User talk:Swarm/Archive 11

Guidance
Looking at Edit_warring, I see:
 * "Where multiple editors edit war or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues."

On looking at the history of Emma-Jayne Wilson, I see: 0854 16 January: User:Montanabw reverts my edit, claiming "better phrasing". 0515 18 January: User:Cbl62 reverts, claiming "restoring status quo during discussion" 2319 18 January: User:Bagumba reverts, claiming "no consensus on the talk page", referring to the discussion I began a day earlier.

Consider the behaviour of User:Cbl62. 20 reversions of articles pending discussion: 0921 15 January: 0922 15 January: 0922-0933: 17 reversions, as per Cbl62's user contributions 0933 15 January:

Your comments with respect to the initial quote on fairness welcome. If you consider a block of 60 hours for 3 edits during ongoing discussion to be fair and reasonable, given your comments of "…it is nothing short of inflammatory, counterproductive, disruptive and irresponsible to continue edit warring over it while other editors are attempting to hash out a consensus…", what fair and reasonable figure do you propose for the twenty referred to above?

I'm finding it difficult to reconcile the guidance given to admins to "consider all sides" with your comments about "nothing short of inflammatory, counterproductive, disruptive and irresponsible to continue edit warring" and Cbl62's twenty edits meeting exactly that criteria. To my mind there seems to be an inconsistency here, and I welcome any comments you might have.

1. Did you consider all sides, as per the guidance notes? 2. If not, why not? Edit-wars usually have more than one participant. 3. If so, what exactly was it about Cbl62's twenty reverts that persuaded you to take no action, when my three reverts incurred a 60 hour block? --Pete (talk) 10:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It's just amazing to me to see Skyring persistently inviting Admin attention when he is the pot calling the kettle black. He has repeatedly reported others to 3RR over winningest, yet he is the one making mass reverts. He keeps posting appalling personal attacks on others for their interest in such a "lame" topic as winningest, "it is clear that DB views the word "winningest" as mandatory and will go to extraordinary lengths to see it included. Including edit-warring while discussion is ongoing in three different places. He has nailed his manhood to the mast on this word being mandatory in this and hundreds of other articles" He reposted that "manhood" attack twice today, after having already gotten away with posting the same insult on January 14. Other editors are worthy of contempt for changing winningest on a large number of articles, but who got a 60 hour block for changing winningest on a bunch of articles? Skyring, the hypocrite. After finally redacting today's personal attack on the MOS talk page, Skyring proceeded to double down on the offensive insult, saying that "DB nailing his manhood" to a dispute, was only "claiming a personal attack. I wouldn't call it that, but perhaps he felt it was a little close to the bone." This is essentially repeating the same attack on a new page. This guy has been blocked for I think five times for 3RR violations, yet he runs around casting aspersions everyone else's mental health because they revert articles? He's been blocked -- I think twice? not counting arbcom blocks -- for personal attacks. This editor wouldn't even be paying any attention to motorcycling and sports articles if he weren't Wikihounding me. Never once cared about the topic -- or the 140 articles, including severeal prominent FAs and GAs -- that used winningest until his personal target Dennis Bratland got into a dispute over it. Skyring only edits Wikipedia so he can follow people around and pick fights with them, then report them to 3RRN or ANI to try to get them blocked for it.Over and over, he gets WP:BOOMERANGed for it, yet he never quits because he's not here for any other purpose.So yeah, Skyring, you do everything you can to get Admins to put your antics under a microscope. Good plan.And Spacecowboy420? Same Wikihounding, working as a meat puppet alongside Skyring. How's that going to end? I try to spend my time creating new content, yet these guys, these puppets, along with Zachlita and 72bikers, create nothing. They make obnoxious, controversial deletions then proceed to fight on talk pages for weeks on end, all so they can "win" battles. Somebody needs to intervene. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Others may be amazed, but I'm interested in seeing how the discrepancies in admin conduct work out. If one user is blocked for three reverts while discussion is ongoing, then why not another editor for doing exactly the same thing. If this issue isn't addressed here, I'll take it to WP:AN, get more eyes on the topic, see if we can resolve the issue.


 * No, I'm not interested in motorcycles per se, except maybe as cultural objects, such as their appearance in the 1969 Easy Rider. I am interested in language, however, which is why my own is always interlarded with wordplay. And, as a sort of side amusement, editor behaviour. Those editors who are unable to admit any error, who display hypocrisy, who nail their colours to the mast in a personal fashion, they aren't good for Wikipedia, because they never compromise.


 * I like Wikipedia. Not just a valuable repository of knowledge, but an Internet success story. So many diverse folk coöperating to create a marvel. I think we need to keep it open, keep attracting new editors, and we aren't going to do that by having rules that are enforced unevenly, and editors who bite newbies. There's enough sober old veterans around to stamp out misbehaviour, so yeah, let's get more eyes on this thing. --Pete (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Skyring, I really have not been following this dispute since blocking you and don't really have a desire to, but your refusal to drop the stick is beginning to wear down my patience. Administrators are volunteers who are never required to use their tools, and that's the way it has always been. I'm sorry you feel like other users should have been blocked alongside you or something, but if you have a problem with someone's' behavior you're free to take that up in the proper forums. But you were the one under investigation and this is not the place to "right great wrongs". S warm   ♠  01:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is your behaviour, and I've been moving this along slowly in order to give you a chance to respond before taking it further. It may be there is some factor that explains all and I'm willing to keep an open mind. I don't care about the block. That's in the past. However, if an admin ignores the specific instructions (on examining all sides in a blocking war) and then tries to ignore the very complaints of unfairness that he is warned will occur, then there's a problem, and one that will likely recur in the future. I think that this is a discussion that needs more eyes, and I'll move it along to WP:AN if you feel unable to address the points I first raised on my talkpage here seven days ago. I trust that, as someone who examines the wikiactions of others, you are happy to have others look at your own. --Pete (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

This is absurdity. You clearly have a vendetta over the block and as such have latched onto a sentence that directs administrators to the common sense notion that edit wars should be dealt with fairly, as in one party should not be unfairly singled out—and now you're attempting to stretch it to apply to this situation. I'm perfectly confident that my extensive history in dealing with AN3 reports shows that I do not, in fact, unfairly single out one side of an edit war, ever. In fact, it will show that I rarely ever will block if there's no 3RR vio. It will show that I am generally pretty lenient, as I was with you. You're ignoring the fact that administrator policy explicitly states that administrators are never required to use their tools. And you're ignoring the very blatant fact that you were not simply blocked for regular edit warring. You were blocked for disruptive editing behavior. You were blocked for continuing an edit war after attempts were made to discuss the issue. And after someone addressed the edit warring with you. And after you indicated that you were not taking part in the edit war as it was under discussion. And, yes, after, based on your block log, causing substantial disruption here in the past. So, no, there isn't a problem with my behavior, which is always public record for anyone to review and examine as they see fit, the problem here is quite clearly with your behavior specifically, evidenced by both the past and your ongoing attempts to condescend, harass and intimidate. I will not humor this petty grudge over a block you consider unjust by defending completely justified actions. My comments at AN3 were sufficient enough. I will gladly argue for a WP:BOOMERANG instead. So enough of this. If you're going to AN, don't forget to notify me. S warm  ♠  07:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Block evasion
Hi Swarm, looks like the editor is evading his block: and. &mdash; Vensatry (Talk) 09:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just in case you missed this. I'm pretty sure that's him: &mdash; Vensatry  (Talk) 04:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

User talk Peripitus mention
Hi Swarm. I mentioned you in User talk:Peripitus regarding a block you made of back in September 2015. For reference, the thread initially started as a discussion of edits made by another editor, which is why I posted my concern/question there and not here. I pinged you, but I just thought I'd post here just in case it didn't work. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Mackenzie Lintz
On what basis was this actually deleted? notability was never an issue, she was one of the main leads on a major network show which ran for 3 seasons, and her page view statistics for the last 90 days was over 4000 views..Its also on 12 other language wikis....2ndly, when the article was PROD'ed, I was never notified (the creator) so didn't really have the chance to come fight it..so please restore the article, its notable, well referenced and definitely meets WP:NACTOR...please next time double check which article an admin delete as trolls (anons/new editors) intentionally tag articles for their own personal propaganda against certain actors they do not like..-- Stemoc 15:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi there . While I'm sorry your article was deleted, please dial down the implications of negligence on my part and bad faith on the nominator's part. That's not appropriate given the fact that I did review the article prior to deletion and I do not see any reason whatsoever to doubt the good faith of the nominator much less label them a troll committing "propaganda". Please refrain from making any further accusations of bad faith. To answer your question, the article was deleted as an uncontested PROD, and had a valid deletion reason given that is logged in the deletion log. Nothing you say above actually addressed the argument given for deletion, which I came to agree with upon review. I actually cringe when you claim the article was well sourced&mdash;there were only three sources, with one fan site, one passing mention and one four-sentence bio. But as you know PRODS can be contested at anytime, even after deletion, so I will gladly restore the article to let the community decide on this. S warm   ♠  02:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Creation–evolution controversy
Only one edit is reverted, but that's the only edit by newly registered user. Renew PC regardless? --George Ho (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for help
Dear Swarm,

I justed started editing on Wikipedia after I read this article, which I found in violation of WP:Selfpromotion, WP:Autobiography and WP:Notability. I have put in an AFD-tag and since listed the reasons:

- Author is the subject himself.

- Many claims are exaggerated if not outright outlandish (claimed "featured collaboration" with Noam Chomsky is merely an interview conducted by the father of the author/subject, many claims are either not verified or verfied by sourcing articles written by the subject himself, etc.).

- I also have some concerns regarding the notability.

Since I put in the AFD-recommendation, I have discovered that there is at least one sockpuppet who is arguing against the deletion. User: Rinko87.

Being new to Wikipedia, I'd wonder if you could have a quick glance and tell me if I am out of line. If you don't have the time, I understand of course.

Many thanks and best regards -- Hybris1984 (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Account creator
I am not involved in the Education program because it is narrowly focussed at training in an academic setting. However, I am active in Wikipedia training to a variety of other audiences in Queensland. Most recently on Feb 8 & Feb 9, I trained two groups using the Visual Editor hosted by the University of Queensland as part of Wikimedia Australia's ongoing program of outreach. These events are listed on the Wikimedia Australia site; if you need to confirm that I am the trainer involved, feel free to contact Wikimedia Australia. The account creator right is needed by anyone who does training as you can have the problem of too many new user accounts being created from the same IP address. Fortunately I have not had that problem recently so I have not had to exercise the account creator right, but I do need that right going forward. My reading of Account creator is that right is available to anyone to those in the Education program or other outreach, so I don't understand why it is being removed without any preliminary inquiry. Given the amount of my time and effort that goes into outreach, I feel I am entitled to that minimal courtesy. Please restore my account creator right and I suggest you contact the chapters about who is active in outreach before removing this right from others. Kerry (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey . I thank you very much for the outreach work you do and for all of your contributions. I apologize if you took this as a discourtesy, it was not my intention to slight you in any way. The availability of the account creator right was specified in 2013 as extending to " active account creators...while they are performing their duties". Furthermore users who conduct outreach events are generally granted account creator only on a temporary basis for the duration of their events; we do keep track of them these days and they are not allowed to carry the flag indefinitely. Despite this, there are still a great many users out there who continue to carry the flag despite long since becoming inactive in their respective programs. So, we're attempting to more efficiently track inactive account creators and perform procedural revocations when warranted, in adherence to the rules determined by the community. So, you got caught up in our auditing of inactive account creators. You're obviously in a more unique position and I apologize for not deducing that on my own. Of course I agree you should be able to carry the flag for your continuing outreach work. I've reenabled your flag and I'll add you to our whitelist, and of course I'll try to take more care in avoiding revocations for other Wikimedia outreach workers. Take care, S warm   ♠  20:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. The inherent nature of outreach is that it occurs off-wiki and therefore activity/inactivity cannot be readily deduced from anything on-wiki. I think that does need to be coordinated through the chapters mailing list as I would think a lot of outreach occurs through them, although there may be people operating independently of chapters, but I have no good ideas about how to identify those folks. Kerry (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

test
Hi Swarm, this notification is to let you know that If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask. Thank you! S warm  ♠  20:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow – some Admins really are hard on themselves!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * :P S warm   ♠  22:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Weird – that 'ping' I never got. Hmmm.... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

My topic ban
Hi Swarm, is this an ok time for me to have my Balkan topic ban reviewed? I haven't made many edits and I haven't truly demonstrated yet that I would be useful and nonconfrontational but it just happens I ran into a problem here- if you follow that lead. I was away at the time but I was not able to defend my position of wanting to keep an article I created in existence because I was not even allowed to discuss it as per the conditions of the topic ban. I was forced to delete it from my user page. Whilst on the subject, there is another thing making me feel overly uncomfortable. Since most of the socks I created were not intended to conceal my identity (I never knew back in 2010 that blocking accounts means a person is 100% banned), or draw too much attention to it either, I stand by most of the edits that those accounts made. That means, I want to add to my user page creation of Butcher of the Balkans which I created as User:Neutral Fair Guy on April 2, 2013 (here at the contribs). Every single one of those edits was intended in good faith. As it stands, I cannot even edit from that account because the talk page access was cut by NawlinWiki. I can still log into it though. I feel cross for two reasons, one because the Butcher of the Balkans I created (as a redirect) was deleted and recreated by Ego White Tray when really it was mine, and the second problem is that the credit for those edits has gone to Evlekis instead of me. I desperately want it known that it was ME who created Butcher of the Balkans, and that was my prime motive for inventing Neutral Fair Guy. If you restore talk page access, I'll even log in and say "hello" before you revoke it again just to prove it. Can you give me any advice here please SWARM? Sinbad Barron (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:AN regarding list of account creator requesters
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — xaosflux  Talk 21:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

You decide what to do
In doing some account creation tests I made an account. I can email you the credentials if you want to be in control of it, then you can acknowledge it here, else I will indef block it as a test. — xaosflux  Talk 02:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * indef blocked, I'm tossing the password, and it has no email. — xaosflux  Talk 02:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, thanks. Don't really need it. :p S warm   ♠  22:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Archived...
Any thoughts on ? Thx. Sinbad Barron (talk) 13:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a good idea to appeal the ban yet, only because you haven't been editing much so there's not much to prove that you are able and willing to stay out of trouble. You've been pretty active over the past couple of weeks, but prior to that you've barely edited at all. I'd say continue to contribute in other ways and don't worry about the topic you're banned in for now. If you need suggestions for other areas you can become involved in, I'd be happy to make some recommendations. I think you're doing fine so far and I think you'd be fine with the ban rescinded, but I'm not that confident the community will be comfortable trusting you without an ample demonstration and I don't think you've made that demonstration yet. Of course, that's just my opinion, you're free to appeal your ban and I'll be more than happy to weigh in. I just think it's still too soon given the amount of activity. S warm   ♠  22:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:AN3
I like your closure better than mine. How about if I close as 'blocked indef for socking by User:Swarm? I'll leave the links to frwiki in place. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed the part where your close said two weeks so I saw no reason to alter it. But sure, sounds good to me! S warm   ♠  05:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Regrettable but necessary
That's what I think of your block of Lewisthejayhawk. I was one of the complainers but at the same time I acknowledged the good work he has done. He just refuses to listen and he reverts legitimate edits without giving any reason. Sphilbrick blocked Lewis once before. Lewis seemed to get the message for a while. Hopefully it sinks in deeply and permanently this time....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Maunus and Mayas
You didn't say this, because you were being properly diplomatic, but, at the beginning, it did appear to me that Maunus was implying that I was acting in bad faith by treating the 3 as overriding the 9, and that I was in bad faith using the policy of ROUGHCONSENSUS incorrectly. I think that you and I both understand what happened. I don't understand what Maunus now says. I also think that BMK confused thinks by closing the AN thread, which was a proper place for closure review. I won't pursue this further unless someone else pursues it further. Thank you for trying, but it appears that what was a valid objection to a close has been tied in knots. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors April 2016 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi
I saw your name at WP:ADOPT and liked your message the best? How do I go about being mentored?--MaranoFan (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week&thinsp;: nominations needed!
The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of Buster Seven   Talk  for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for adoption
Hello. I am a new editor at Wikipedia. Originally, I thought that I could learn my way on Wikipedia without assistance. However that was a misjudgment from my part as I ended up doing many mistakes. An editor suggested that I could be adopted, therefore I decided to make a request for adoption. Initially, I requested to be adopted by a user who has the same interests as me so that could be very helpful for me. However, due to real life obligations the user declined. I made another request to someone else but it has been a few days and I haven't heard back from the second user. I need someone to help me with many many things and even though I do not know if we share the same interests I believe that we can sort something out. Also, right now there is something that troubles me and I would like to seek advice and guidance for it so as to avoid making another mistake. Is it possible to adopt me? I am looking forward to hearing from you. Thank you, Irene000 (talk) 09:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Possible error in Wikipedia
please verify: Illustris project This page displays different content in overview section than available in edit form and also it violates NPOV.--Asterixf2 (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_error_in_Wikipedia --Asterixf2 (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

second opinion wanted
Hi, I nominated I don't see how it was demonstrated that these fictional characters satisfy the GNG? Also, can consensus override the GNG? Thanks for any opinion you have to offer. Best regards, AadaamS (talk) 09:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Serena van der Woodsen (2nd nomination) - but the debate ended with a non-admin closure by SSTFlyer without it being demonstrated how SvdW has independent notability from the actress or the series.
 * Articles for deletion/Dan Humphrey another non-admin closure by user SSTFlyer.

Need guidance on Wiki
Hi! I found you in the list of users, who want to adopt nebies :) Assaiya (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:GAC listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect GAC. Since you had some involvement with the WP:GAC redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  Jujutsuan  ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; &#124; talk &#x7C; contribs) 06:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Protection of Quantico (TV series)
Hi Swarm. I see you semi-protected Quantico (TV series) because of persistant vandalism. I don't see the vandalism there. I see a content dispute, that's about it. What am I missing? Toddst1 (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Replied at RFPP. S warm   ♠  21:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Mja0029
Hi Swarm,

This user is also apart of the list of users' whom you just recently blocked. I also tagged their userpage for deletion. Regards— 172.56.42.142 (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You were correct, I didn't see their deleted edit at first but they're obviously just a troll. Thanks! S warm   ♠  21:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The deal
Swarm, what's the deal with your accusing me of canvassing, biasing the article, IDHT, etc? I've been a relatively minor contributor at this article for years and have agreed with past consensus, in 2011 and 2014, that the war was ongoing. I was not the editor who implemented those decisions, nor the editor who commented most. Also, I pinged all editors who participated in those past positions no matter what they argued then. I think that's only fair. They're all good editors and, if you're correct now, they'll probably agree with you, and maybe convince me too.

It's my job to call it as I see it, and answer the question you've asked in your RfC. I can accept if the community disagrees with me, and I can change my mind. But it's not appropriate for you to begin launching personal attacks against me. That's not the way editorial arguments are supposed to proceed here. I apologize if I've launched attacks against you, without realizing it, and precipitated your response. -Darouet (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * P.S. I was curious what other international media say, and to get an indication I checked the German, French and Italian pages. They all agree with you, and I made a note to that effect on the talk page. -Darouet (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia
Hi there, I am new to the Wikipedia world. I am currently in a Cognition course at George Fox University and we are currently learning how to use Wikipedia properly and look for articles that fit the topics that we are looking for. I will be sure to let you know if any questions come up. Thank you, hleavitt14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hleavitt14 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Choosing an Article
Hi there, I went through five different articles that have to do with memory, and I have to choose one that I can edit. Can you please comment on them in my page and see which one needs the most editing, or would be the most interesting to look into? Thank you, Hleavitt14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hleavitt14 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

NPP & AfC
A dedicated venue for combined discussion about NPP & AfC where a work group is also proposed has been created. See: The future of NPP and AfC --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey buddy!
Swarm! I just noticed that you're active again (I saw you in ANI) and I wanted to leave you a message to say 'Hi!' - How've you been? I hope life is treating you well! :-D  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   14:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Unfounded block
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AAydinsalis Could you please explain what this means? ]
 * Here (WP:DEADHORSE) it is stated: "There comes a point in every debate where the debate itself has come to a natural end. You may have won the debate, you may have lost the debate, or you may have found yourself in a draw. At this point you should drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass". But the debate is not over. Jimbo Wales invites us to debate again ("If you want to do something productive, I recommend that you get other editors - even those who disagree with you - to come and talk to me").
 * or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive... But there was no consensus! Aydinsalis (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Block request
I want to be blocked for 5 days because I help Wikipedia. Gary &#34;Roach&#34; Sanderson (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins) .MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob 13 Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

Editor of the Week seeking nominations (and a new facilitator)
The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

My topic ban
Hi Swarm. Some time back I decided to apply for my topic ban on Balkans affairs to be lifted, I began the conversation at AN. Sorry I didn't inform you but it was looking like you were not tremendously active so I wasn't sure what to do. Should you return to fulltime editing then this message is here as a courtesy to inform you that I continue to appply for the ban to be lifted. Thanks for all your help in every other way since my reinstatement. Sinbad Barron (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news
 * A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
 * Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
 * Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news
 * When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
 * Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
 * The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries
 * JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk page of El C
Hi, I am logging out after posting this message to you. Please visit talkpage of, I have pinged you there like 24 hours from now. I dont remember now what it was. But please, do take a look at it. And please, witn 10 edits per day, scrutinise all my 2100 edits. By that speed it will take around 7 months. And if you find even one "not angel" edit from me, I am willing to do whatever you say. I will contact you again on September 15th. That will be my next edit on wikipedia after this one. Pinky swear. As per my promise, I wont be able to comment on AN3 notice board either. And by anything, I literally mean anything. To find the truth about JFK, I made myself very good friends with everybody that were related to the incident. If you know what I mean. I am on good terms with all these groups/parties/organisations since last 2-3 years. (I have been studying it like since 5-6 years from now, and then like 3-4 years ago, I got obsessed with it, and initiated contacts with them.) so yes, I can do anything almost anywhere on this planet. Talk to you on Sept 15th. — usernamekiran [talk]   23:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you're asking me to go through your edits, but request denied. S warm   ♠  00:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You accused me of being "not angel", of being malevolent. I want you to prove it. Kindly comply with the request. Sept 15, 2017.


 * Also, please take a look at the last two statements in my previous message. — usernamekiran [talk]   00:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * New updates on El C's talkpage. Kindly comment there, marking that you've read the updates. Thanks. — usernamekiran [talk]   00:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of being malevolent. I accused you of being disruptive. "You're no angel" is a common expression to convey that one is not free of sin or guilt. I was referring to the edit war you reported and was pointing out that you are guilty of the behavior you were reporting. Which is true. If it wasn't true, you would not have been sanctioned by an administrator. But, fine, I'll humor you. I'll go through your edits and see if I can find something objectionable. Oh, look. "I will contact you again on September 15. That will be my next edit on wikipedia after this one. Pinky swear." Looks like you broke your promise with the subsequent edits you made. Gotcha right there, breaking a promise. That was easy. So, about this favor you promised me...I'm afraid I don't have much faith in your promises any more, so I'm going to have to decline your generous offer; I just don't want to get my hopes up. But please, send my sincerest regards to your mysterious shadow "groups/parties/organizations". Good to know that they care about their very well respected and upstanding fanbase. S warm  ♠  03:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope, because of our communication through emails, that you understood why I want you to scrutinise my each and every edit. I also hope that you understand the gravity of situation; it is very important for me/my feelings that you scrutinise my edits. Thanks again. — usernamekiran  [talk]   22:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:ANI. S warm  ♠  23:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Info
The IP is TAWT, they have been trying for over a year to get me blocked and finally got it done. My user and Talk were locked down because of it and put on the watch list of several admins and users. For more on it all you can see the ANI from November 2016 filed by one of those users here Geolocate and the edit summarys gave it away, that's how I knew it was him. Those edits removed content and pushed their POV, I was under the understanding the 3RR did not apply, I was mistaken clearly. I asked for page protection and as I was filing 3RR report you blocked me. Feel free to block me again for however much you like as I will no longer be editting on Wikipedia, TAWT got what he's been trying to get for over a year. I have put up with this crap for over a year from TAWT and he finally got me, good for him. So feel free to reblock me if that's what needs to be done. Chris "WarMachineWildThing"  Talk to me 08:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds familiar. What's a TAWT? I naturally ass-ume it stands for The Aforementioned Wombat Trap? Anyway, there's really no need to quit over this. El_C 09:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The Abominable Wiki Troll=TAWT. Done with the bs Ive NEVER been blocked, now I have a mark on my record caused by a user who has been trying to get me blocked for a year and they finally got it done. Reblock me I don't care anymore, the accusations thrown at an Admin that they played Favorites was the final straw so I'm done. <b style="color:Red">Chris "WarMachineWildThing" </b> Talk to me  09:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So you have a single block/unblock mark on your record—have you seen the reductio ad absurdum that is my block log? That reminds me: it's been almost ten years since my last block, who will do the honours? Nah, don't quit over this. So you misread WP:3RRNO—and maybe not if that's the same IP stalker from before—it happens. El_C 09:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The accusations made against Oshwah of playing favorites was the last straw for me and yes its the same user it's this user. It's always them has been for over a year. I can always pick them out by edits,  geolocate, and summarys, but it doesn't matter now. <b style="color:Red">Chris "WarMachineWildThing" </b> Talk to me  09:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree that there's no need to quit over this. There's a person out there who supposedly harasses you online as a hobby, and you think that this IP is that person? Yet you didn't think that was relevant information to include? You gave absolutely no indication of any other issue at play in your complaint against the IP, and thus the incident was treated as a normal edit war. It's nothing personal against you. You gave specific reasons for reverting the IP in your edit summaries, and you complained about the IP at RFPP. Nowhere did you make any claim that you were reverting because it was a sock. Surely you know that we have a process for reporting socks? You didn't use that process, and I'm not a mind reader. Also, I told Oshwah in advance that I may have jumped to the wrong conclusion and if that was the case I am sorry. S warm  ♠  09:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I was in the middle of making a report about it at ANI and SPI when someone blocked me. There is no supposedly to it this shows more than enough, my Talk page history before it got locked down is more than enough, but whatever, reblock do whatever, doesn't matter now. <b style="color:Red">Chris "WarMachineWildThing" </b> Talk to me 09:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Todd Heap
Hey, I would just like to let you know that you accidentally protected a vandalized version of Todd Heap. I've since removed the vandalism. Thanks! <b style="color:#FA0">Darylgolden</b>(<b style="color:#F00">talk</b>) Ping when replying 05:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No they didn't, this edit did. Unless you are referring to something else. --Endercase (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That really looks like a possible sockpuppet case to me, here is a list: . There may be more, but these all had very similar/same edits. Endercase (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I was referring to Swarm accidentally semi-protecting the page while it was still in its vandalized state, forgetting to revert the edit you stated above.
 * The vandalism on Todd's page came at the same time as when news outlets began reporting about Todd Heap's crime. There is usually an increased spike of vandalism after media coverage of news as damaging as this. The vandals likely came due to this news and are likely distinct people who only made similar edits because of this news, so I doubt they are sockpuppets. Thanks, <b style="color:#FA0">Darylgolden</b>(<b style="color:#F00">talk</b>) Ping when replying 13:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Protecting a BLP that is getting vandalized while in a vandalized state is not vandalism it is an oversight IMO (per AGF).
 * I would agree that these are not socks, if each diff was different. But their diffs (for the most part) are exactly the same and use the exact same wording in the exact same location suggesting they are in fact same user. Also many of the IPs only have that one edit registered to Wikipedia, and I don't think that someone's first edit would be to restore the exact same vandalism as another user in an infobox no-less (from masked? IPs even). Primarily, I am referring to the IPs that placed the term "child killer" in the position infobox. It is far more likely that this is the same user and that that user is familiar with Wikipedia IMO. Most people would respect a person's article after they accidentally killed their own child in a vehicular incident, the accounts I referenced look to be attempting to troll. This to me, appears to be one user evading a block by using multiple socks. Endercase (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I know you have some experience with socks, what do you think about this?  Endercase (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I know you have some experience with socks, what do you think about this?  Endercase (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer
Hello, I thought I might ask before formally requesting the WP:NPR privilege for some advice. I have previously done the New Page Patrol, before the creation of the new right, and I am getting back into it again. The Page Curation tool was fantastic and so I want to do everything possible to be able to access it once again. What kind of things you are looking for when approving / declining and what more can I do to make my contribution history look more enticing to WP:RFR patrollers like you? Thanks for the help in advance, greatly appreciated! Have a nice evening. Best, Nicnote  •  ask me a question  •  contributions  00:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Permission request
Swarm - thanks, that will be most helpful. Separately, I love inventive userboxes (and sometimes recycle them) so I enjoyed yours! Zymurgy (talk) 06:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The rules

 * I'm sorry I wasn't aware that removal of Comments is O.K. and rollback isn't.

Xx236 (talk) 07:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

AWB
Hi there Swarm! I was wondering if you could review my request for AWB (direct link) if at all possible? I think it would be beneficial to my editing. Also, there are 6 pending requests there. Thanks for your time. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ S warm   ♠  03:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I did not get a notification that my user groups were updated? Is this perm different or? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a formal user group, I just had to add your name to the approved list. S warm   ♠  03:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. That's something new. Thanks! :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Still mad?
You still mad at me? I still feel bad, and guilty about the whole ordeal. I really do. That's why I tried to apologise to you through Fluquonebam. I'm really sorry :-(

Would you please forgive me? Please? Please talk to me something. At least decline my rollback request. But please would you be my friend? I feel bad and guilty for all that happened between you n me. :-( — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (talk)  03:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks For The Rollback!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks"> Hello Swarm, DoABarrelRoll.dev has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Personal attacks
I expect a response:. Thank you. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well? If you're handing out poor blocks for personal attacks like "baloney" then surely unfounded accusations such as "uber creepy," "stalking," and "harassment" merit a response. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I have not received an answer. I ask again per WP:ADMINACCT: I was attacked and harassed in that same discussion. Anythingyouwant's summarize that, as well as the attacks against him. Explain why you choose to ignore it.
 * No fair reading of that thread or the talk page discussion which prompted it could see Anythingyouwant as aggressor or instigator. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:SPECIFICO has since turned up on my talk page warning me I may not be "at large" for much longer. What does this mean? Why are you not taking action or responding here any longer? Mr Ernie (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You're framing the fact that I didn't block VM as an admin action in need of some sort of justification. You're presenting me with quotes in which a user accused you of stalking them. I and no other admin is going to issue a block based solely on an accusation of misconduct without investigating the matter. The simple fact of the matter is that I have not devoted the time to investigate your behavior to determine whether the claims are justified or constitute personal attacks. Nor do I plan to. Nor am I required to. I stepped in as an uninvolved administrator to issue a block with a limited scope, I will devote time to explaining the block but I'm certainly not going to get more involved at this point. S warm   ♠  04:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No. You blocked Anythingyouwant for making personal attacks towards other editors. I presented personal attacks made towards me in that same thread. I list them again:
 * Stop acting in an uber-creepy way
 * Your behavior has crossed the 'uber creepy' threshold some time ago
 * ''Lambden's obsessive actions and stalking have been creeping the fuck out of me for a few months now
 * These aren't content or policy complaints – they're offensive personal attacks. You blocked for mild personal attacks. I assume you read the thread where Anythingyouwant made his sanctionable comments before blocking him. If you did you couldn't have missed these. That contradiction requires explanation. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

-- What was the personal attack you blocked for? (I see no diff.) Was a warning out of the question? El_C 04:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Block has been explained in greater detail on the talk page. S warm   ♠  07:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What talk page? El_C 07:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How hard would it have been to note the diff of what the block was for? Maybe someone else can help with that, since you clearly seem disinterested in explaining yourself. El_C 07:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's on the talk page of the blocked user in question. Is there something further you're asking me for? I have repeatedly explained the block on that page and have posted diffs. I'm not sure how I'm being uncooperative as you're suggesting. S warm   ♠  08:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not seeing it. I'm asking what the user was blocked for: just humour me and let me know what it was. El_C 08:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How can I find which edit the user was blocked for (diff, please), because obviously I still don't know what it was. El_C 08:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for any confusion; if you look at User talk:Anythingyouwant, I've subsequently explained the block in painstaking detail in my comments there and diffs are provided. Regards, S warm   ♠  09:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The confusion continues into what it was. The exact passage. Was it just cut out your spin doctoring? Because if so, I'm just not seeing that rising to personal attack block—maybe a warning. Maybe. El_C 09:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Really, eight diffs?(!) Just quote the most offensive remark, if you will. And please explain why you didn't choose to warn first. I'm a breath away from approving the unblock request, mostly because your block seems rash and not even-handed. El_C 09:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

- I approved the unblock request and unblocked the user. Hope that's okay. I did go through the diffs you provided, but I also gone through the other user's listed items of misconduct. Sorry, but your block was not even-handed and there should have been at least a warning, to both users. In general, please consider adopting a policy of warnings for personal attack blocks to avoid unnecessary drama. And please remember to try to be even-handed in heated disputes. Thanks. El_C 10:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:El_C thanks for the measured response. I and several other users yesterday begged Swarm to respond appropriately, but he seemed quite content to drop a match on a tinder box and then walk away. Swarm please consider this event with how you approach blocking during heated discussions moving forward. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, I don't think your lecturing tone toward Swarm is appropriate. This block was a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion, and is readily justifiable in that removing Anythingyouwant from the dispute in question immediately improved the situation. I take the point that his personal attacks could have been handled with a warning rather than a block, but I think that argument ignores context (specifically, Anythingyouwant's well-documented decade-plus history of disruptive behavior on partisan political topics). The main argument here seems to be that other editors deserved sanction also, which is really not a reason to unblock Anythingyouwant. I think this unblock fell short of administrative standards, in that it was undertaken without significant feedback from other uninvolved admins, and really the only input into the discussion around the block has come from people intimately involved in the disputes which led to it. I think that dynamic creates the false impression that Swarm's block was unjustified. More concerningly, the unblock will likely be interpreted as validation by Anythingyouwant, when his behavior was clearly inappropriate and a net-negative in terms of productive discussion. So I think we've succeeded in enabling disruptive behavior while attacking an admin who was willing to address it. (For the record, I'm commenting here not as an admin, but as an editor; I've played a role in identifying and cataloging Anythingyouwant's inappropriate behavior over the years). MastCell Talk 16:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Is is really that difficult to look at Anythingyouwant's contribution for the prior week? Here are some highlights. 
 * Personal attacks:
 * "VM only confirms here that he is a liar"
 * "I retract "liar" now that you've been caught at it, and substitute that you're careless and indifferent to facts, insulting beyond belief, and among the most counterproductive and contrary editors on Wikipedia. "
 * "As usual, MrX is either delusional or simply doing whatever he can to get rid of me, or both, given that my proposal at the talk page in question was to move a section to which I contributed absolutely nothing."
 * "Was MrX lying above? Of course not, he is merely deliberately mistaken; does that sound nicer when I phrase it that way? "
 * "MrX, you ought to know better than to put slanted POV-pushing garbage into BLPs, but you do so (or support it) all the time. "
 * "you have the gall to come here now to hound me about a bogus 1RR accusation that is as stale as mazoh. NeilN must have been high on something when he vaguely suggested that Ad Orientek might have been mistaken about it."
 * "I inserted Grassley into the lead while omitting Feinstein in order to hopefully avoid deletion of the whole thing by POV-pushing leftist editors. "
 * Refers to user Neutrality as (non) Neutrality
 * "Please stop propagandizing in the lead."
 * General hostility and politicizing disputes:

In my experience, this would be enough for a 6-month-to-indefinite topic ban had it been taken to AE. Swarm's block was both reasonable and proportionate. AYW's conduct has been declining for about two weeks, I suspect because they are frustrated that they have not been able to gain consensus for many of their edits. A block is exactly what is needed when someone's poor conduct escalates without any indication that it will stop.- MrX 15:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The topic in general had been on ANI for a few days, with a separate posting on AN. No admin cared to weigh in (aside from User:MastCell's very thought provoking comment). So after a few days of no admin help, with the situation continuing to escalate, User:Swarm jumps in with a block, no warning, no attempt at defusing the situation (he's perfectly within his rights as an admin to do this), and then accuses someone (seems like me) of having a personal affinity with Anythingyouwant - with no attempt to justify this accusation. I'm sorry that I took issue with this, but I just don't think these actions were the right admin actions. I'll leave this topic behind now - thanks to User:MrX for your comments here too. I disagree with you regarding blocks - I don't think they're ever needed when people get heated over content. Sometimes a few kind words is all it takes. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I accept that blocking an established editor for personal attacks is controversial and usually attracts an admin sympathetic enough to unblock and I hope the whole episode will have some sort of an impact on AYW's behavior in the future, but had this not been an established editor, a 72 hour block would be considered highly lenient for that level of conduct. It's a little hard to accept that it's normal or acceptable to approve an unblock request that falsely denies any wrongdoing, while you yourself are repeatedly asking what the block was even for. In fact, I've never seen any unblock request in which a user falsely claims innocence approved without any question like that. Have you, El C? Especially when I repeatedly and at great length explained that the block was for a persistent behavioral pattern, and provided evidence of clear personal attacks over the course of multiple days, something this user denied outright in their unblock request and claims a lack of diffs as evidence of their innocence. Yet, when I provided the diffs as was demanded, you said "Really, eight diffs?(!)" It's as if you ignored the clear pattern of personal attacks. Perhaps you just unblocked because I didn't "quote the most offensive remark"? Or because I didn't explain why I didn't warn? (Spoiler alert: I did.) You chose to ignore my repeated explanations of the block and dismiss it as "rash". You chose to ignore the fact that they lied in their unblock request and you still approved it. MrX has kindly done the work of quoting the personal attacks so I don't have to. Did you see all of that? Because you offered no agreement that there was anything wrong with their behavior. Just mine, right?! I explained why I only blocked the one user, why did you dismiss that as a "one-sided block"? Why did you ignore everything I said in justification of the block, while simultaneously accepting an unblock request that literally made false claims about the situation? I continue to stand behind the block and second that the poorly-reasoned unblock approval was highly irregular and suspect, given the fact that I had thoroughly and repeatedly been responding to concerns that were brought up. S warm   ♠  18:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Swarm I think it's time for you to drop this. People don't all agree with your block in the first place. I don't see a good resolution if you insist on continuing to litigate this issue. You still haven't provided any diffs or justification to your claim that some of us have a "personal affinity" with AYW. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I apologized for the "personal affinity" remark in my subsequent edit, and again I apologize, it was not meant to be a specific accusation but an exasperated response to your implication that there was some sort of behavioral issue on my part. However, please don't tell me what to do on my own talk page, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop commenting here. I bear absolutely no ill-will towards you, nor do I intend on continuing an extended argument over this block, but I have every right to respond to the overturning of one of my administrative actions. S warm   ♠  19:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I hope this issue works out to your satisfaction. I'll see myself to the door. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

- I stand by my unblock. This was a rash and not even-handed block. Personal attack blocks without warnings are problematic in and of themselves. But when you do so in a way that is not even-handed —a fact which you continually fail to address in any meaningful way— it compounds rather than diffuses a dispute. This was an ill-conceived block because of that. It is not how admins are supposed to handle disputes with established editors. Both users needed to be warned; you blocked just the one, and entirely ignored the other. That was a mistake that needed to be remedied. And most editors familiar with the dispute agree. Next time: warn first, block second. And be even-handed. I can't stress that enough. Be even-handed. El_C 00:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * See, it's hard to take this seriously when you're lecturing to me in a professorial tone about basic blocking policy and norms and decline to respond to any of the reasons I disagreed with your decision. You involved yourself in this situation without actually weighing the relevant facts, already prepared to take the side of users who were already on his side in an ongoing dispute. You condescendingly and bizarrely repeatedly claimed that you couldn't find any explanation for the block, despite the fact that explanations were plastered all over the relevant user talk page, my big black signature standing out obnoxiously at the end of every comment. You decided to unblock before I could even reply. Let's be real, this was the classic example of a legitimate action against a highly established editor, and as per usual, enough of a kerfuffle was created until an admin comes along and unblocks with a vague, almost nonexistent rationale supplemented by an authoritative and belittling tone. Let me state this again: you ignored the reason for which this block was issued, and accepted an unblock request that literally lied about the situation. If you think that's just no big deal because AYW is "established", it's you who needs the refresher course. Not cool, man. S warm   ♠  06:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Talk about a belittling and condescending tone. No, it is you who are ignoring—ignoring the two pivotal negatives that you're responsible for: no warnings having been issued and not being even-handed with a one-sided block. Yes, I initially had a difficult time orienting myself with the grounds for this block, largely because you, yourself, failed to note what you blocked the user for, to the confusion of multiple editors who were scrambling to find out your rationale. Yes, then you explained at length, finally. But also, it did not detract from nor respond to there needing to have been a warning issued to both users in this rash, un-even-handed block, one which multiple editors familiar with the dispute were questioning. And for good reason. Both users commit personal attacks and rather than warn both and see if that helps, you block the one?(!) I can continue repeating that, and you can continue deflecting and ignoring it. As for "literally lied"—that seems a bit much. I'm not sure it's productive for me to continue to engage you, at this point. El_C 06:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly not trying to give you a hard time, El C, I'm just trying to give you my honest assessment of your actions, and I'm not deflecting or ignoring anything. I already issued a point-by-point explanation for the block that addressed the problems you brought up with it (this was already posted when you were asking what the block was for), then I wrote a point-by-point disagreement with your unblock, both of which you completely ignored in favor of a user who was falsely denying that there was any reason for them to be blocked (something no one has even disputed). If this user simply calmed down and said they'd stop, of course I'd be okay with an unblock. But instead, they chose to lie about what was going on, and you chose to reward that behavior because of two shockingly overstretched arguments. Bravo. Well done. Yes, El C, a highly established editor, someone who's been around since 2004, needed an NPA warning for a 2 day tirade, so they could proceed to retract the entirety of their comments in that discussion and everything would be okay. That's rich. They got blocked and they didn't even acknowledge what they were doing is wrong. But if there was a warning, no, everything would have been okay, if only I had issued a warning. I wonder if you yourself actually believe that, because to me that does not withstand the test of common sense. Secondly, you're falsely equivocating VM's behavior with AYW's and saying that it was a one-sided block, despite the fact that I clearly drew a distinction between AYW and anyone else involved. IF you thought VM deserved to be blocked, you should have done so. IF you thought the reasons given for the block were not legitimate, you should have explained why. However overturning a legitimate block in which you don't address any of the reasons given for it, on the basis that it was "one-sided" (something that was already addressed and could not substantiated without casting aspersions of bad faith on me), is seriously out of any bounds. Passing judgment on a block while you're still asking questions about what the block was for, asking questions about the block and then executing an unblock because I haven't replied in less than an hour, addressing my disagreements with a self-righteous lecture on how to be an admin...it's all just poor form. And while I believe you simply applied a different standard to this user due to the fact that they're highly established (rather than coming in willfully hostile to me), I would respectfully ask that you recuse yourself from any future administrative matters involving me because this is so irregular it's hard for me to fully believe that you've extended good faith to me and I wholly agree that continued engagement between us will not be productive. S warm   ♠  19:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * , when you've finished bullying Swarm, go block some vandals to cool off, otherwise I will start pointing out whose conduct is unbecoming for an admin. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you
I wanted to thank you for your comment on Administrators%27 noticeboard/Incidents. You certainly didn't agree with what I said and I certainly didn't agree with what you said. With that, you are one of the few editors to actually address the issue - editor conduct - and not editor history, editor relationships, or article quality. You took the time to see what the issue was and address it accordingly. You may not have seen it the way I wanted, but you too the time to figure out what the issue was. Its resolved now, but that you for your edit. RonSigPi (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Destiny Chukunyere
Thanks for hiding the visibility of an IP post on Destiny Chukunyere. However, there were two edits RD2 edits made by, not just one. Is it possible that you could hide the visibility of the first edit here? Thank you so much. —  Tuxipεdia ( talk ) 22:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. —  Tuxipεdia ( talk ) 05:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, forgot to reply here after doing that! No worries, take care. S warm   ♠  21:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Godsy
I'm fine with an unblock, as long as it's done with the understanding of WP:ROPE — I think it's more likely than not that he'll resume the block-worthy activity, and I believe that the unblocking admin should be willing to see his own action undone rather speedily if warranted by Godsy's actions. Of course, this doesn't mean that you can't object on substantive grounds (e.g. "this action didn't warrant a block"); it's more of a WP:WHEEL matter. Nyttend (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Question?
Are you active right now? I'd like an admin to look at something Legacypac (talk) 04:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

AN/I
As you participated in Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957, you may be interested in Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 03:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Rollback rights granted to editor who doesn't know what he's doing
See: Reliable sources/Noticeboard 32.218.46.173 (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's an extremely minor "dispute" over an editor who didn't know how to use inline citations but was attempting to add verifiable content in good faith. Rollback is an anti-vandalism tool that wasn't used in this situation at all, and this user did the right thing in seeking out dispute resolution. S warm   ♠  05:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Puunanny
You beat me to it by a few minutes :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I saw him on your talk page begging to be blocked and I thought it rude to keep him waiting! S warm   ♠  07:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

AN/I follow-up
Thanks again for following up on this AN/I thread; I completely agree with the block of Nfitz, and thanks for following through on the warning I had given him. Take care and keep up the good work. MastCell Talk 17:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stepping in to begin with MastCell, I was appalled at those comments and the fact that no one had addressed them and then I saw you step in. Good on you for doing the right thing as well. Be seeing you. S warm   ♠  18:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Urgently Need Help - August 2017
Mate, you recall how you said I should come to you if "any users remove the tags with a bad policy reasoning again"? Well... someone decided to revert the Citation Needed templates I restored to the article that was in dispute. Guess who it was? If you guessed that it was one of the people who reverted NightShadow23, then you would be bang on the money. In fact, it was the person who reported him for Edit Warring, Jasonbres. And guess what his Edit Summary was for the reversion? It was the following:

"'Fine. You wanna do this the hard way? Go ahead. I don't give a shit.'"

Can you revert what he did and then put the article into temporary page protection, please? And also... have a word with that user as well. That's not the behaviour of a civilised Wikipedian. Personally, I think he has just shown that NightShadow23 was an innocent of Edit Warring and had been generally editing in Good Faith; Jasonbres has shown himself to be someone not caring about understanding the policies of WP:V & WP:RS GUtt01 (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * P.S. It seems he put in new ref links, but I can't see how these can verify the information in the article's Notes. GUtt01 (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * P.P.S. I just reverted their recent edits, after spotting that they have shown aggressive, uncivilized behaviour in their edit summaries on another season of the program. If they revert these, then I plan to report their conduct to the appropriate Administrator noticeboard. GUtt01 (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I urgently need you to talk to Jasonbres, ASAP! He's made a second reversion of my edits to both the disputed article and another, using Citation Need templates, in which one edit summary is unintelligle (it's just the web address for an older version). The second cites that he believes his source is extremely reliable - "Equestria Daily has been known to be an extremely reliable source." Jasonbres - but I just checked those links, and that doesn't look like a source that conforms to WP:RS; it looks more like a forum site or a stream site for the show's episodes. I'm not reverting again, but I don't think he's proving his case here. Please, please help me, and check out whether he is in the right or not! I don't want him to provoke me into an Edit War; I have no desire to get dragged into one! :-( GUtt01 (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Messages received! I will look into this later when I have time! Go easy, there's no deadline and neither the user or their edits are going anywhere. Just leave them alone until then, I will sanction then as appropriate when I have time to sit down and review their editing! S warm   ♠  18:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Got it! Order received and understood! FAB! :-) GUtt01 (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey! So I assure you I was fully prepared to issue a block, but at first glance, this does not appear to be the same issue. It looks like they're adding references to uncontroversial information, those references being the credits of the show itself. Unless the provided sources are dubious, this does not seem to be a problem. Am I missing something? S warm   ♠  05:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Mate, I found that the site in the references he uses, Equestria Daily, is a blog site. From checking one of the references and the author a post connected to it, it showed that their profile is on Blogger.com. Here:


 * https://www.blogger.com/profile/17715363232827206091


 * Would that contrevene WP:RS, per the section WP:UGC, "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable", where user-generated content includes personal blogs, and group blogs? GUtt01 (talk) 07:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a check-up, mate. Did you check up what I sent you earlier today? About how I found that the references were to a blog site that Jasonbres was claiming as an "extremely reliable source"? If I'm bothering you, my bad. Just curious and want to see some closure on the matter, is all. GUtt01 (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Urgent Attention Needed by Admin
Can you get over to the Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, please? There are two Wikipedians reporting each other for an Edit Dispute they are involved in on the article, Google. GUtt01 (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Quick question
Hello Swarm, a quick question about this decline. I agree with the decision (based on other reasons), but I was wondering if you have mixed up the block log of Umair Aj and Anoptimistix (the editor with the request). Regards, Alex ShihTalk 07:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note! That was a mistake on my part, and I've struck that statement. Due to the agreement by yourself and Anarchyte, I'll leave the rest of the decline as is, short of any dissension. S warm   ♠  07:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Zamorin1851
Thank you for the block of 2601:192:8600:1C80:D9A1:711D:F5D1:722F ! FYI, newest iteration is Zamorin1851--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Re Expand G13 to cover ALL old drafts
Swarm, can you provide a detailed explanation of your closure for Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion? I'm baffled as to how anybody could interpret that discussion as an "overwhelming consensus" that all drafts unedited for more than six months should be instantly deleted on sight. I'd like that you addressed in particular the argument made in the discussion that we already have in place an speedy alternative method to do cleanup which doesn't require amending G13, argument which went unopposed. Diego (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I, too, came here to ask for a more detailed explanation, especially regarding the concerns raised by multiple editors that this could be abused to delete articles previously moved there from mainspace without discussion. Regards  So Why  12:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * True, it seems to me that all the arguments about accountability have been utterly ignored by the closer. Diego (talk) 12:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll comment here as well in defense of Swarm: because the objection requiring policy based !votes to determine how a policy should be amended is a form of circular reasoning, and usually the last objection of the side that doesn't get its desired outcome. There is no Wiki-constitution or basic law: ultimately we write the policy that we as a community feel is the best way to run things and as the highest form of consensus.Saying that a small vocal minority raised better policy points in a discussion amongst experienced editors on what the new policy should be doesn't change the outcome of the RfC like it might change forms of local consensus such as at AfDs or RMs, because any change to the policy will necessarily be different than existing policy. Arguments that are completely out of left-field such as drafts are all cruft burn them all! of course should be weighted less, but a simple "I see no harm in this" is just a short way of saying "I've considered the objections, and I'm not convinced.", which of course is a perfectly legitimate rationale. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * it is irresponsable to argue 72% and about 50 vs 19 voters is not clear consensus. I assume that the editors who feal there is gold to be mined from draft space have done their mining in the last month and are not just arguing without doing anything productive. Legacypac (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As a supporter of the proposal, I would like a bit more explanation also, as it would head off the recent instability on the main policy page. There are also many editors who appear to have caveated their support or opposition to the change (me!) and it might be a good idea to ensure their voices are heard in the close. I would help with this request (since I don't care too much about it, unlike some), but I did indeed !vote on the topic. --Izno (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, more rationale is always welcome. My comment above was more a defense of Swarm based on the "no consensus based on policy based arguments" type comments we hear after policy change RfC closes :) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I was speaking in reply to DM's and SW's comments! :D --Izno (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I apologize for any confusion, and I will amend the closing statement to clarify that it was the fundamental proposal, found in the section heading, and not any sort of selective quotations or synthesized arguments, that were confirmed by consensus. That does not somehow selectively apply to any additional individual statements, viewpoints or specific variations of wording found within that discussion&mdash;the proposal was simple and straightforward, and the wording was changed accordingly; frankly, your attempts to make and edit war over unsupported, arbitrary wording changes have crossed into the realm of disruption.
 * My relatively simplistic closing statement reflected the fact that this was a strong consensus regarding a straightforward proposal. And yes, this was a strong consensus. However I will gladly elaborate. Let me be clear. Strength of minority arguments can and absolutely do alter the reading of consensus. However, "strength of arguments" is not determined subjectively or arbitrarily, but as it relates to policy. The point of this is quite simple: our policies and guidelines represent overarching consensuses. They quite simply trump any consensuses that run contrary to them. Therefore, if a proposal's opposition is in the minority, but is able to clearly demonstrate that the proposal runs counter to policy, the reading of consensus will be in their favor, because they've demonstrated that they're on the side of overarching community consensus. That is the concept behind "strength of arguments" in determining consensus. The ability to look for and identify these situations when judging consensus is extremely important, so that local majorities cannot set new precedents that run contrary to old ones. It's literally how the project stays true to its fundamental ideals in spite of being almost wholly governed by its users. It is not, however, a matter of being or steadfast, or hyperbolic, or impassioned enough to convince the closer into supervoting with the minority opinion. Therefore it's a little insulting and a lot more unreasonable that you're implying that I ignored the arguments from the opposition. I read the discussion, and yes, I can see that those who opposed, yourself included, felt very strongly about it. However, those views were very much so in the minority, so therefore what I'm looking for in determining whether or not they should sway the reading of consensus are strong, policy-based arguments, and contrary to your assertions, I found those to be lacking. Yes, there was plenty of argument and debate over the course of the discussion but I read all the dissenting opinions and I can clearly see that some people strongly think that this proposal will go so far as to harm the project. But there's literally no way I could have possibly interpreted those views as being representative of community consensus. The opposition to the proposal was well-argued and impassioned, so you can say it was "strong" in that sense, however it was not representative of an overarching community consensus that should override the very strong local consensus. S warm   ♠  23:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Re: ANI
Thank you for clarifying on the thread. I think the question of RFA results in the context of disputed admin actions is an interesting one, something that is not (AFAIK) brought up very much. GABgab 14:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * True, I myself never thought I'd make such an observation. I fully support the notion that all admins are given full mandate; if you pass, you pass, no one should ever hold your RfA !vote count over your head. It should never be relevant, and I've never seen a situation in which it was relevant. That being said, this seemed like a one-off situation in which it should be relevant. I fully agreed with the promotion, but just as a matter of reasonable behavior, I would think that a user in that situation would seek to justify the narrow promotion they received, rather than use that full mandate that they were narrowly granted to commit abusive actions. I don't think we've ever seen an RfA like this one, so it's especially upsetting to see this kind of aftermath. S warm   ♠  23:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed - easily one of the most unusual RFAs we've ever seen, with few equals (maybe this and this - thoughts?) New admins ought to take special care early in their tenure, if nothing else for pragmatic reasons (one doesn't want to make enemies). GABgab 23:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Those are both interesting cases. The first one's particularly interesting because it seems to have gone in the opposite direction as GR's&mdash;hitting this level before it tanked completely. What I think makes GR's so unique is that it would normally be a quick-fail, and yet he managed to garner enough support with a perfect storm of mitigating factors (courageous self-nom, palatable presentation, passable answers to questions, long tenure, no rookie mistakes, and a newly-lowered bar for promotion). Such a longshot RfA would normally be impossible, and the fact that he was able to pull that level of support was certainly deserving of the promotion. I take him at his word that he meant well, but it was a rookie mistake that lacked the wisdom you've just expressed. The mop carries a lot of weight, and even the most minor, calculated, well-reasoned admin actions have consequences. It's certainly easier than not to make enemies as an admin, and when you piss someone off, they won't forget it. I think it's important to not make enemies out of colleagues you'll be regularly crossing paths with. It's not hard to figure out that you have a modicum of "authority" you can throw around as an admin. The more difficult part is learning to judge when to exercise restraint. Once you create a controversy as an admin, the title and toolkit are not much of a protective barrier from the wrath of the community. That's why it's best to ease into the role, and to earn the community's trust as a new admin. The criticisms and challenges will never stop for any of us, so it really is instrumental that you build and maintain good will with the community as a whole. There will come a time when, intentionally or unintentionally, you make a controversial admin action that you have to be accountable for. These are never fun situations and are almost always blown out of proportion, so when they arise, you may just want other established members of the community coming to your defense. The strongest mandate from an RfA will become irrelevant if you de-legitimize yourself in the eyes of the community. Sorry for getting a bit carried away. S warm   ♠  01:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

You have got a mail
Anoptimistix (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey
Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!
TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

old colony lines
Hi there, I'm new to Wikipedia and I noticed that on Pi.1415926535, you have made some horrible edits and something should be done about it. Thank you for your time. Infiniti0571 (talk) 03:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

arbcomm comments deleted
Your comments at ArbComm here were removed from the evidence case,  but the problem has spread to the workshop phase  and now  which lead to. If you could place a similar comment to the deleted one into the Workshop phase and look at the other diffs here I'd appreciate it. Legacypac (talk) 06:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!
TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

AN3 close
Please see my marking of the header and change if you disagree. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

 * Hey Ed! Thank you. I hope we do as well! You're the one who deserves the commendation for speaking out like you did. I'm fairly disgusted that you were so virulently attacked for calling a spade a spade, but I know it should come as no surprise that there are people like that on Wikipedia. Glad to see so many people have your back though. See you around! S warm   ♠  20:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Weird edit, maybe tied to User:WilliamJE?
Hi Swarm, I see you put a block on User talk:WilliamJE page so decided to message you to see if you can make sense. A weird edit was made that I rolled back but the IP signed the edit with this users information. So wasn't sure if they were trying to get them in trouble or it was them and they were silly enough to actually sign their real user id. NZFC (talk) 08:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's very bizarre. I have no idea what that means to be honest. William was unblocked at the time of that edit, and I can't think of any reason he would have done that while logged out, so I can only assume it's an unrelated IP who copied his signature from somewhere. Why would someone do that? I don't know. People are weird. S warm   ♠  20:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok cool no worries. Yes people are very weird. NZFC  (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Last attempt at apologising
Hi.

I was going to contact you on Sept 15th. But I thought I should do it after a few days from that date. Later I kept on getting busy IRL, and also delayed this by saying "I will do this tomorrow."

We rarely contribute in same field, almost equal to none. There are very high chances that we might never interact again. I truly still feel bad what happened between us. And I want to apologise for it. Kindly accept my apology. It is a humble request.

I respect you a lot. And I mean it. I am not saying this "just for the sake of formality", or "for the sake of doing it". I mean it. I have no reason to pretend I am sorry/feel bad about the incident. (ref: User talk:Usernamekiran, I mean, I am sort of open about my feelings/thoughts.)

I mean everything, including my apology. Kindly forgive me. If you do not reply me, I will assume you are still mad at me/havent forgiven me, and I will never contact you again. Best, — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (talk)  07:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC) — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (talk)  22:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey. Apology accepted. No hard feelings. S warm   ♠  20:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks a lot! It is very much appreciated. And it means a lot as well. Honestly speaking, what I did was unacceptable, and sort of stupid. Sometimes I cant even believe I did it. Anyways. Thanks again. See you around :)

Halloween cheer!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#000; background-color:#FFB924; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Happy Halloween!

Hello Swarm: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!   –  — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (talk)   17:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC) Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

I have never even seen it in real life, but it seems like fun. Have a nice time :) — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (talk)  17:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Nature of warning
Hello Swarm. Thanks for your closure here. Would you be willing to amplify what the warning consists of, because the editor being warned has removed anything of that nature already from his own talk. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * - Hey Ed. Absolutely. I wrote the warning after I closed the report, but I will update my comment with a diff of the warning. Best, S warm   ♠  19:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)