary removal, as apparently happened to a bunch of the same user's edits almost a month ago. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: IP blocked, edit revdelled, talk page protected for one week, article protection extended to one year.  Swarm  talk  03:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Rfc closure at Here (album)

Hi. Regarding this RfC closure, can you please specify in your closing statement what you mean by “trimming”? As is noted on the votes and discussion, the RfC creator proposed removal of positive reviews from prose (which is against NPOV policy, while trimming and the trimming understanding is copy editing/pruning any long quotes or statements. Which are you referring to? Lapadite (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• The RfC clearly specified that "trimming" meant the disputed edit. Nothing more, nothing less. The respondents of the RfC knew exactly what changes they were assessing, and unfortunately the consensus view did not share your concerns.  Swarm  talk  03:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Not clear on what you're determining. The RfC itself just mentions 'trimming', not what is actually proposed which is "removing notable and positive reviews from prose". Are you specifically saying there's a consensus to remove positive reviews per RfC proposal (in violation of NPOV policy) while multiple editors disagreed with that proposal? Aside from the "concerns" there - which include depriving readers of notable content, policy-violation, tendentious editing behavior, and potential erroneous vote-counting & treating policy-violating argument as valid; as linked there, proposals/arguments are considered on merit and those in violation of policy are not supported) - I don't think the closing statement, whatever it specifically supports, is clear. It's a formal close per which pertinent editing, ie., removal of reviews, is done, and that is there for future reference. That's why I'm asking if you could be specific in the closing statement on what is the actual consensus you determined amongst multiple editors saying and agreeing on different things. E.g., if it's your belief, specifying: "RfC consensus appears to be that reviews removed by Dan56/RfC creator should be removed", or something where you note what exactly you believe is agreed upon or the meaning of "trimming" you determined is agreed upon (e.g, editors generally consider 'trimming' a copy-editing process, not a red flag-'removal of notable and positive reviews' process - I know If I were passing by an RfC like that (and didn't go through the edit history & read all the comments on Talk) I'd think it is copyediting/making summaries concise and pruning long quotes that is being proposed, not actually removing several notable and positive reviews). Surely, you must see that specifying what exactly is the perceived consensus is important, particularly with contentious discussions and particularly with vague terminology like "trimming" used in RfC. WP:CLOSE Lapadite (talk) 06:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

How is it not clear though? I'm not jumping to some conclusion on my own, the RfC literally specified what "trimming" meant. It used the word "specifically". "Should this section of the article be trimmed, specifically in the way my (undone) attempt had? That was the RfC question. So, when you tell me that the RfC mentioned "trimming" as a vague concept, you're objectively wrong. The question was specifically over a proposed change. I'll add an addendum to the close, if it will give you peace of mind, but you really need to stop implying bad faith motivations on Dan's part.  Swarm  talk  19:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not about you, it's about the RfC wording & contentious nature of discussion (in which multiple people disagreed) necessitating specifics from closing statement on what there was agreement if any. I'm saying that the closing statement's not clear on what specifically you believe there was consensus for (e.g., "exclusion of the reviews RfC creator Dan56 removed" or "making reviews summaries more concise"), given that the RfC proposal is vague. People generally don't look through article edit history or read full discussions, they typically see RfC proposal and vote. RfC creator did not state they wanted to remove a number of (positive) reviews, they phrased it as "trimming", and most, including myself, would agree trimming long sentences and quotes is good (and I'd done such trimming myself and also stated there that more should be done). See how "trimming" from RfC creator is a different, contentious, POV thing than making reviews excerpts more concise; hence the closing should specify what kind of "trimming" you think there was consensus for (you devoted a sentence to it and the rest to your view of the significance of the content dispute and conduct on RfC). Anyone, going by common sense and easily supported by WP's PAG, can go ahead and add notable reviews including the ones that were removed by the RfC creator. And regarding "concerns" you referred to earlier (which I don't think should be dismissed), RfC closure should always take WP's PAG into account when gauging RfCs/arguments, particularly with contentious debate that concern policy; see: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads...The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue." See also: "The usefulness of RfCs is strongly affected by the way the close is written. Consider your wording carefully, and think of how different explanations could be interpreted by different editors. All editors should feel like their comments have at least been carefully considered ... Closure of borderline, controversial, or complicated discussions will usually require more careful consideration and a more detailed explanation".

If you wish, see an explicit closing statement I'd made for an RfC (that was not a contentious discussion) here, specifying what exactly the agreement was on, so that editors may reference it accurately. That's ultimately the point. As I noted above, and in my experience here, "trimming" can easily and usually does refer to making prose concise, reducing the length of sentences, long quotes, etc: a copyediting task - not the blanking of notable content, and namely here, removal of a number of positive reviews from POV. As this was a contentious discussion/RfC, in which again multiple participating editors disagreed with the RfC creator (and disagreement/the concerns given were not taken into account for the closure, but that's another point), closure should really specify what editors on both sides agreed on, if anything. I recommend also referring to: Addressing objections. I don't want to belabor the point any longer, however. It's fine if you don't feel comfortable giving specifics on the closure, whether or not due to the nature of the RfC proposal & discussion; I'll just take this concern to appeal/review for evaluation when I have the time. Cheers. Lapadite (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting bizarre. You're really coming across as being unable to reason with, and you're getting into WP:IDHT, WP:DROPTHESTICK territory. You keep saying that "multiple people disagreed". Yes. It's a content dispute. People were in a disagreement. That's why it was a formal RfC that required an uninvolved assessment. That doesn't change the fact that it was clearly a consensus to "trim" the section, in a specific way, as presented via a diff in the RfC question. You repeatedly stating that "people disagreed" with a consensus can't override a consensus. You repeatedly insinuating that the word "trim" is this loaded, vague term, and people didn't know what they were weighing in on, even though there was a specific diff in the RfC question, simply doesn't make sense. It's not realistic. Your repeated accusations that "removing positive reviews" is somehow inherently out of line with policy don't make sense either. Something like assigning appropriate weight to, or appropriately balancing, reviews in an article is subjective. It can only ever be resolved via a community consensus. So, acting like a consensus to remove positive reviews is in some way illegitimate, you're simply wrong. That's not how anything works around here. Your repeated implications that the RfC creator is motivated by malice are unacceptable as well. If anything, I'm more concerned about your COI here, because this is going beyond reasonable need for clarification or polite disagreement. As an uninvolved observer, this is a minor, routine content dispute, that was resolved via a formal RfC with a fairly clear consensus. I'm sorry you didn't "win", this particular content dispute, but refusing to accept the result is really not reasonable at all. At the end of the day, you don't own the article. The community reviewed an issue and decided to endorse a proposal that you disagreed with. You are expected to have the competence to accept DR outcomes that are not to your liking. That's just part of editing here. I vaguely remembered your username just now, and I decided to look you up in the archives. I will note for the record that you brought a frivolous complaint to AN/I back in May. I observed that you had an "inability to work through a content dispute in good faith", I had to correct your misrepresentation of policy (again, over removed content that you disagreed with). I opined that you were excessively personalizing a content dispute as well. Not trying to attack you, but it looks like this is a persistent issue. You need to learn how to resolve disputes in good faith.  Swarm  talk  02:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Re: Draft: Jet Setting Jasmine Article Deletion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 31 October 2018.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 10:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Re: Draft: Jet Setting Jasmine Article Deletion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

CEPA

Any reasoning for deleting the Center for European Policy Analysis page?

• @38.140.57.194: Yes, unfortunately it was nominated for deletion, and no one was able to demonstrate that it satisfied Wikipedia's notability policy. You can see the full rationale for deletion on the discussion page. The article may be recreated if additional reliable, independent sources that significantly cover CEPA are uncovered, but no one was able to demonstrate this during the community review.  Swarm  talk  18:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of JEtt Setting Jasmin page

first of all, let me quote the guidelines on the talk page:

Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks For disputes, seek dispute resolution

You did none of these. Your language was insulting. And, in case you think I am being overly sensitive, let us be clear on what the issue is here. I submitted an article for REVIEW. It was not reviewed... it was flagged and deleted without any useful feedback being given to give me a chance to make the necessary changes. How do you expect new writers to learn from their mistakes if you don't provide useful feedback and, furthermore, become insulting as soon as you are challenged? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheChau26 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Okay, so two things. First, your article was reviewed, and it was rejected. I have restored Draft:Jet Setting Jasmine so you can see this for yourself. Second, your article was tagged for a procedural speedy deletion, which has nothing to do with the AFC review process. I'm simply an uninvolved administrator who was patrolling the speedy deletion log, I reviewed the nomination, and deleted it accordingly. There's no need to personalize this issue. I'm a reasonable person, and you can negotiate with me in good faith. The speedy deletion did not mean that there can not be an article, nor is it any sort of review or judgment call on the article that goes any deeper than the reason that it was deleted. I'm genuinely sorry that I came across as being mean or rude to you, but at the same time, I was simply being blunt here. You wrote more of an advertisement rather than an academic article, and your comment on the talk page seemed questionable at best. But, since it's just a draft, it's really not that big of a deal. If you're going to completely rewrite the article, as you suggest you will, I will leave it alone, and we can all move on. If you fail to rewrite it neutrally, it's simply going to be deleted again. Some more good faith advice for you, disputes with administrators are handled through discussions with said administrators. If you reach an impasse, you can appeal to other administrators and the community at large at WP:AN. WP:MEDCOM is for serious content disputes.  Swarm  talk  18:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for restoring it. I understand that my article was reviewed and rejected. My only concern was that I wanted to get feedback before deletion so that I can make the necessary changes. I'm not sure a complete rewrite is needed, but I will work on something and re-submit. I will hopefully do it within the next week. TheChau26 (talk • contribs)
  • @TheChau26: No problem. I appreciate that you're trying to contribute something here and I'm here if there's anything I can help you with. The guidance at WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:WORDS might be helpful in working on your rework! Best,  Swarm  talk  03:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Restore Requirement

Hiya Swarm, if you get the chance, would you see about the content removed from the Michael Bloomberg talkpage while your were away in 2013? It should be fine and there were references. Thank you in advance126.3.63.69 (talk) 08:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Question with my final warning

Am I allowed to move pages? I am prohibited from creating redirects, and moving pages automatically creates redirects. UpsandDowns1234 (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Good question! Yes, I would say you're allowed to perform uncontentious page moves that leave redirects behind. I don't see any evidence of intent to prevent you from doing so, and per WP:NOTBUREAU you shouldn't be subject to a ban because of such a technicality. As long as you're keeping in mind the underlying sentiments that you're supposed to broadly avoid any sort of controversial/frivolous/disruptive conduct, I don't think it's an issue. Just keep in mind that if it's a potentially contentious move, it's best to err on the side of discussion and consensus.  Swarm  talk  02:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Swarm. Happy editing! Ups @nd Downs 1234 05:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Object

Swarm, I don't want to challenge your close because the thread should have been closed much earlier; however, your reprimand in the close comes across as POV in your determination that veteran editors were wrong, and your interpretation was the right one as it relates to CAMPAIGNING. I even cited the guideline and the diffs did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that campaigning was involved. He was warned once on his TP and he ceased further notification at that moment. Your reprimand to those of us who disagreed it was canvassing is highly inappropriate. One such editor has been an admin damn near since the inception of this encyclopedia. Please, modify your close so that it is does not have the chilling effect that it has now. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 20:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think it was an appropriate close. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• NOTE: - I notified Fences and windows and Michael Hardy, the 2 admins who also opposed the allegation of canvassing at AN/I about the discussion I started here. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 20:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
• I didn't intend to reprimand anyone, I simply meant to explain why I was closing the way I was while acknowledging that multiple users have expressed a different opinion and would disagree with my close, while reminding everyone of the seriousness of canvassing. F&W may not have viewed it as a big deal relative to direct insults, which is a reasonable position. I agree that there's something to be said for the point he was making there, where we could allow a "fuck you" to slide but will come running to ANI over a rewording of an RfC question. That's just silly. However, I'm not advocating for allowing direct insults to slide, so I'm not taking that kind of hypocritical position. What F&W failed to acknowledge there is that canvassing is still a big deal. As for Michael Hardy, I think his position was adequately refuted by Guy Macon. He simply argued that there's no difference between the original and the reword, which I disagree with. You also argued that paraphrasing is not prohibited, and you're right, however, paraphrasing implies that the meaning of the question was not changed completely, which it was, and not just slightly, but in a very inflammatory way. I think the users who claim that the meaning wasn't changed, and that it was just a minor rewording or paraphrase, got it wrong. For the record, I have nothing but respect for you and think I usually agree with you. I'm not trying to give you any sort of grief here. And I'm happy to continue to discuss this with anyone who disagrees. But I think "is this sanctionable" and "is this civil" are two very different questions. It wasn't a simple paraphrase, even if it was intended to be.  Swarm  talk  20:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• How can I possibly argue with your common sense approach and thoughtful response? I will simply say, thank you for explaining, Swarm. I feel much better now, and bid you a good day!! Wishing we had more admins like you! ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 21:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

AN report

Not sure if you got the ping, but David Tornheim (talk · contribs) opened a thread on AN about you and, to a lesser extent, me, without apparently notifying either of us on our talk pages. Granted, it is possible to assume good faith given that he's requesting an uninvolved admin review your technically-involved-but-actually-less-involved-than-the-previous-close-and-indistinguishable-from-any-true-uninvolved-close close, but given his history (and the fact that his report included a somewhat off-topic jab at me for pinging you in the ANI thread) I'm suspicious. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Notice of A/N

I asked that your close be reviewed here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_review_of_AN/I_close Although I did ping you when I posted it, I am providing you this additional notification. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

David Tornheim, I will point out the big banner at the top of that page that says When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose. zchrykng (talk) 07:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not notice it. I have never posted at WP:A/N before. I rarely take anyone to WP:AN/I, WP:AE, etc., and I did not know the process. I prefer to work collaboratively. Please WP:AGF. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

FTR, DT has edited AN, ANI and ANEW collectively more than 300 times, and each time he did that the banner displayed, and he has opened threads with the edit summary "New section" three times (possibly more; I just did a quick search for that edit summary), so if he still doesn't know the procedure that raises yet more WP:CIR and possibly WP:IDHT concerns. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:57, 31 October 2018 (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.

Mguevin; talk 15:05, 28 November 2018 (EST).

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.

Bishonen | talk 21:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC).

• @Bishonen: replied.  Swarm  talk  23:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018

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

Administrator changes

Sir Sputnik

Kudpung • Liz • Lourdes

Everyking • Jackmcbarn

Interface administrator changes

Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes

AGK • Ivanvector • Stwalkerster • TonyBallioni

Oversight changes

Amorymeltzer • Oshwah • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Keilana

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment determined that non-administrators will not be able to request interface admin access.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the Mediation Committee should be closed and marked as historical.
• A village pump discussion has been ongoing about whether the proposed deletion policy (PROD) should be clarified or amended.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether pending changes protection should be applied automatically to today's featured article (TFA) in order to mitigate a recent trend of severe image vandalism.

Technical news

• Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
• A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
• The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
• The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Block

You blocking me was totally unwarranted, it only served to prove the point that you are abusing the administrator power. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 02:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of de-archiving things on your talkpage ...

Speaking of de-archiving some things on your talkpage, which you just did: If I may, I personally find your archiving system way too fast, particularly for an admin. Most wiki editors who archive keep at least 10 to 50 threads visible on their talkpage; this goes for admins as well. For admins this also demonstrates being highly accessible to the community and to intercommunication. It also helps demonstrate what kind of communication and responses an editor engages in, which again, is a particularly good thing for an admin in terms of accountability and accessibility.

One reason I'm saying this is that in the past few days I have invited many experienced, knowledgeable admins to run for ArbCom, since there is currently a paucity of viable/suitable candidates. I thought of you; however I reconsidered because your talkpage archiving prohibits much accessibility, communication, and community engagement. I hope you do not take this as a criticism, but as merely an observation regarding what I personally think works best for an administrator and what is in an administrator's best interests. Anyway, something to possibly consider. Sincerely, Softlavender (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Softlavender: Thanks for the feedback. I've changed my archiving parameters to 30 days/10 thread minimum. What you're saying seems perfectly reasonable to me, and I don't think there's any particular reason for my current archive settings, apart from trying to keep my talk page tidy, I guess. But I actually think you make a fair point. Talk page history should not be quickly swept into the archives, and it's more in the spirit of admin accountability to keep the pace of talk archiving restrained. I have a great deal of respect for your opinion and I thank you for taking the time to share it with me. Best regards,  Swarm  talk  10:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Swarm! Could you also add or force a TOC to the page? TOCs on usertalk are also another important form of accessibility, as they allow users to see exactly what's on the page and they allow correspondents to quickly click to the thread they want to participate in -- rather than scrolling through a sea of text. If so, thanks. :) Softlavender (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah, good call. I had removed the TOC long ago for aesthetic reasons—it wasn't necessary with the former archiving status anyways—but, naturally, it will be necessary now, with the additional content on the talk page.  Swarm  talk  03:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

strategic block reserve

Hi Swarm. Per your membership in the category--would you mind blocking me until November 17 00:01 UTC (I think that's just less than a week)? I left the same request on another admin's page, so whichever is first. Thanks, Outriggr (talk) 05:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

i'll quit the hard way, ignore the above. Outriggr (talk) 10:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Outriggr: Okay, if you change your mind, let me know.  Swarm  talk  20:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Given you unwarranted block I have asked ArbCom to intervene

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#SwarmAbusingPower and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

FYI, I've dismissed this case request. For the Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For the excellent closing summary at AN/I regarding Fred Bauder and the 2018 Arbcom elections kerfuffle. The detailed, sober and comprehensive summary combined with sensible recommendations for all concerned is a model for others to follow. Thryduulf (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Wow, thanks Thryduulf. It's been added to treasury with great pride. I'm humbled by the high praise coming from you. Best regards!  Swarm  talk  06:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I was gonna post this on MPants' page, but ... now I'm just depressed. He was a great editor.

Rather than let this rot in my sandbox page history like other such comments (which I decided not to post because I figured their contents might be detrimental to the project, unlike this which I decided against posting in the original location for other reasons) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Tornheim still at it?

[10]

This is pretty hilarious. I'm not sure what to make of it beyond that, though: mentioning pejorative labels of other editors such as climate-change-denier, anti-vaxxer, flat-earther, etc. is not a TBAN-violation in itself, but looks damn close especially given the "etc." If the RFC was still open I'd ask User:Swarm to block him for canvassing again, but now that it's closed I ... guess it's okay?

Anyway, I was also wondering if you knew of an easy way to verify/falsify the claim that it had "hundreds" of respondents. It was quite a lot and I'd rather not count them up manually, but I don't think it reached 100...

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: He was likely referring to EEng's comments reporting, specifically, that there were hundreds of "posts" in the thread. How he counted that, I don't even want to know. But, by my count, the number of individual !voters was in the lower 100's, so, it's likely he's exaggerating, but, no, I have no idea how to actually come up with a number, short of counting individual usernames.  Swarm  talk  07:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I counted edits in the page history. EEng 07:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Edits, not editors? The former is easy enough, but I have to imagine that if we have tools to tell us who has edited a page how many times in the page's history, and to tell us how many page watchers have visited recent edits (or something...?), then it must be possible to figure out how many unique editors have edited a specific page in a specific time period, no? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure there are tools for that, but I was interested in highlighting how much editor time had been spent on the discussion. # of distinct edits is a good quick measure of that. EEng 07:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Swarm. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

User:The Dweeb.30

Hi Swarm, Can you have a look at this users 'tribs, Many unsourced additions, gene warring and it's not because of the lack of warnings. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 21:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indef.  Swarm  talk  21:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for this edit. You might be the only admin editing in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:CA00:159:2BB9:62C4:274A:9A8B:CCFC (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Autopatrolled Permission Discussion - Spinster300

Hello dear Swarm, I hope you're keeping well. I'm sorry it has taken me this long to get back to you, I was on holiday. I am back to my routine now, so please allow me to get back straight to the point: you'd asked me to specify those articles that I have created that had no issues flagged by other editors.

Usually, when I create new articles (translations on biographies of people are my favorite project to do), I add a generic stub tag and the immediate categories that occur to me when I write those articles. As Wikipedia is a volunteer project, I contribute in my spare time, and thus prefer to keep new articles I create as stubs so that experienced editors within the subjects' careers/places of origin/time periods in history, can expand those articles more thoroughly and with better authority.

Earlier, my edits were usually improved in aspects of style, suggested improved references and circumstances of questionable notability (most usually when I made articles from the Requested Articles project). But for a while now, most of my articles are reviewed without many issues; most of those I've identified, are betterment of categories, a more specific stub tag, and notices to expand from the subjects' corresponding articles in foreign languages (Eg. Vicki Berlin and Boson II of Arles).

To provide you better clarity, from my 70+ article creations, here are few that I believe did well through the review process (please note that most all of them have been expanded on since my original creation, as is expected):

1. Paloma Duarte
2. Siddharth Menon (actor)
3. Zita Pataki
4. Marie-Claire Zimmermann
5. Kiante Anderson
6. Roger Fauroux
7. Ludwig Haberkorn
8. Lu Grimaldi
9. Loïg Chesnais-Girard
10. Dora Beets
11. Angelo Viva
12. François Louis Auguste Goiran
13. Isabella Krassnitzer
14. Helmut Zborowski
15. Nick Drnaso

If you require, I can mention more articles that I have created, and I apologize if my response is not thorough enough. I sincerely hope this brief explanation makes me eligible to join the Auto-patrolled list. Do let me know if you require any further clarification or have any other questions to help me improve my case.

Sincerely yours, Spinster300 (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC).

• Hi Spinster, hope you had a good holiday. Not trying to give you a hard time, but it looks like you may have forgotten what you were supposed to do. In your request, we went over the little things that the reviewers were doing, and I made it pretty clear that you would need to go back and look at your articles, learn what tasks were being improved by reviewers, and take over these improvements yourself. It seems like you have a good understanding of what the reviewers are doing, so you just need to show that you have taken over all possible reviewer improvements in your own creations. Your articles are good, and there's nothing wrong with your articles being stubs, this is just a matter of pre-emptively doing any basic, routine tasks that we see the reviewers doing, so that they do not see any minor adjustments that need to be made. That is the point at which you will be exempted from the review process.  Swarm  talk  21:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see! My apologies, I was a bit confused. I’ll go do that right away and report those pages back on this discussion for you to go through. Thank you for bearing with me! Kindest regards, Spinster300 (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC).

Request

Hello Swarm, I hope all is and has been well for you, and that wellness remains. I enjoy seeing you around and today, have a request worthy of my esteem for you. I recently effected a {{nac}} of a discussion[11] which is not my norm and on many levels, a first. Because I can hardly think of another more qualified, and because I've been blessed to know this first hand, I would really appreciate your candid insight and thoughtful critique so that I may reap of your wisdom in this regard. I keenly await your reply.--John Cline (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• @John Cline: Hey John, good to see you! I'm humbled by your high praise. Always enjoy seeing you around as well. I think the close you performed was excellent. You clearly carefully analyzed the main themes in the discussion and thoroughly explained why you saw the consensus you did. If this is something you actually like doing, you would be a very welcome addition at WP:AN/C! Thoughtful closers are in short supply!  Swarm  talk  02:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you Swarm, I appreciate your feedback and will benefit by it each and every time I may ever again close a discussion by its merits and the consensus sought. The main litmus for my participation in an area of focus like NACs is whether my involvement serves the goals favorably or not. Your encouragement has alleviated that concern and likely ensured that I will be seen reprising the role. Wishing you well, until far beyond, I remain.--John Cline (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Mexico

Howdy, Mexico has a new president. Would you update the article's infobox, seeing as it's protected? GoodDay (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For all the time and effort you put in editing Wikipedia. Thank you @Boothsift 00:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018

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

Administrator changes

Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz

Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

Deryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
• A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
• A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

• Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
• To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
• Since deployment of Partial blocks on Test Wikipedia, several bugs were identified. Most of them are now fixed. Administrators are encouraged to test the new deployment and report new bugs on Phabricator or leave feedback on the Project's talk page. You can request administrator access on the Test Wiki here.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 3 December 2018. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
• Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

• Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors December 2018 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the December 2018 GOCE newsletter. Here is what's been happening since the August edition. Thanks to everyone who participated in the August blitz (results), which focused on Requests and the oldest backlog month. Of the twenty editors who signed up, eleven editors recorded 37 copy edits. For the September drive (results), of the twenty-three people who signed up, nineteen editors completed 294 copy edits. Our October blitz (results) focused on Requests, geography, and food and drink articles. Of the fourteen people who signed up, eleven recorded a total of 57 copy edits. For the November drive (results), twenty-two people signed up, and eighteen editors recorded 273 copy edits. This helped to bring the backlog to a six-month low of 825 articles. The December blitz will run for one week, from 16 to 22 December. Sign up now! Elections: Nominations for the Guild's coordinators for the first half of 2019 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! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators; Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Tdslk. >>> Sign up for the December blitz! <<< >>> Participate in the Coordinator elections! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson 1RR Sanctions

Please note the following report, thanks. 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:E58D:ADD5:309A:7E24 (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Has been handled.  Swarm  talk  07:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)