User talk:Swarm/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Life Is Real Only Then, When 'I Am'

I'm not sure that many of us have the option of nominating the page for deletion, it being fully protected and all. I know I can't. Maybe not a big thing, admittedly, but just saying. And some people like me drawn in from the FTN noticeboard discussion might forget in a week. John Carter (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Anyone can still nominate the page for deletion, you'll just need an adminstrator to place the AfD notice at the top of the article. Would you like me to take care of that for you? Swarm... ^—X— 22:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the subject is notable, having been cited in several other books, etc. I think page protection is less than optimal, but oh well, we don't live in an optimal world.- MrX 22:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

IP back to inserting same content

The IP User:50.184.134.157 you immediately unblocked and warned is back to inserting the same content at the Walter O'Brien article as before. He first announced it here: [1] and proceeded here: [2], [3]. He also now claims a reputable source isn't a reputable source and will likely remove the source. He is also planning on deleting quite a bit of sourced content [4]. Which is everything they promised to do before they were blocked, so... -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

And now he's saying this: [5], intending to utilize WP:IAR to justify adding WP:SYNTH. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I admit that the change I proposed in the talk page needs discussion. That's why I posted it there. I won't carry it out unless there is consensus. The changes I did carry out are non-controversial, and I repeatedly asked you for any conceivable reason why someone could object to them, and you couldn't give me any. There is no problem here.50.184.134.157 (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether your changes are non-controversial or not, you have exceeded 3 reverts. WP:3RR works on a count of reverts, it takes no account of justification (except to uphold WP:BLP). And I also disagree with your assertion that your edits are non-controversial. You violated both WP:ALLEGED and WP:SYN: that's controversial. Skyerise (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

RFA

Hi

Can I ask a favor with regards to your comment at WP:AN, I would appreciate a brutally honest evaluation of my editing history with regards to requesting an RFA. There are a couple of screwups in there so feel free to drag me over the coals with regards to them if you see fit. I feel now that im aware there are other more janatorial admins that there may be a validity in my consideration of applying but I'd still feel happier when someones had chance to give me an honest (and mostly uninvolved) piece of feedback. Understand if youd rather not but If you dont ask you dont get. Amortias (T)(C) 21:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Sure, I'd be happy to! It's going to take awhile but I'll try to get that done for you within the next 24 hours or so. Some advice I can give you right off the bat, though:

• If you haven't already, start studying up on WP:RfA. Look at previous RfAs, both successful and unsuccessful. Try to get a gist of what helps candidates and what hurts candidates. What kind of questions might get asked and how you would best answer them. Find similarities from unsuccessful candidates and eliminate problems from your own editing.
• Become familiar with Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates. It may be seem a little excessive, but it spells out anything and everything you'd possibly need to know about going through an RfA. I can't emphasize enough that the information there is invaluable. It also contains links to different users' RfA criteria.
• Start thinking about who you might like to request nominate you. I normally don't put forth nominations, but I might be willing to co-nom if/when I feel you're ready. I can give you some suggestions if you have no opinion on this.
• Take a look at my RfA criteria, which are very reasonable and accurate in terms of representing what the community wants to see.
• Take a look at my RfA, if you're interested (my stats at the time are on the talk page).
• Don't involve yourself in drama, unless you're trying to mediate a dispute (i.e. simply avoid getting into disputes, walk away from any that arise).

Anyway, I'll get back to you on this. Swarm ^X 22:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You've got a mail

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

OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Block of Texasreb

• Texasreb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Confederate States of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for dealing with a dedicated disruptive editor. As I communicated in my assessment on Talk:Confederate States of America, over time the editor has made it clear he or she is not here to create an online encyclopedia working inside of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Given the way User:NorthShoreman's page was vandalized in the minutes immediately after Texasreb was blocked for editwarring, it's reasonable to verify checkuser connection between the ip vandal and User:Texasreb. For my part, I'd like to see the block for Texasreb extended to 30 days. The user has made it quite clear that blocking (perhaps even banning) won't stop that editor from pushing a fringe point of view on the CSA page. I'd appreciate any consideration to further discourage this disruptor. IMHO, a longer block will have a preventative effect not a punitive one. BusterD (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Recently you blocked this editor per WP:AN3. I've had Confederate States of America on my watchlist for some time and I was wondering when the local editors would totally lose their patience with User:Texasreb. In my view they were not complaining sufficiently. Since 2010 this guy has made 126 edits at the CSA article. I issued a previous block in 2014 per WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive254#User:Texasreb reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: 48 hours). Since the editor is not listening and is not going to change their approach the question is how long will it take until the block durations escalate to indefinite. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Yeah, I've seen TexasReb around at times and this has always seemed to be an issue. I definitely erred on the side of leniency in this block, and I don't particularly have a reason for that apart from the fact that the actual dispute was relatively minor. But I'm definitely aware of the fact that this is a habitual and long-term POV-pusher who seems to genuinely be unaware of their own bias, and who is probably going to need to be indeffed sooner or later in order for that issue to be fully resolved. I will certainly not object to an extension in block length whatsoever. I'm sure an indef would be justifiable now, and it certainly will be if another block for this behavior is warranted. Swarm ^X 20:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone

Do you mind taking a look at this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zhanzhao OccultZone seems to be attacking anybody that disagrees with him and only seems to be getting worse. I think you already know how he acts so maybe you have a good picture of his actions and demands. Resaltador (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I mean, just accusing people of being socks without evidence isn't okay, but if he has an honest concern about socking and has filed an SPI there's not much I can do. He's within his rights to do that. They'll take care of it either way. I just reviewed the edit warring situation and treated him as I would any other editor and I was accused of misconduct. I was pretty offended by it myself, but there's really not much I can do about it. I explained my actions as much as I could and now I'll move on. The world's not going to end over any of this, the project will still be here tomorrow. No need to get dragged down in a bitter personal dispute with someone over Wikipedia! He's made some accusations, he's filed them through the proper channels, and now either he'll be vindicated or the accused will be. Just wait it out and let the process take its course. Swarm ^X 20:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I made a mistake in an ANEW filing

Hello! In this ANEW report, I included a link to a subpage in my user space containing diffs of behaviour before and after the reported edit-warring. I should not have linked to that subpage, as I clearly stated on the subpage that it would not be "publicized by its creator". If the inclusion of the link to that subpage influenced you in your adjudication of the ANEW filing in any way, I ask that you reconsider the block on Theobald Tiger. I apologize for the inconvenience this caused. Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• The user's behavior is what it is regardless. We're not a bureaucracy and there's no need to reconsider a clearly-warranted block on such procedural grounds. I'm not particularly concerned you linked to an evidence page that was not supposed to be publicized. Swarm ^X 05:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Good Afternoon

There's a policy which I cant seem to remember. It has to do with adding content a+b=c, for example united nations has been involved in wars therefore u.n is a war mongering organization. Do you know the policy? Zekenyan (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

That would be WP:SYNTH, part of the 'no original research' policy. Swarm ^X 19:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thx! Zekenyan (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem! Swarm ^X 19:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Spumuq

Spumuq continues his stalking, edit warring behaviour:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communism_and_homosexuality&diff=prev&oldid=653643194
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Service_(historian)&diff=prev&oldid=653643036
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=prev&oldid=653147862
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=prev&oldid=652096097

He also has removed the "blocked" warning from his talk page:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spumuq&diff=prev&oldid=651923915

(talk page stalker)The block notice can be removed, declined unblock request's however can't. I'll go have a look at the others and get back to you.

Zozs has been stalking me, why is this allowed? Zozs first Neoliberalism edit is reverting mine [6] and the edit summary is false, I discussed this problem on the talkpage, [7] months ago, and it is a WP:TAGTEAM with C.J.Griffin who had 3RR, but zozs does not report C.J.Griffin's edit war.

Zozs also edits [8] [9] with IPs to revert me, it is not the first, last year zozs had an edit war on Hugo Chavez and used this IP to fake a quotation [10], and also in zozs edit war with User:4Idaho on United Left [11]. Zozs had an argument with Zfigueroa on Talk:2014–15_Venezuelan_protests so zozs used IP 37.15.231.233 to vote, same on Talk:Marxism-Leninism using 37.15.206.156, and IP 37.15.182.40 on Talk:Communism, and IP 37.15.194.141 to revert on Media of Venezuela, and IP 37.15.179.133 to add a false graph that zozs made on wikicommons, and 37.15.179.133 on Venezuelan_recall_referendum,_2004, and IP 37.15.172.81 to stalk 4idaho, there are so many more I cannot find them all.

A lot of other editors think zoz's edits are bad, many people revert zozs, it is not just me [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] for example, does zozs think many editors are in a conspiracy against him? For example, in the history of Dictatorship of the proletariat, zozs edit wars against Volunteer Marek, Kravietz, Bobrayner, Trust Is All You Need, and me, why call me the edit warrior but not zozs, where do I report this? Spumuq (talq) 08:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I will reply to the last point only about the edit war on DOTP article because I cannot see the relevance of the rest of your accusations (most of which do not even make sense). One key characteristic of Volunteer Marek, Trust Is All You Need and Bobrayner: all three got to that article by edit stalking me (as they did to other articles where I was participating) and reverted without reason. They did not understand the argument taking place in the edits between me and Kravietz and they did not participate in the talk page at all. Their only mission was of destruction, of permanently reverting me accross several articles as they do. E.g. bobrayner has even reverted edits of me several times and consistently through time with the edit summary: "post-Zozs revert", thus directly stating that he is only reverting because it is me, as well as many other reverts without any summary and without talk page discussion. I was argumenting with Kravietz about how should the article be, with me referencing reliable sources which he was intent on deleting (this was on user talk page not talk page) and in the end he just gave up - yet kept reverting and securing his revert, albeit probably unintentionally, with a spontaneously formed tag team of people who edit stalk me. I hardly see how this behaviour should be tolerated. Zozs (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a conspiracy against me? Probably not. Is there undeniable evidence that my edits are stalked and reverted on sight without talk page discussion and sometimes by deleting reliable sources by the same 3-4 edit stalkers, some of which are sometimes busy stalking and sometimes taking a break, with the exception of you who are permanent and start again right after being blocked for half a month. Why they do this? I can guess why. I often edit political articles, and though I am calm when editing them, it seems any disagreement there angers people, who proceed to behave in irrational fashion. Zozs (talk) 11:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Now there's an interesting point: Over the last year there have been many edits by IPs in the 37.15.0.1/16 range and a proportion (not all) of those are obviously Zozs logged out, most of which are either avoiding scrutiny, making extra reverts, or making it appear that more than one person supports Zozs' point. Digging a bit deeper, it's become obvious that the Zozs account is controlled by the same person as Communist-USSR, too. Do we need an SPI (which will probably attract extra drama), or is it sufficiently obvious without an SPI? (Sorry for this outbreak on your talkpage, Swarm).

Zozs' pov-pushing, editwarring, and misuse of sources has been a long-term problem. This is pretty damning but there are several other articles with similar histories. There are some articles that I've given up trying to improve because of Zozs' ownership. bobrayner (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Good for the economy

Thank you, Swarm, for your quick response on Economy of the United States. Some people!

All the best, Nononsenseplease (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• No problem! Best, Swarm ^X 03:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Ping

For some reason, I was pinged in this edit even though you didn't mention my name in it. Why would such a malfunction occur? Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, god. I accidentally wrote {{WP:RFPP|np}} instead of {{RFPP|np}}. So instead of Template:RFPP showing up, apparently I accidentally transcluded the whole page within itself. If you take a look at that version of the page you can see it...there's a copy of the page within the page. I immediately got a glaring red "template loop detected" warning and fixed the error, but I probably unintentionally pinged everyone whose name appears on that page. Great. If any of you are reading this, sorry! My bad! Feel free to throw me in the stocks for that one. Swarm ^X 03:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Interesting, though at least you fixed it Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Closure of ANI

Hi Swarm. You recently closed an ANI I raised against uesr:Jtydog. I would like to respectfully suggest that you did not acuurately appraise the consensus for action and closed the discussion prematurely. Is your talk page the appropriate place to discuss this? If not, please can you direct me to the WP approved mechanism of appeal. Thank you for your involvement in this matter.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey. I'm surprised to hear you say this. I read the discussion several times and the consensus was pretty straightforward. You made your case very well, and pretty much everyone in the discussion agreed with you. Jytdog, while attributing his behavior to frustration and a loss of self-control, acknowledged that he was behaving badly, and apologized. He promised to cut out the behavior in question and accepted a warning. This is pretty much everything you could've wanted from the discussion. A clear consensus, an acknowledgment, and a warning. I guess you may have been hoping for this to result in a block, but given his response and the lack of consensus for it it simply wasn't going to happen. Rest assured that if he goes against his word in the future, it will be a different story, but until then, we should AGF and I would advise you to drop it and move on. That being said, you can see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE for the relevant information page on this. Swarm ^X 16:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Swarm. Thanks for your advice. I have requested a review of the closure. I felt it only respectful to inform you of this.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit warning ruling

Swarm, I trust you are the person whom I need to ask. I was accused of a 3RR violation by another member. I'm guessing that I've made my case as there has been no ruling at the case is about to fall to the archive page. That said, I wanted to know if there was a way to have the case closed. I would hope to have this closed up so I don't have to worry about it. Here is the link [[22]] - Thanks--Getoverpops (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Closed report as stale. Regards, Swarm ^X 02:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent request

Hi Swarm, just wondering if youve had a chance to look at my recent request for evaluating my editing. No problem if not just noticed the previous thread had been archived. Amortias (T)(C) 16:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, haven't done so yet. I haven't forgotten about it, don't worry! Swarm ^X 02:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for input

Hi Swarm! Can you take a quick look at Talk:Korean_American#Requested_move_11_March_2015 and perhaps weigh in regarding what would be the best venue for a multi-page move like this? Someone did post on this page but it's not generating a lot of conversation. I was thinking village pump, but honestly am not sure where the best place is. For clarity, and to avoid CANVASS, I am only asking you to address where to put this request, not the merits of the request itself. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Protection of Biography Page

Swarm Thank you for quickly addressing my admin request and protecting the Evelin Banev biography page. As I am quite new to Wikipedia, I want to alert you that autoconfirmed users (such as Alakzi are still able to remove whole sections which apparently have been there for years and are referenced with sources and citations (see this diff where entire 2 sections Entrepreneurship and Targeted Defamation were completely deleted) For now, I have undone these deletions and added more citations - but in general, would appreciate either some guidance from you and/or help. Thanks in advance! DiscSquare (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hm. As this is a sensitive BLP it's very important that references are provided; if not, contentious content can be removed. So I don't really see anything too disruptive with Alakzi's removal of that content (a lot of it was unsourced). The appropriate response if you don't think the content should be removed would be to re-add it with reliable sources, or to discuss it with the user and explain the reasons why it shouldn't be removed. Let me know if you reach an impasse with them and I can help direct you to dispute resolution. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 18:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

"Too" disruptive? Both sections I've removed contained material that was either unsourced or plain uncyclopaedic ("To save face, the prosecution states ... ", etc.) and clearly slanted in favour of Benev. Alakzi (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I know, I'm agreeing with you, calm down dude. Just trying to explain it gently to a new user, no need to get pedantic. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 19:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I apologise. Alakzi (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

No worries, and I apologize too for the tone of my last reply. It came off as a bit condescending. I'd be seriously annoyed if someone told me to "calm down dude". :P Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 19:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

;-) Alakzi (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to the both of you for the constructive comments - I did add some citations, while there are a few others still needed. I softened some of the verbiage to be more neutral, as well. Cheers! DiscSquare (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Emails

Hi Swarm. I hear from Bgwhite that you've been receiving some unpleasant emails recently. Could you please forward them to me or to Arbcom? Worm^TT(talk) 07:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey Worm. Unfortunately it went to my spam folder which appears to have emptied itself since then. OZ may be willing to share it if he has a copy, as it's not exactly incriminating. He emailed me once asking me to revdelete his block log. I didn't respond and he didn't send me any more emails. It was inappropriate as he had been told in no unclear terms by Bgwhite to drop the accusations of misconduct and move on, but that being said, it wasn't uncivil and he didn't harass me over it. Individually it was no cause for alarm. More concerning though is that according to Bgwhite, he was privately talking about "making me pay" for the block, and now this is something he continues to do with Bg. If true, that's nothing short of disturbing. As you can see, while I defended the block, I wasn't too upset that it was overturned as I hoped the point may have been made regardless. However OZ's vitriolic and IDHT response to his last two blocks are more concerning than the edit warring issues, all of which I've very strongly warned him about. If he's really continuing to go about off wiki and directly or indirectly personally attack an administrator, that's nothing short of unacceptable. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 17:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Ah I see he's sent you the email, great. Thanks for stepping in, hopefully the dramah will die down now. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 19:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 Wikification drive.

Greetings! Just spreading a message to the members of WikiProject Wikify that the April drive has been started. Come on, sign up! :) One hand on the mouse, one hand on the keyboard... and the feet can do the rest! Hee-hee! (talk) 03:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Bill Marshall (drummer)

Hi! I'm working on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 March 24 and have come to Bill Marshall (drummer), where you apparently removed the speedy deletion tag and the CorenSearchBot notice with the edit summary "bot was in error". Could you tell me why you thought that? Because as far as I can see the bot was right on the money, it's a blatant copy-paste from a non-free source, Qwertyus was absolutely right to db-copyvio it, and speedy deletion as G12 is definitely still the right fate for it. What am I missing? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Er, yeah, I assumed that the SPA whose only contributions were to make an article about Bill Marshall and who claimed to be Bill Marshall was telling the truth, so I looked up the Facebook bio he was claimed was the actual source, and sure enough, there it was, verbatim, on his personal facebook page. It took me less than a minute. I assumed any "copyright investigators" such as yourself could, you know, investigate the matter like I did, because it really is that easy. Anyway, that was enough to decline the CSD and turn it over to the new page patrollers, who I assumed would appropriately tag and help sort out the article and maybe even craft it into something presentable, considering the author's obvious willingness to work with us to get the page up to standards. Unfortunately for that user, no one saw fit to assist him in any way other than to send him template after template. How disappointing. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 04:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined

Hello, Swarm, the Arbitration Committee has declined the Banning Policy II arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Best, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 21:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Archives

Your archives, at the top of this UTP are limited to 7, while you have got at least 9. Consider updating it. Thank you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, will do. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 21:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom

See [[23]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Even the arbs were aware and disagreed with you and you still couldn't get it. Good job, you're a real white knight. On behalf of all involved, thanks for the laughs. I'll note the irony that in your crusade to enforce an arbcom ban you yourself were banned under arbcom sanctions and then deigned to plead ignorance. While I never had anything but a positive impression of you I can honestly say that I've completely lost all respect for you as an individual. No hard feelings though. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 20:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Apparently none at all. And as to that part, [apparently you haven't been reading again] which in the scope of things isn't so surprising at all. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I can read, thanks though. The issue was rendered moot b/c dude wrote something that had to be oversighted. Seriously though, I get that you were pushing an issue you felt was right in accordance with policy. Whatever. Arbitrarily taking us to Arbcom over a non-issue and asking for a desysopping was some bullshit though. Seriously man. What the hell were you thinking? That we're somehow obligated to enforce the rules? That an admin can be punished for declining to use the tools? I explained to you that that wasn't the case and rather than checking my word against policy, you flagrantly ignored that fact that was laid out in front of you and wasted a bunch of people's time. Seriously, even if you had a case for blocking the user, you had absolutely nothing backing the allegation that we somehow broke a rule somewhere. Nothing. You just came off as throwing a hissy fit because we disagreed with you. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 04:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Well I won't disclose exactly what I was thinking because I'm sure it won't help the situation and I don't mean your perceptions. I knew they wouldn't desysop you, and I also knew it was likely that the case itself would be declined. It still managed to accomplish what needed accomplish, I'm going to assume you haven't been through an arb case, I have. It's not pleasant and I didn't like going through the first one and I would hate for it to have meant absolutely nothing. Essentially that's what happened with their endorsement of your rationale of IAR which actively ignored the fact they had already addressed it. Part of this was to expose arbcom and part was to accomplish an end (stop damage to the encyclopedia). Frankly if I hadn't fucked up the enforcement request [[24]] (if you actually read in that which you can the telling part regarding this is "The block on the sock should be enough with a reminder that admin are not free to exercise discretion for banned users. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)" ) I wouldn't have requested the case but as you can see it's definitely not the most fluffy places and anytime a person is bargaining you should always start high then when you go to the low end it's much easier to take that offer, psychologically it may be a horrible suggestion but if it is better then the first the perception is changed . My expectation in filing that was to get some trigger happy admin to take care of business, I'm actually surprised we didn't see the likes of Sandstein or child with a magnifying glass admin type to do the dirty work, and that it wouldn't have been nec to continue any proceedings. I think that your and Fred Bauder's actions actually caused more harm. I understood what NYB was saying about Hobson's choice although I was unaware of the name and I had considered that we have plenty of vandalism that passes without notice and we somehow manage to find it and root it out. Call it faith in the non banned people here to do what we do on a ongoing basis and zero faith in the blocked user. You may not be aware but that arb case I mentioned earlier involved the same user. Yes I removed all of their posts and yes I regrettably did revert one person that wasn't banned and there I stopped. Why because it was in article space and they were right the changes would have been the exact same so I dropped that part. I'm not against all banned users either there may be one or two out there that I know of that I truly thought were railroaded and are contributing constructively, TheKohs was not and has not for sometime. Those aren't all my thoughts but they are a good portion whether that changes your perception or not is up to you but you asked and I answered. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

(←) Thanks for the thorough explanation. Tbh I wasn't unilaterally actioning your request, I was just weighing in, and I too expected a trigger happy admin to come in and agree with you and block the user. That's why I think you jumped the gun by going to arbcom. But regardless, what's done is done, we completely disagreed on an issue, things got heated, I got very offended and I apologize for my hostility. I haven't in fact lost all respect for you, that was a stupid thing to even say. And there really are no hard feelings, I hope you can believe that. In the end, the outcome was fine. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 21:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I pop off at the mouth often enough to know how it happens. no worries sorry for causing you a shit storm. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Motel article

Hi Swarm. I noticed you blocked one of the warriors on the motel article. I'd appreciate your input on how to fix that article. For months, 3 editors (2 vs 1) have been feuding over the language in the article (American vs. British). And to create a new article just for motels in the United States would mean that Canadian motels would not be included, which would be ridiculous, as Canadian and American motels are identical. This language battle certainly doesn't help the article. Any ideas how to fix this? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

This is an oversimplification of what has happened there. It's more like four editors vs. just one, and it's been going on for years. A separate article on U.S. motels is completely unwarranted, I agree. But the fact is that both the concept and the term originate in the U.S., and motels are most prevalent in the U.S.. And the original language the article was written in was American English. Thus, by both WP:ENGVAR and WP:TIES, the type of language used at the article should remain as is. Which is not to say that international motels shouldn't get coverage at the article. But it is to say that a separate article split-out is an unnecessary development, and that the use of American English at the article should not change. --IJBall (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't realized it had been settled. Good to know. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• I get the argument that the article focuses heavily "American motels" to the point that it's undue weight. But I also get the opposing argument that the subject is simply inherently Americentric to a degree and that's the only reason it appears that way. There's no automatic right answer, it's really up to the community to decide. Right now there's clearly no consensus whatsoever for a fundamental change in the article and it does primarily seem to be one editor who so vehemently believes the article has a problem. That being said, if it goes into unnecessarily specific detail, it can be trimmed. And it can theoretically be expanded to include more content on motels outside of the US, although like you said, I don't think the concept of a motel varies greatly regardless of what country it's in. The precedented version is simply going to stand until a consensus that it needs to be fixed in the first place is formed. That's simply how dispute resolution works here; if someone has a problem with "government by consensus" they're on the wrong website. Regardless of that debate however, the English debate is simply a non-issue. It's always been in American English and we don't arbitrarily change that. I clearly warned that user about this in February and he proceeded to change it again, which is why he got blocked. It was his first block, thus it was lenient, and it remains to be seen whether he'll force us to block him again. Hopefully he pursues dispute resolution and keeps it out of the article from here on out. But the biggest problem seems to be with this editor's behavior and his refusal to stop saying "I'm right". Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 01:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Motel edit warring

• K7L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You are hereby invited to have a look at the discussions of the last 24 hours that are recorded at Talk:Motel (particularly about WP:ENGVAR) and at the corresponding article (esp. with respect to your prior comment: "K7L is clearly engaged in an edit war in order to alter the variety of English, ... K7L is warned that, right or wrong, continuation of long-term edit-warring may very well result in a block, but particularly if you're in the wrong. Using American English isn't what makes an article Americentric, ..."). —BarrelProof (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Recently I left a note for K7L concerning his undiscussed move of Motel to Motels in the United States, which got reverted per a request at WP:RMTR. Though he might have some ideas for improvement, he is charging ahead with no regard for consensus. Some way needs to be found to get him to stop and discuss. A link to the February 2015 3RR complaint about his reverts at Motel is here. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The split of motel and motels in the United States was proposed on November 4, 2013 by tagging the article with the {{split}} tag. That yielded no responses or comments or all, although the split is needed as the article has been weighted down with so much WP:UNDUE coverage of relatively minor and country-specific matters that 53kb of the total 71kb is devoted to just one country or one region of one country. I've been trying to get this discussed since 2013. The {{globalise}} flags go back further on this article -- at least to 2011 or so. This has nothing to do with spelling, which is a separate issue. Check the history. K7L (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

K7L is absolutely continuing the edit war over the spelling and country-specific terminology in that article (in addition to making a closely related undiscussed move of that contentious article which is rated with top importance in multiple wikiprojects). That is very obvious from the list of many new spelling and terminology changes introduced in the last 24 hours that I provided at Talk:Motel#New wholesale WP:ENGVAR changes. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Contrary to what you're saying, that this has nothing to do with the spelling, it's evident that you did yet again attempt to change the ENGVAR despite being warned about this in no unequivocal terms, by me, in February. Furthermore you're once again disregarding consensus because you think you're right. Maybe you're fighting the wrong battle here since you can't seem to get a consensus on your side. There's other ways to address your concerns without repeatedly doing things that everyone disagrees with. Will block since a warning didn't do the trick. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 05:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

My guess, based on this editor's multi-year history on the subject, is that a 24-hour block won't stop this for long. Let's hope I'm wrong... --IJBall (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I know. Let's try to AGF though. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 19:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Sock

So now User:Harari234 is socking with this IP. I asked him to stop earlier (see here) but he doesn't seem to care. Even though it's blatantly obvious do I need to make a Sockpuppet investigation? He even signs using his accounts username (see here) lol. AcidSnow (talk) 06:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

After I advised Abdi to ignore the sock and speak to the main account, the sock now states that I "clearly have a problem" and that I should "live this page alone". AcidSnow (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

He doesn't understand you. I dont think anyone wants their ip address viewed on here. Zekenyan (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I doubt that as he continues to use his IP. AcidSnow (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• @AcidSnow: Looking over the contribs of both users I don't see anything that jumps out, can you explain how you know it's him, and comfirm that he's actually socking as opposed to editing while logged out? Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 19:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

File:Chocolate-Easter-Bunny.jpg

All the best! "Carry me down, carry me down; carry me down into the wiki!" (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!! Hope you had a good one, and hope everything's going well. :) Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 04:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Swarm, thanks for clearing up that one relating to Texas Southern University at WP:AN3. I wholeheartedly agree with your decision. All the best, --Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 04:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem and thanks for the feedback! :) Hope some progress is made... Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 05:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

User:181.64.225.40

I see you blocked this individual a couple of weeks ago. Well, he's back and continuing with his bullshit. I'd appreciate some action being taken against him, preferably more permanent this time. – PeeJay 09:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 month (can't indef IPs). Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 12:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Ban

I thought it was unjustified because I had no right of reply. But it is over and I hope I contribute now, as I have done for many years, to the encyclopaedia that we are all making together. Perhaps I got the wrong tone, but RfD is unfortunately a bit of an exclusive club: I wish it were not, There are probably seven editors me an Englishman living in Hungary,someone from the Phillipines, a Dutchman living in the UK, someone in Canada (I am deliberately not naming names or locations) and that's pretty much it, four of us tend to do the lot at RfD. Not many people look after these things, only nerds like me. So when someone pisses on your bonfire you tend to get annoyed. It takes a lot of work to reverse it and I am not an admin and do not want to be, so I have to go through god knows what to take the nonsense out. I appreciate an april fool's joke but do not appreciate making the encyclopaedia worse. I thought that is what we volunteer for, to make it better. Not perfect but better.

It's my birthday today. I am forty three it says. An odd age to be. I am a prime number. Si Trew (talk) 07:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Simon, but you had every right to appeal the block as many times as you wanted. You merely had to log in and do so on your talk page. Regardless, I get what you're saying. A handful of editors hold down RfD and suddenly someone's dropping in just to screw around. I understand it made you frustrated. But if someone's behaving inappropriately, you need to either get your point across while adhering to the Civility and No Personal Attacks policies, or go through the proper channels to resolve the problem. Talking down to anyone is just not acceptable. Damaging other people's morale because they inadvertently damaged yours only harms the encyclopedia further. Your attention to RfD is very much appreciated, but RfD is not so important that it's worth getting worked up over. Pretty much nothing on this project is. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 17:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and happy birthday! I hope you have a great one. :) Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 17:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Pass Christian, Mississippi

Thanks for your help with Pass Christian, Mississippi. I'm going to take a stab at cleaning up the article, but it's difficult sorting through so many edits. Some were okay, but others were pure cut-and-paste from external sources, or used unreliable sources. I honestly think it may be worth reverting back to the last clean edit here last November. Kind of drastic though. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

That was my thought too. He had utterly demolished the article, which was a solid start headed to a c when he started. In other news, he has twice now deleted your block notice. Please take whatever action you see ad appropriate. John from Idegon (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd say if the negative outweighs the positive (and it sounds like it does), revert to the last stable version. I'll leave it up to you two but it may be advisable. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 01:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors April 2015 Newsletter March drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 38 people who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. April blitz: The one-week April blitz, again targeting our long requests list, will run from April 19–25. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the requests page. Sign up here! May drive: The month-long May backlog-reduction drive, with extra credit for articles tagged in December 2013, January and February 2014 and all request articles, begins soon. Sign up now! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Issues_at_Rgloucester.27s_talk_page. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Note

If you could, please keep watch on these everyday reverts with dubious explanations, ranging from vandalism to sockpuppetry. 2001:7E8:C624:B001:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

This is banned JarlaxleArtemis who has been targeting me recently, for amusement. See also Special:Contributions/2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7, Special:Contributions/2001:7E8:C6BD:D901:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7, Special:Contributions/2001:7E8:C6A0:9401:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7, Special:Contributions/2001:7E8:C67F:9401:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 and Special:Contributions/2001:7E8:C242:5B01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7. So much amusement. Binksternet (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Case in point: accused of sockpuppetry. Like he just said, he does this sort of stuff for his own amusement. 2001:7E8:C624:B001:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Revision deletion

Hi Swarm, I saw this revision deletion and I can't see how it would be covered by the revision deletion criteria? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It was a false entry; due to a mistake on my part, no changes to the block were actually made. I honestly thought it was okay to delete the incorrect duplicate log entry per RD6. I see now that log redaction is separate from revdel criteria and log entries aren't covered by RV6 at all. I've never had the occasion to revdel a log so I should've brushed up on the policy, but that's totally my bad for assuming. 100% mistake on my part Callanecc. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 23:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Yeah only revision deletions themselves are covered by RD6. I'll remove the revdel, if that's okay? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course. Thanks for letting me know! Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 10:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Forumshooping

Zekenyan is still forumshooping after Al this time. AcidSnow (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Dispute with Ironholds

I'd like to formally say, thanks, to you for unblocking me. It has appears that I am being immature, when I am just stating my emotions. Nothing that I've said on his talk page was inappropriate, and harassing. I seriously think that he should calm down, as I've seen his emotions is an exact opposite of mine. However, emotions doesn't always mean it's immature. Immaturity is when you haven't developed. I was stating that it was hilarious how three people were arguing over a conversation on the internet. I see no immaturity in there. I was just stating my opinion, and neither statement I made was deemed harassment or immaturity. So, Ironholds has stated that you need to block me again. Which I don't seem to be necessary. I'm sorry that he is having a rough day, but his job at Wikipedia shouldn't be interfered with his emotions. All in all, Ironholds just wants to block me again. However, I deemed it unnecessary, and I think that he needs to know what is considered immaturity, and what is not. Like I said, thanks for giving me a second chance, and if you want to see the contributions I've made, go right ahead. Nick2crosby (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I didn't, I said Swarm should be aware of how you are behaving; this is not the same as "Swarm, you should block this person". I will say that if you keep behaving in this fashion, I think you will end up blocked. Ironholds (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protection on User talk:Nick2crosby

I see that you yesterday unblocked User:Nick2crosby. I notice that his user talk page has been semi-protected since 20 January 2013‎, & without a sub-page linked from it. This seems to be in violation of Wikipedia:Protection policy#User talk pages and I see no obvious reason for the semi-protection to be indefinite. The guidance may, of course, have been different in 2013, but perhaps you could consider removing the protection? I'll ping @Ironholds: who imposed the protection, in case he has views on this. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any opinion; I'd like Nick to stay away from me, given his behaviour, and will be doing my best to stay away from him. That includes this sort of discussion. Ironholds (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I unprotected the page. It's probably no longer necessary now. Thanks for letting me know. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 16:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Review of admin actions 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 in 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 OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

RealDealBillMcNeal

This post of yours [25] suggests that you intended to block RealDealBillMcNeal for a week - but two days later he was 'contributing' again - with repeated violations of WP:BLP policy along with general belligerence and soapboxing. [26] Perhaps you should consider enacting the block for the duration intended? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

You guys seem to be mistaken, that block was from an incident last month. They served the full week and have not been blocked since. However I've read the ongoing discussion and I feel a new block is warranted, especially given their previous behavior. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 17:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Oops - you're right, I'd misread the block log. Anyway thanks for dealing with the situation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Anytime. :) Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 05:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Germanwings Flight 9525

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 10:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hm, well the article activity seems to have died down and there doesn't seem to be many efforts at disruption, but of course that may be the deterrent effect of PC. Still, I don't see anything that leads me to believe it absolutely needs to be extended. I think it's definitely been useful in protecting the article but I also think we can safely test the waters with unprotection for awhile. If it doesn't work out, I'll be more than happy to reinstate it. Let's see how it works out though. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 05:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Richard Hammond

How about this one? --George Ho (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Review of admin actions

I was asked, as an arbitration committee clerk, to edit one of your headings to a less accusatory and more neutral wording and so I have done so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Less accusatory?? Tell me you're joking! You were asked by the person MAKING the egregious accusations!!!! Wtf!!! I wasn't aware being an arb clerk gave you the right to modify my postings. Less accusatory? More neutral? Ignoring the fact that I'm being slandered with lies on the very same page. This is unbelievable. I have more important things going on and if this is the way I'm going to be treated here then it's not worth my time. Good luck with the backlog, all. Peace. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 14:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Swarm, this is just a personal comment. Being brought before the Committee has to be tough for anyone and particularly an administrator. However, if it's any consolation to you, you aren't the only one. I wouldn't get defensive or upset about the perceived injustice of it. Why don't you reconsider? To be fair, though, you should expect there to be other bumps along the way. Just take a deep breath and try not to let it get to you. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Swarm, what I neglected to say in my statement above is that you can revert this edit if you so choose. I have been corrected and I apologize if my words have had a negative effect, that wasn't my intention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you Bbb. The thing is, I actually do have serious things going on in my life and Wikipedia is simply an enjoyable hobby. If I can't edit Wikipedia without having to put up with ridiculous bullshit such as this, then I'm only harming myself. I'll be happy to work on the project again once this bizarre waste of time completely blows over, but until that happens, you can consider me indefinitely retired from the project. Regardless, my entire history here is perfectly open for anyone to scrutinize. I have absolutely nothing to hide and am not rage-quitting the project or anything. I just can't deal with this bullshit right now and will not waste my time defending myself. I hope that's understandable. Best regards, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 02:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • In mild passing, accepting the case is not an assumption that there is wrongdoing by anyone - it's simply acknowledgement of an ongoing and painful dispute that is unlikely to be resolved by other means. The case hasn't been accepted yet, but please be assured that you are welcome to take part if it is, and equally welcome not to take part and let your record speak for itself. In the mean time, and if possible, please don't let this distract you from actual editing. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Hey Swarm, I don't think a break is a bad idea - it's always a good thing to do when tempers are shortening. If it allays any fears, I saw what you did when I did my investigation back when I start looking at this case, so if it is accepted I will be presenting that as evidence. I hope you have a good break and come back fully refreshed Worm^TT(talk) 07:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks to both. I really don't feel it would be possible to continue editing normally when I'm unwillingly a party in an arbitration case (which, let's be honest, is a fairly serious event). I believe my being named as a party in this case is quite plainly a retaliatory act by an editor who has a vendetta against me because I blocked him. I have been nothing but reasonable in my dealings with this editor and did not even make a big deal about his immediate unblock. I understand there are many other issues at play and that accepting the case does not mean I did anything wrong or that I am in trouble for something. I'm fairly confident that my good faith and administrative integrity is pretty obvious to anyone who wants to investigate me. But still, I can't edit when I feel a larger dispute I barely consider myself a part of is being used by an editor to try to get back at me. And of course I'm immensely comforted by the fact that you'll be a part of this, Worm, no other editor can serve as a voice of wisdom and reason quite as well as you can. Best regards to all. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 03:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Case

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone_and_Others has been opened. For the arbitration committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 15, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

User block

I noticed you were the admin who blocked Arifbehapiee for their disruptive editing and continued addition of original research, and since returning from that block, their editing has continued and only gotten worse. They're also repeatedly uploading non-free images that fail Wikipedia's policy, and continues to upload them, despite their deletion. I've attempted to re-file the vandalism report and it continues to be ignored and deemed "stale", however, another block is warranted as they returned immediately from their 72-hour block and began making the same edits, and continue to do so over-and-over again. Would you be imposed to putting another block on them for a longer period of time? It's clear they're here to disruptively edit Wikipedia and continually add-in factually-false information. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 15:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi.

Is it true you're accepting adoptees? Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you tell me who Dr Dec was?

I'm studying Wikipedia so I could become an admin around next year approx. But as I went by, I noticed a (former?) user named Dr Dec- I'd like to learn about who this guy was. I heard he is a bad example to be in Wikipedia? Is that why his profile and all his very existence disappeared in Wikipedia?
ＨａｎＳａｎｇＹｏｏｎＵＳＡ [ Discussion ] [ History ] 08:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed decision posted for "OccultZone and others" arbitration case

Hi Swarm, in the open OccultZone and others arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you.  Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

June 2015 Wikification drive.

Greetings! Just spreading a message to the members of WikiProject Wikify that the June drive has been started. Come on, sign up! :) "A wiki of beauty is a joy forever." Seriously. That's how long it'd take to read! (talk) 04:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others closed

An arbitration case regarding OccultZone and other editors has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. User:OccultZone is banned indefinitely from English Wikipedia. They may appeal the ban after twelve months, and every six months thereafter.
2. User:OccultZone is also topic banned from making edits related to a) sexual assault or b) crime on the Indian Subcontinent, both broadly construed.
3. User:OccultZone is indefinitely limited to operating a single account.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC).

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#OccultZone and others

GOCE June 2015 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2015 News May drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 38 people who signed up, 29 copyedited at least one article, and we got within 50 articles of our all-time low in the backlog. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Coordinator elections: Nominations are open through June 15 for GOCE coordinators, with voting from June 16–30. Self-nominations are welcome and encouraged. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi Swarm! I have finished the article, if you would like to have a look on it: article draft. Thank you and best regards, --Samothrake (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back!

A belated welcome back to the project to you, Swarm. Glad you decided to return! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you! I appreciate that! Best regards, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 17:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Request Protection Reduction - Scream Queens 2015 TV Series

Hi there! I was wondering if you would be able to reduce the protection on the Scream Queens (2015 TV series) article so registered users can contribute. Thanks in advance. Brocicle (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey! So currently the article protection is at its lowest level. Anyone can contribute and any registered editor who's confirmed or autoconfirmed can edit freely. The only restriction on the article is that non-confirmed editors' (mostly IPs) contributions are subject to review by pending changes reviewers. Are you asking for this protection to be revoked completely or does that clear it up? Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 18:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I originally asked as I went to undo pending edits by IP users and it wasn't accepted. I read via the protected page information that new users as well as IP users needed to be confirmed and was confused as I've been a registered user for quite some time. I think it might have been a glitch or something that wasn't letting me contribute but thank you again! :) Brocicle (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Zekenyan

Zekenyan broke 3RR once again, see here: [27]. Since you're the admin that blocked him twice before for the same reason, I thought it would be best if you handled this once again. Nonetheless, thank you for your time! AcidSnow (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Achilles' heel#Is it suitable?

Hello, Swarm. You have new messages at Talk:Achilles' heel#Is it suitable?.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--59.90.80.83 (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Adam Kotsko

You wrote. "This incident appears to be a legitimate content dispute that hasn't caused a significant amount of disruption so as to warrant any sort of intervention. I think both sides have merit to their viewpoints". Actually, this has been the source of huge disruption, hence the page being protected [28], previous editors and their socks being warned at 3RR, 2 editors blocked, editors notified about AE:DS and an ANI thread still open. Consensus had been reached that the inclusion of a twitter joke — reported solely by a number of right-wing blogs and mentioned by the right-wing WT — was UNDUE on a page about an academic. Shibollethink has arrived out of the blue and decided that he can unilaterally determine — and overturn — the existing consensus. Consensus can change — but not immediately and not without discussion again. By reinserting the contentious material, Shibollethink has restarted the edit warring and has now assumed some kind f first mover advantage, with you as his enabler. I have restored the status quo ante bellum and notified previous interested editors who were involved in reaching consensus that this material was UNDUE. Keri (talk) 07:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• First of all, what you're saying to me here is completely different from what you've said at AN3 and in the ongoing discussion on the talk page. Second of all, I merely observed that the report you filed did not warrant administrative action as of yet. Beyond that, I was not taking a stance in the content dispute in any way, shape or form, so I certainly don't see how I enabled your opponent in the dispute. I only sought to clarify how BLP plays into this dispute, and that you're not exempt from edit warring policy. Not because you're wrong in any sense, merely because you were citing it in your arguments. Furthermore, if consensus had truly been reached, you have given no indication of that incredibly-relevant fact, instead continuing to argue a content dispute you're now telling me has already been settled. Moreover, the logged reasoning given for semi-protection was sock puppetry, not the ongoing content dispute. And, furthermore Susan, enforcing an existing consensus is one of the strongest reasons for reverting changes, why you haven't explained this consensus to the editors who are challenging it is beyond me. Anyway, I have no problem with restoring a stable version and will recommend that they refrain from edit warring over this insignificant content and avoid escalating the situation, but based on my review of the current dispute, it's nothing to get too terribly worked up about and everything will be better should you remain cool. Regards, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 07:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Evelin Banev

No BLP violations occurred by unregistered users. The article as it stands is one giant NPOV violation. Alakzi (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• The article as edited by Alakzi is the grandiose NPOV violation - all information is accurately cited and represented. Alakzi should edit accordingly, not delete the contents of the entire page. Swarm please review the contents of the long-staning page and see for yourself if there are inaccuracies - all content is dully cited and factual (kidnapping, lawsuits, book - why is all of this deleted?), yet this is a very controversial figure fallen out of political grace (as seen in the quick and drastic edits). Please protect and thanks for your involvement. DiscSquare (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • why is all of this deleted? Because I've no faith that you or your predecessors were faithful to the sources or that the sources are reliable; the language used would suggest otherwise. There's not one bit of that article that's salvageable. It completely fails to mention that his acquittal was overturned by the supreme court and begins with "Banev ... was formerly accused of criminal activities" - an utter falsehood. Alakzi (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI, Swarm, Alakzi brought this to ANI. Your input is welcome. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• The protection has nothing to do with your dispute, Alakzi, just as I had to point out to you last time, so if you could quit trying to drag me into it, that'd be great. Several months have gone by since we last discussed this and you've made absolutely zero progress in resolving this dispute. Either you're in the wrong, or you simply haven't tried, which is no one's fault but your own. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 17:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oh, also, semi-protection protects against edits by non-autoconfirmed users, not unregistered users. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 17:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, he did not bring you up at all. I mentioned you and asked for input only because you had semi'ed the article, and might know some not-obvious background that explained what was going on. But I agree, the two issues are not related as such. Thanks, sorry for the confusion. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

He did specifically bring me up, I was the admin he was personally attacking at ANI, furthermore he was continuing to complain about it here as well, he's definitely taking the semi-protection as me taking a stance in favor of his opponent in the content dispute. I appreciate you letting me know however and I don't have much to contribute in terms of dispute resolution but I just thought I'd weigh in there anyway. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 20:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Farrokh

You might want to have a discussion with Doug Weller concerning the use of Farrokh as a source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Why? Does he know something I don't? If I was wrong then by all means, I believe you, but I was just basing that comment on our own Wikipedia article for the guy, which makes him out to be an expert in the field. :P Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 17:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

To put it succinctly, there was a misunderstanding between Doug Weller and Farrokh. There was some communication between the two, with the end result being that despite Farrokh's writings, he is not an academic historian and is not to be used as an historical source. If you would like to verify this you can contact Doug. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

If you say so. I really don't care to get involved though, please make an attempt to explain your reasoning when reverting good faith contributors so that situations don't escalate to the point of having to explain it to uninvolved administrators. Regards, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 03:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

With reference to: Wikipedia:AAU

[Adopt-a-User] says you might be able to help me out. I'm rather new to Wikipedia and really wouldn't mind a bit of extra help if you're able and/or willing to do so? If not, that's cool, but I'd rather ask before I jump straight in at the deep end. KesterAnt (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I'm absolutely willing to help with anything you need! Feel free to come by my talk page whenever. Anything in particular you need help with right now? Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 19:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I should say I'm not interested (really) in creating new articles, more in helping clean up older ones. But aside from basic spelling/grammar (like my few edits so far), but does there become a point where that becomes superfluous?

A couple of small things I've noticed too - a sentence on one article that doesn't really make sense in the context that exists, a couple of bits of info that were taken out of one place because they were wrong, but weren't necessarily removed from elsewhere (like here, the [Antrim Plateau] link can't be right, Antrim and Londonderry are separate areas of Northern Ireland) but at least in the case of the latter I wouldn't have a clue about where to start to fix that.

In other words - yeah, I need help with the really basic stuff right now, I'd rather not accidentally edit the wrong thing :P KesterAnt (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Alright. Well I'm the same way, I've never really created articles or written significant amounts of content. Minor cleanup, refining older articles in various ways, making small, individual improvements, and stuff like that is absolutely always necessary and appreciated! We even have a lighthearted name for editors who are dedicated to those tasks: WikiGnomes. Minor tasks such as "Wikifying", copyediting, reverting vandalism, and even random page patrolling are all very important tasks that many editors dedicate themselves to, especially when they're first starting out! Once you get comfortable working in those tasks, it's easy to branch out and become more involved in other things, if you want to. When you see things in articles that need fixing, the best thing you can do is be bold and fix it! You can never go wrong when boldly making well-meaning edits, and even if you make a mistake, edits can easily be undone. If you see something questionable that you're not quite sure how to sort out, you can go to the article's talk page, or, if necessary, the reference desk is a great place to ask questions about pretty much any topics. Sometimes you'll just have to do a bit of digging around to find sources for new information. It all comes down to what you're interested in doing here. Wikipedia's a work in progress and always in need of improvement! Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 04:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Swarm

"@Dirtlawyer1: Hey, I believe you! I made that clear to DiscSquare back in March, in fact. Despite the fact that both users seem to think my semi-protection of the article was some sort of gesture of becoming involved in their dispute, it was not in any way whatsoever and I am literally not a part of it at all."

• Swarm, thank you for responding as you did above yesterday afternoon. I am sorry that I did not get a chance to follow up before the ensuing dust-up. I understand where you are coming from, even if others do not. I think the present approach on the article talk page and at BLPN should force a resolution of these matters. If not, I know what to do. Feel free to delete this after you have had a chance to read it. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Note to other editors who may be following this discussion: THIS IS NOT AN INVITATION TO ANYONE TO RESTART THE PREVIOUS CONTENTIOUS BACK AND FORTH WITH SWARM. Everyone has had ample opportunity to make their points known; it's time to let it drop, and stop harassing Swarm. There are other experienced eyes on the substance of the subject article now, which was what was needed from the git-go. If there are further problems with biased editing on this article -- in contravention of WP:BLP, NPOV, RS and V -- I will be the one to take it back to ANI for administrator action, and I'm pretty good at playing prosecutor when circumstances force me to do so. The present discussions on the article talk page and at BLPN are intended to force a resolution of the ongoing dispute in a manner consistent with the reports of independent, reliable sources that are available on the net. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

My RfA

Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Oppose so you get only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

Question, re: Pending changes reviewer status

Hi again, Swarm! Quick question – is there any "minimum qualification" for being granted Pending changes reviewer status, like there is with Rollback? Or will anyone who has demonstrated they're not a vandalism account be granted Reviewer status upon request? I'm looking at the 'Becoming a reviewer' section, and I'm not seeing any mention of a specific "minimum edit count" or anything, but I was wondering if there's any "informal" qualification that's used here. Thanks in advance! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Not really; the spirit of the law is essentially that pending changes reviewer should pretty much be granted to anyone who can be trusted to edit normally. Any responsible editor who wants it should be granted it without issue. There are no special qualifications such as minimum edit count or previous experience. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 03:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Uninvolved Admin

Hi Swarm, I would request you to consider giving your opinion, as an uninvolved Admin, on an ARCA discussion featuring me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Imposition_of_an_Arbitration_Enforced_Sanction_against_me_by_Bishonen Soham321 (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Community desysoping RfC

Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks aplenty for the rollback approval! And apparently pending changes review too, didn't even think to ask for that.

^BLUSTER⌉⌊_BLASTER 11:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Need help in posting new

Hello Swarm. I have had an account for many years with Wikipedia but have not contributed anything in several years. The process has become rather complicated and I need some help in posting a new entry. I am a retired journalist and thus am a rather facile writer. I would very much appreciate your help in this. Many thanks. Stan Wellborn (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Stan Wellborn

Of course, what exactly do you need help with? Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 18:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section header

how you could delete this Copa del Rey Topscorers by Season and Copa del Rey Topscorers. I worked so hard for them and with referencias. I do not understand. Do you have any connection with football ?? how do you want to improve the encyclopedia. by deliting good articles ? Alexiulian25 (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Alexiulian25: Hi there, I'm so sorry your article was deleted. I know it can be difficult when you put work into something only to have it deleted. I hope it won't discourage you from editing here. However, I didn't make the decision. Both articles were nominated for deletion as being non-notable topics and underwent the standard one-week deletion discussion. The consensus in both discussions was a unanimous decision to delete. The discussions can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copa del Rey Topscorers and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copa del Rey Topscorers by Season. Someone suggested the content of the articles could be merged into Copa del Rey. I will gladly restore the articles in your user space if you want to incorporate the content. Just let me know. Regards, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 19:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Alexiulian25 (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)Ok, if does not worth a separate article. lets put the information in the main article of Copa del Rey, even if would be a long article and hardly to find fast the information you need from there ?

Okay. Just so we're clear, the content isn't guaranteed for inclusion. Someone may disagree and you'll have to discuss it with them, not edit war. But I have no problem with you adding it! I'll move them into your user space, so they will be located at User:Alexiulian25/Copa del Rey Topscorers by Season and User:Alexiulian25/Copa del Rey Topscorers. I recommend you copy those links onto your userpage for easy access. Userfying now. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 19:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Alexiulian25:  Done. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 19:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

On Autopatrolled rights..

Hi, Swarm! As an Admin whose opinion I trust, and as an Admin who is self-professed "willing to give extended rights to eligible users", I was wondering of you could take a look at the following discussion, and post your thoughts either there, or here?... I'd like to get one more opinion before I take this on to VPP. Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• I commented there. I'm unreservedly in support of lowering the requirement. Swarm ♠ 00:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

User:AllThingsMultimedia (fka: Whyedithere) edit warring again

Swarm, you might want to drop by User:AllThingsMultimedia's talk page and size up the situation. He's back at the edit warring, at OS X El Capitan. He's got his original edit and three subsequent reverts in the span of about ten minutes. Perennial combatant User:AlexTheWhovian, left an edit warring warning on his talk page, but AllThings/Whyedit doesn't seem to understand the fundamentals of WP:OR or WP:VERIFY, and persists in reverting. I've left links to the appropriate policies on his talk page, but given his temperament, I imagine he'll just revert them without any attention to them. Thanks! --Drmargi (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Drmargi: Hey, sorry I didn't reply sooner. However now that we have some hindsight, it looks like he hasn't edit warred since your message, so that's a good thing. Let me know if there's another conflict though. Regards, Swarm ♠ 16:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, he managed to teflon out of another edit war, and he and AlexTheWhovian are still going at each other at any available opportunity. But we both know he'll do it again. We've also got an SPI pending about him that's been sitting inert since it was filed (he's clearly a block-evading sock of Andrewwikiedit), even with ducks quacking madly. It's frustrating. --Drmargi (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah SPI is severely backlogged at the moment. I'll review the case if I have some time a little later. Swarm ♠ 23:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. That would be great. --Drmargi (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Gerard J. M. van den Aardweg

Hello, Swarm. I would like to respectfully ask how you could close the AfD for Gerard J. M. van den Aardweg as keep, given that the AfD had been relisted because there was no clear consensus, and no votes, either for or against deletion, occurred after that? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, this one. It wasn't a great discussion and no one contributed anything too significant and despite being relisted it appeared that nobody had anything more to contribute, and it was clear there was absolutely no consensus for deletion and I didn't see that as changing, which is why I closed it. Despite the weakness of the arguments presented, the consensus was that the article was notable, in part due to the books he's published. No one presented any evidence in the discussion but I did do some research on my own and those arguments seem to be reasonably justified, I was able to find multiple books he's authored as well as references to him in multiple journals and news sources, some of which were in other languages. Nothing that would make me think the "keep" votes should be discounted. Furthermore the only other delete voter had kind of a convoluted argument that didn't actually support deletion in my opinion. He basically proposed that the subject was potentially notable but the references need to be vastly improved. However, notability is not determined based on the number of references in an article, merely upon the existence of those references in general. He said the article should be deleted *in its current state*, which, when an editor offered to improve the article from its current state, that point is rendered moot. Regarding your BLP concern, I don't see it as being a violation in any way, but questions as to its neutrality, should they still exist, should be easily resolved as there's not much prose to work with anyway. Swarm ♠ 09:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Unlike you, I think that it definitely is a BLP problem to have an article that consists of very little more than a sentence accusing someone of having bizarre and/or extremist opinions, especially when it's not apparent in that article why the person is actually notable or deserves an entry at all. You remark that, "notability is not determined based on the number of references in an article, merely upon the existence of those references in general". If that's true, it is the first I've heard of it. I believe your decision should be taken to deletion review. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Well if that's a new concept for you, I'd urge you to brush up on WP:NOTE. It's made pretty clear that it's the benchmark for the inclusion of a topic, rather than a guideline on any specific article content. It holds no such requirement on the actual inclusion of sources, which are covered by WP:V. The two similarly rely on WP:RS but should not be confused. Notability is merely a test to determine a subject's inclusion in the project. Swarm ♠ 22:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC) It's known by everyone that even an unsourced article can still be notable. I'd also urge you to brush up on BLP, as there's nothing inherently wrong with such claim being presented in an article that is clearly attributed to a reliable source. Whether it's neutral or undue weight might be a valid issue for discussion, but it's not an outright BLP vio in itself. I understand you disagree with the outcome, but I'm honestly not sure how anyone can look at that discussion and make the suggestion that I misjudged a "delete" consensus. Swarm ♠ 20:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that there was a consensus to delete, Swarm. I am suggesting that the result was a no consensus, which you incorrectly read as keep. I will be seeing what I can do about this. Regarding BLP: WP:BLP is a rather broad policy, and it appears to be intentionally worded such that a wide range of things can be considered violations - including failure to respect due weight. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Not trying to sound condescending here but a "no consensus" is a default keep so regardless of that opinion I'm not sure what the purpose of you're argument is since the de facto end result is the same either way. I certainly think argument-wise the 'delete' argument was fairly weak and had been aptly argued against. I stand behind the close, but again, it's merely an academic question. But on the contrary to what you're saying about BLP, it's absolutely not a "broad policy", it's actually very specific. BLP vios are simply prohibited and leave no room for debate on the matter. Stretching the reach of BLP beyond what the policy specifically says, to summarily and arbitrarily exclude content that isn't actually prohibited by the policy would create a creeping effect that isn't conducive to a collaborative, consensus-based project. BLP is very strict and it's there to protect both the project and individuals from harm and as a result it's very finely tuned in what it demands. It should be followed to the letter but it should not have any creeping effect that overrides our usual practices and procedures. Swarm ♠ 07:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I explained my reasons at the deletion review discussion. I have a perfectly good - and actually quite obvious - reason for wanting to change the outcome. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I know you explained your reasons at afd but you failed to get a consensus by your own admission. Not saying you don't have a reason for preferring a non-consensus, just that I'm not sure what a change in outcome would effect. If it's because you want to renominate it for deletion you can still do that. By all means pose your argument that the contributors were dead wrong and the closer is a bumbling idiot if you want. Swarm ♠ 15:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

A belated thank you

Hi Swarm, I don't know where my manners are, but I intended to offer you a solid thanks for your vocal assistance during my RfA. So here it is: Thank you! Much appreciated, and it's good to know that there are good eggs out there who can see through the zombie pile-ons at RfA. "Copyvio?! FNARGH!! Details not matter! OPPOSE!" I hope I can count on you to help keep me an honest admin. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem Cyphoidbomb, no problem. Let me say again how pleased I am with the result, not to mention the opportunity to bring a voice of reason to RfA for a change. :P I was nothing short of impressed by your own frankness and assertiveness at RfA; in spite of sparking "temperament concerns" you stood up for yourself and it's good that you did, I think that's an important quality for an administrator. I'm confident that you'll make a fantastic admin. Feel free to drop by anytime if you ever have any questions or just need a second opinion. Thanks for the note, best regards, Swarm ♠ 19:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

My secret this time around was to not treat it like a job interview, because it is not one. The people who described my Questions for the Candidate responses as flippant were correct, because they were. I disagree with the claims of bad temperament as ridiculous and hypocritical. If admins are supposed to be thickskinned, then when they make an accusation that is patently false, (like that I deliberately added copyvios) they should be thickskinned-enough to be told they are incorrect instead of getting pissy and flip-flopping their votes. Ooh, how dare he defend himself! Anyhow, it's over, and I didn't gloat in front of anyone like a child with a poor temperament might. Oy! :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Obviously I agree completely, but still that's a surprisingly brave approach to take to the gauntlet that is RfA. Few could get away with that but you did. Someone could link that to a previous example of incivility and thus fabricate a "behavioral pattern" that would result in a candidate being eaten alive. And yet not a single person was able to. You're alright, Cyphoid. You're alright. I enjoyed your RfA very much. :P Swarm ♠ 20:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Liz/Bureaucrat discussion: Difference between revisions, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Please stop, you have been asked not to harass me, then you post this. GregJackP Boomer! 18:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@GregJackP: Hey just because you lose an argument against me doesn't mean you can come to my talk page with spurious accusations of harassment and threaten me! That claim literally falls flat on its face given the fact that I offered to let it go and you insisted on arguing (albeit poorly) every point I raised. Oh, not to mention the fact that we were on an open community forum. I reject your warning as completely invalid and inappropriate and yet another sign of your poor behavioral tendencies. So if you want to report me to administrators, you should do it right now, and you should probably initiate my recall process as well if you're so confident in your claims of "harassment". Swarm ♠ 19:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please don't ping me either. I have no desire to listen to, as you put it, your diatribe against me, nor to be further harassed by you. GregJackP Boomer! 19:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@GregJackP: still waiting on you to take any action on this supposed "harassment". The only harassment going on here is that warning you made a point to leave on my talk page. Swarm ♠ 19:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Relisting for a third time...

Hello there Swarm! Came across your third relists in AfD, and was puzzled. Just to be clear, I'm not pointing to it as a mistake (even it maybe so) rather, asking it just out of curiosity . WP:RELIST says so, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice. Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation (in addition to the {{relist}} template) on why they did not consider the debate sufficient. The thing is you did not leave comments on any of the third relists. You have a reasoning for that? Or admins need not do that? Or you were unaware? Anyways, cheers --JAaron95 ^Talk 13:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I actually wasn't aware of the bit about leaving a comment on third relists, so thanks for letting me know! I will strive to remember this in the future. I stand by all of my decisions though, including those to relist for a third time, the reasoning for this is pretty straightforward. Swarm ♠ 15:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Khirbet Susya

Why did you relist this Afd discussion? I see 1 merge nomination + 1 comment that looks like he wants to merge, 3 keeps + 1 comment that looks like he wants to keep. I don't think there is much room to relist such a clear keep, also in view of the arguments presented. Debresser (talk) 07:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Ha, I came here to ask exactly the same question. Even if a load of editors suddenly appear calling for deletion (which, sadly isn't entirely beyond the realms of possibility in this tooic area - note the final commentor in the Susya, Har Hebron AfD), I can't see how this could possibly end up being deleted (no consensus is realistically the only other possible alternative outcome, which is practically a "keep" result anyway. Number 57 08:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Any chance of an answer? Number 57 23:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Pinging this again. Number 57 08:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what kind of explanation you want. Relisting, or extending the discussion to achieve a clearer community position, is self-explanatory. AfD is not a vote and the overly-simplistic assessment of the discussion holds next to no credibility. Conflicting opinions had been raised and I felt more discussion could take place and more editors could weigh in, and I was obviously right. Your analysis of a "clear keep consensus" has been noted but consensus is not assessed by the involved editors who have gone on record as wanting that result, period. Kindly stop pestering me about this, my time is literally better spent anywhere rather than justifying a perfectly uncontroversial, straightforward, and legitimate extension of an AfD discussion to editors who think I should have just closed it in their favor. Swarm ♠ 18:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

"Kindly stop pestering me"?? I'm sorry, but if that's your attitude to a simple request to explain a clearly controversial relist, then I think you need to reconsider whether you are fit to be carrying out such actions. Shocking. Number 57 09:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Columba Bush, Carly Fiorina the editor named Winkelvi, and edit war

The editor named Winkelvi has reverted the description of Columba Bush from "American" to "Mexican-American". The term American has been in the article for years. The term "Mexican-American" should not apply because according to the MOS for bios it is clear that the introductory sentence refers to the person's nationality of the country from which their notability comes from. She is notable because she used to be First Lady of Florida. Mexico has nothing to do with that. Also, in the Carly Fiorina article there is a whole section that just bashes her. I put a template on that section that points out that it is a coatrack and he removed it. It seems to me that Winkelvi is an editor with a battleground mentality and I was wondering if you could take a look at his edits on those two articles?--ML (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I've protected Columba Bush for a few days because there looks to be a legitimate policy-based dispute going on (editors are disputing your assertion that her Mexican heritage is unrelated to her notability. This does not appear to be unreasonable and you should continue discussing it with them and seek dispute resolution if necessary). I don't think the dispute over the tag at Carly Fiorina warrants any action. WV appears to be trying to help remove negative commentary and I would suggest you two focus on how you can work together to improve that article rather than dispute whether the tag "must" remain there. Swarm ♠ 18:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough.--ML (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Closing AfDs

Just a reminder that AfDs should be left to run for a full 7 days unless they meet one of the criteria for early closure. Several of your recent closes have been up to 10 hours early, and this one was over a day early with no indication of early closure being justified. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 07:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Michig, thanks for the friendly reminder. I'm well aware of what deletion process says, and that AfDs in general should be run for at least 7 days but there's absolutely nothing wrong with uncontroversial early closes with straightforward and unanimous consensuses, pretty sure the majority of said closes fall under that category. As for the other ones being closed slightly early, I feel the closes were reasonable; in the spirit of WP:BUREAU process is important but adhering to process for the sake of process is not necessary not beneficial. Swarm ♠ 16:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Closing AfDs a day early where there have only been three participants is not a good idea in my view. Many AfDs attract editors who just !vote Delete to virtually everything and it's not unusual to the nomination and one or two early !votes to be poorly thought out. There's no reason not to let them run for the full 7 days unless one of the specific criteria for early closure is met, in which cases it would be a good idea to indicate which of those criteria applies. 23 AfD closures in 7 minutes is also rather hasty. --Michig (talk) 18:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright, well thank you for the feedback, I get where you're coming from and will definitely bear it in mind. Don't want you to think I'm hastily reviewing these though, I take my time in assessing the discussions on the main list page and then I tab out the ones I've decided to close. Once I'm done going through the discussions, then I can quickly go through the tabs and quickly perform all the closures in one fell swoop. It's the easiest and most efficient to go about it, but rest assured that the 7 minute close grind is only the byproduct of a substantial time investment in actually reviewing the discussions. Best regards, Swarm ♠ 17:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: Supergreg22

Just noticed this, but you put down 72 hours as the result on ANEW, yet only blocked them for 31 hours. Just curious as to which one it's supposed to be. Heh.

PS: I like your talk page's design. Amaury (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

-_- It was definitely supposed to be 72, I'm not sure what happened or why, just a misclick on the twinkle block menu I guess? :P Oh well, maybe 31 will do the job...I hope. And thanks, I shamelessly stole it from someone a long time ago. I can't remember who, but I thought it was pretty cool. :P Swarm ♠ 17:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Hey there Swarm, I wanted to give you a more personalized thank you for your help during my recent RfA. Your comments were incredibly helpful throughout the entire process and I greatly appreciate the time you put into them. Also wanted to thank you for your huge vote of confidence, which I'm sure is rooted mostly in your principles of handling RfA nominations. Hopefully we'll see each other around more often since I'll be becoming more active "behind the scenes" of Wiki.

Best regards, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: Hey, no problem! You did meet my RfA criteria and obviously I was impressed by your content work but I was especially impressed by the way you conducted yourself in your RfA. You handled it masterfully in every aspect and that in itself demonstrates an exceptional level of competence and clue, and that left me especially confident in supporting you. People always find a reason to oppose, but faulty opposes shouldn't go unchallenged. I'm glad your RfA was a solid success, congrats on hitting WP:100 and again, welcome to the team! I definitely hope to see you around as well and I'm sure I will. No matter what areas you choose to expand into, the extra help will be much appreciated. Brush up on policies beforehand, but remember that admins are always learning on the job, so don't be afraid to make mistakes! Don't hesitate to drop by my talk page anytime you need advice or have any questions. I'm always willing to help out! Enjoy your new tools! Thanks for the kind message and I'll see you around. :) Swarm ♠ 02:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Sardarji joke

Good day. I noticed you left a message on the talk page of an editor who is having an issue on the above page. Is there any way to get more comments on the talk page of the article so that consensus can be achieved? Currently, there have been zero (other than mine) comments to that editor's proposed change. I was hoping some of the editors who watch over the article would participate more, but to no avail so far. I waited a while for him to self-revert his violation of the 3RR rule, and finally reverted it today, which he reverted. I've reverted back, but really don't want to get into a war over this. I only got involved through my anti-vandalism patrol. Anyway, I see he's reverted me again, so I'll post again on the edit war board. Any input you could give would be greatly appreciated. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi there onel5969. I would recommend Third Opinion, then Request for Comment, then the dispute resolution noticeboard. Let me know if this editor resumes edit warring over this though, as far as I'm concerned they chose to refrain from acting in good faith and have dodged a bullet thus far. Swarm ♠ 21:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Yeah, he started right back in at edit-warring. I reported it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Js82 reported by User:Onel5969 (Result: Page protected), and got accused of edit warring myself. Plus the article was frozen with his changes in it. Oh, well. No good deed goes unpunished. Anyway, thanks again. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on him. :) Swarm ♠ 02:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

GOCE August 2015 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors August 2015 Newsletter July drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 24 people who signed up, 17 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. August blitz: The one-week April blitz, targeting biographical articles that have been tagged for copy editing for over a year, will run from August 16–22. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the article list on the blitz page. Sign up here! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, KieranTribe, Miniapolis, and Pax85. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

sent by Jonesey95 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Resolution to "User:Ferret reported by User:151.252.246.63 (Result: Stale) [29]"

Hi,

he reverted it back again. Would you please take action now?

User:151.252.246.63

(My IP changes, but no matter) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.39.147.40 (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Swans2012

Hi Swarm. Just wanted to let you know that this user, which you blocked the other day, returned to continue doing more of the same, as you can see from this diff.LM2000 (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

SPI in bad faith

Recently you closed two ANI 3revert reports made by human3015. The reports were made against me and Fauzan. Human3015 has now opened a SPI against me and Fauzan. In my defence, in order to show bad faith, I have used your closing comments on the ANI report where you warned Human3015. Will you be kind enough to visit the SPI page and state the fact that you actually made the said comment because I just copy pasted it from the ANI. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC) The SPI he started is here FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thank you for approing my request! CHEERS! Scr★pIronIV 12:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks ScrapIronIV, you know me so well... No worries ;). Swarm ♠ 04:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the support

...on my recent unblock request. I promise I won't make you end up looking foolish. See you around the project. Useitorloseit (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Useitorloseit: No problem, glad to see it worked out for you. :) See you around and congrats on your return! Swarm ♠ 04:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI

As a response to Lootbrewed's comments here regarding this diff: [30], I had no idea his comments had been removed from the article talk page when I collapsed the discussion. I'm not sure how it happened, but it was completely unintentional. He and I have had our differences, but I would never do something like that on purpose. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: of course, I never thought otherwise. Swarm ♠ 04:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Good. Thank you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Protection of New York article

Hi there! Would it be possible for you to restore the increased protection level to the New York page? It's been nothing but chaos since the protection level was reduced, and I was never quite sure why the level of protection was reduced on this article, which is intrinsically a target for mischief. Thanks for looking into it! Best, Castncoot (talk) 03:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Castncoot: Hey! I assure you this wasn't an arbitrary act. The editing of Wikipedia, by default, is open to all editors ("the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit") and after four years there's literally no way of knowing if semi-protection is still necessary on this article. It's not fair to permanently shut out non-autoconfirmed editors without ever reviewing the situation. What's more, the article was indefinitely semi-protected before pending changes was officially implemented so there's no knowing whether that's a feasible alternative. That is why I've instated it now. Yeah, the article's edit rate has increased with vandalism and non-productive edits, and that's to be expected, and I certainly wouldn't call the situation "chaos". Are you familiar with pending changes? Non-autoconfirmed users submit their edits for review, and they don't actually appear in the article unless they're reviewed and approved by a pending changes reviewer (any user can decline a pending edit by reverting it). Looking at the article's history, pending changes is working perfectly, with no bad edits getting through, and it isn't being unnecessarily burdened by a high edit rate, with almost all pending edits attaining review within one minute to a few minutes. With the exception of yesterday, the article has only been experiencing 0-1 vandals in a given day, plus a couple attempts at spam. Frankly, I'm not seeing any problems with pending changes nor harm being done to the article itself.

I assure you that the article is still being protected as it was before and that I have been and will continue to monitor the pending changes protection and will modify it if necessary. Nothing so far indicates that the protection level must be re-raised immediately. And of course we can consider reverting to semi-protection if pending changes proves to be of no benefit whatsoever in the long run, only serving to burden the reviewer/anti-vandalism communities while providing no benefit to the article whatsoever. I will not hesitate to restore the semi-protection if that turns out to be the case, but not enough time has elapsed to be even be able to determine the medium-or-long-term situation. In other words, it's not necessarily a permanent situation, but for now, it's working (if only to reconfirm the necessity of long-term article locking). I sincerely thank you for all the work you've put into this article so far.

On another note, is there any particular reason you don't have any extended user rights? I'd be more than happy to grant you some additional abilities if you're interested, as I think it would benefit the project. Swarm ♠ 04:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me so quickly! And thank you for keeping a continued eye on this article for the above issues. I am familiar with the pending changes protection. Personally, I suspect that this particular page would do better with semi-protected status from a disruption standpoint, but as you said, it's very early yet. I'm flattered to be asked about extended user rights – sure, I would be interested in a few simple ones, I had just never thought about it, nor had I been asked. Best, Castncoot (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, let me decline your kind offer for now. I just don't have the extra time commitment that I'm sure would be involved to at least some degree, and that wouldn't be fair to the project; but if this changes, I'll let you know. Thanks again! :) Best, Castncoot (talk) 05:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I understand, Castncoot, but honestly if you'd like the reviewer and rollbacker abilities to start, let me know. They're simple tools that will not affect your editing nor do they require additional time or effort on your part at all—honest. They might come in handy if needed though! Swarm ♠ 08:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

You've convinced me, Swarm - sure, why not, I'll try them! Thanks! Best, Castncoot (talk) 11:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)