User talk:Swarm/Archive 12

Six years of adminship, today.
Wishing Swarm a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman ( talk ) 02:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Random
Hi Swarm, hope all is well. I didn't think a purple box was really that necessary for that AN/I post (feels like the editor is being reprimanded again after the issue was literally resolved) but I guess either way is fine. I just felt the IP was equally as aggressive, but then this is probably going to relate many larger issues (definition of bite, new editor, or just fairness in general). Anyway, thanks for the input and cheers. Alex Shih (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey Alex. Thanks for the note. I decided to close it in part to prevent a pile-on, and also simply because it was a bad report. A serious charge of harassment had been made to administrators, when in reality it was just two good faith editors being equally immature and petty. The IP was not an innocent party, and I intentionally steered clear of any references to the WP:BITE concerns. Neither party's conduct rose to a level requiring admin intervention though, and I felt the most likely result of leaving the discussion open was a continued pile-on of criticism. At the end of the day the ANI thread was a frivolous accusation of bad faith, and users who are subjected to that deserve a formal close that clarifies that they're not actually guilty. Beyond that, I didn't mean to further reprimand the reporter, in fact I tried to be positive and supportive of both parties; I attempted to summarize the result of the discussion and direct them to the specific policies in play. Perhaps I should have acknowledged the IP's misconduct as well, but I didn't think about it at the time. S warm   ♠  18:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:


 * https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.


 * Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Involved close
I think your close of the HW thread was a mistake, not only because you are massively involved, but also because the thread has now turned into a boomerang investigation of HW's out-of-process image removals (very similar to Betacommand's), and that thread is the closest we are going to get to resolving that short of (A) starting a whole new thread with the same discussion all over again, or (B) ArbCom, which won't take it because we didn't exhaust the ANI option. Softlavender (talk) 10:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think commenting in an ANI thread as an uninvolved party makes you inherently involved, though I can see it looking that way in this case which is why I referenced CLOSECHALLENGE if anyone disagreed with the close. That aside, I genuinely thought we were beating a dead horse and would accomplish nothing, and that the close was overdue and uncontroversial. If you have a genuine reason for keeping it open, then I have no problem with reopening. S warm   ♠  16:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

No fancy template...
Swarm, but just but to wish you happy holidays and all the best for 2018. It's probably a lot warmer where I am than where you are 😎 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Swarm: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 16:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Merry Christmas!
 Merry Christmas !!

Hi, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,

Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,

– Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 13:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Swarm!


Happy New Year! Swarm, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

-- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 23:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Unprotecting Gamaliel Audrey Cantika
I would like to ask for unprotection of the article Gamaliel Audrey Cantika. I have created a draft version at Draft:Gamaliel Audrey Cantika. User:Dieter Mueller (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

"No such rule"
How about WP:ADMINACCT? That arguably comes into play, though I think it was satisfied in this case. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't feel ADMINACCT came into play in that thread. If the user was actually asking the general question that was actually in the section header, then I would have absolutely gotten into that, however in their text they clarified that they were referring to the user who reported them at AN/I and accused them of being NOTHERE: "By this, I mean, the editor who reported violation accusation against me ... and to who I'm asking questions in good faith, does not answer to me ... he added a third violation accusation ... I answered him and asked question, but no answer so far. Should he answer me, or he is free not to ?" Then he went off on an unrelated tangent about the administrator deleting his article, which he disagrees with, but that complaint did not specifically raise any issues with admin accountability and I can clearly see that the admin is not being unresponsive. If it were relevant to this case, we could get into that with this user, but it's clearly not and would seemingly be wasted effort. The only reasonable response to yet another attempted timesink from this user and their excessive walls of text was a simple "no" close, because they're obviously not very responsive to nuanced messages explaining policy. S warm   ♠  21:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Archiving ANI threads
Hi Swarm. Two things: (1) It's very important to allow at least 24 hours to elapse before a closed ANI thread gets archived, so that all interested parties, with their various times zones, sleep schedules, work schedules, and log-in schedules, can see the close. (2) It's also important to use this version of the one-click archiver so that people can see which threads are being archived: User:Technical 13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver. Thanks, Softlavender (talk) 07:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Softlavender. Thanks for the technical update, though I don't believe that's required. I don't think there's anything wrong with occasionally moving uncontroversially closed discussions into the archives. It's not like they're disappearing somewhere mysterious. They're just being archived. Anyone who wants to review the close can still see it. AFAIK there's no such 24hr rule in theory or practice. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Manual archiving should obviously be done on a case by case basis. Obviously if there is any sort of reason a closed discussion should stay visible at AN/I, if it has not been formally closed, or warrants further community review, or is likely to be challenged or reopened, it should not be swept into the archives. But we're talking about uncontroversial housekeeping when there are a bunch of closed discussions cluttering up the page. I think it's counterproductive to make an issue over that. Please do not de-archive discussions unless you have a valid reason. There's no need to keep closed discussions on ANI purely due to an arbitrary time limit. S warm   ♠  09:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The community consensus, which has been discussed several times (I can revive the threads on ANI talk if desired), is that a window of at least 24 hours is necessary to allow all interested parties to observe the close of a thread -- and interested parties are not limited to thread participants, but also to other observers. The only general exception to that is in cases of WP:DENY (very rare). And possibly also sometimes extremely straightforward threads which are more like AIV reports ("Please block this one vandal IP") and whose resulting simple block has been acknowledged and the filer has thanked the vandal-blocker so the single participant has already seen and acknowledged the result.


 * The closed discussions do not clutter up the page; the purple boxes make it easy for anyone to bypass the closed ones if they are scrolling through. Prior to one-click archiving (which has only been used at ANI for the past 2.3 years) there were often 70 or more threads on ANI at any given time with the bot-archiving at 3 days, so having 25 to 30 threads is not clutter. Here are more reasons this is important:


 * ANI threads are not straightforward, even when they seem to be. If someone reports or is being reported, those people (the reporter and the reported) almost always have a troublesome or complex background; the same goes for articles and groups and topics that are reported. This is why so many other things come up at ANI threads than were entailed in the original report. And why discussion often occurs below the purple box after a close.


 * Straightforward boards like AIV get bot archived quickly, but


 * ANI threads are complex (as mentioned above).
 * ANI threads are learning experiences for all concerned -- participants, admins, onlookers, admin hopefuls, newbies, etc.
 * ANI threads are often badly closed, often by non-admins.
 * ANI threads need to remain around so that both participants and watchers see the close.


 * It's not fair to onlookers and participants for the threads to disappear quickly: Many don't even know where they go, or how to find the archive, and many others can't remember the threads they might have been looking at so when they disappear they are forgotten before they should be. Since ANI is a learning experience for everyone watching, even on the little threads, it's important for them to remain at least 24 hours.


 * 24 hours is optimum because:
 * Wikipedians live all around the world, in every time zone.
 * In addition to that, they have varying sleep schedules within their time zones.
 * The have differing work schedules within their time zones.
 * They have differing Wikipedia log-in schedules within their time zones.


 * 24 hours is therefore a baseline minimum window which would accommodate all of these (assuming every interested party logged in daily).


 * Again, this is the community consensus. I'm happy to re-open discussion about this on ANI talk, where it has been discussed several times. Softlavender (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Softlavender, if you feel I'm unaware of a community consensus, then a simple link in would have sufficed from the beginning, and if you'd like to spend your time discussing this painfully mundane issue to form a consensus about, that's your prerogative, and I will abide by whatever consensus comes out of it. But good god, I only have so much time in the day to read and argue diatribes on AN/I clerking. There comes a point in which one must ask oneself if they're really contributing to the project. And I say that in reference to the both of us. S warm   ♠  13:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Adopt-a-user - please check your details
Hello, I have been doing a cleanup of the ‘Adopter’ information page for the Adopt-a-user Project, located here. During my cleanup, I've removed several long-inactive and retired users, leaving just the most recently active ones, whether they're currently available (14 users) or not currently available (24 users).

In order to provide potential adoptees with an easy location to find people, the Adopter's page needs to be up-to-date with the latest availability information. Thus:
 * If you are no longer interested in being an adopter, even in the future, please remove yourself from the list, and delete any templates from your user pages.
 * If you are still interested, but not currently available, please check the list to see if your details needs to be updated - especially with regards availability. (A dummy edit would show me you’ve checked and are OK with what’s currently there.)
 * Feel free to add a line at the bottom of your entry to show how many adoptees you’ve previously helped. I’m sure that would be of interest to newcomers, especially when you do return.
 * I have also cleaned out nearly 100 inactive editors still flagged as seeking adoption. That leaves just 18 people currently interested in being adopted.

You are receiving this message because you are listed as an adopter here.

Finally, as an editor with previous experience of adoption (unlike myself!), you might wish to respond to the (admittedly long) comments I've made here about how I think the project could be improved and got working again. I've also 'been bold' and tweaked the project pages a wee bit. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

PS: You user page still says you'll be away until November. Did you realise? NM
 * Replied at that page. S warm   ♠  03:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Endorsement
Please endorse-- UK Sharma3  (User &#124;  talk &#124; Contribs) 08:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

ANI
Regarding the ANI report I filed a few days ago, User:Divergence5 has continued the edit war on Magnus Carlsen and edit warred on my talk page too (I removed their comment, they reinstated it). Should I create a new section at ANI about this or is there something else to be done? Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

PAKHIGHWAY block review
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Yamla (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Special:Diff/824123171
Hi admin! Thanks for your response! The discussion at ANI has been closed, I don't know why. You mistakenly protected the Draft:Tabeer, then removed. You said, "… personal dispute… stop interacting with this user unless you have a very good reason for doing so. I don't think you need to be intervening on that particular draft." Well, that would be a good idea as that drama Tabeer has not much news coverage right now. But weren't my edits good? If you think I was wrong there, I can leave that draft. But I will not follow anonymous user's bad orders.

A user commented at ANI, "Why are you putting scare quotes around "male" and "his"?… avoid making assumptions about their gender, better to use singular "they"…". I think "they" (as I don't know gender of 'User:Beyond My Ken') didn't read the dispute in Talk:Aangan (TV series), where the anonymous user has said that he is "male" while making some personal attacks on me too. (In short, please see Special:Diff/818196849 and Special:Diff/818836422.) Well, Aangan is popular in news so I don't want to leave this article for now.

Now, for that user, I don't have any personal enmity with him, but his rude WP:BEHAVE may violate the wiki rule (you know better). Hope for your kind response, Thanks! M. Billoo 13:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The only thing reviewable was the conflict on the draft, everything else was too far in the past to take action. I protected the draft because at first glance it appeared that he was attacking the reviewer with the "you have no right to do that" comment, but upon further review, I saw that he was just mad that you were editing the draft. While he doesn't WP:OWN the draft, and your edits were meant to be constructive, it's just problematic that you showed up on the draft right after he started working on it, and continued editing it in spite of his repeated requests to leave him alone. In the context of the personal animosity between you two, I don't think you should be interacting. The issue is easily fixed by you not editing the draft anymore. If you cross paths on an article by coincidence, that's fine, but attempting to follow this user who's repeatedly asking you to leave them alone is a form of harassment. I honestly don't see any reason you can't just leave them alone. And if you leave them alone, there will be no issue. S warm   ♠  23:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I wasn't following on his edits, but see he said, "I can do it myself and you also promised to not interfere. Go away"; on which I replied, "You haven't corrected them yourself for many days. You only wanted to revert my edits, but you just can never see the improvements! my edit summaries, or whole talk page is not enough for you to explain anything, because you're fighter!" Was this his request? I don't think so, as he is only fighting. Well, if I follow on his IPs to see his edits, he may have contributed well on many articles. Have you seen whole Talk:Aangan (TV series)? Thanks! M. Billoo 12:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I reviewed that dispute, but it was from awhile ago so there's really nothing we can do about that. Like I said, the only current issue is the draft, and, well, it's a draft. You know? If you don't actually have a pressing reason to edit the draft, just leave him be. If you genuinely have an interest in developing it, then fine, but if it's just a matter of cleaning up after him, there's no reason to stay involved. S warm   ♠  22:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Recently blocked user
Hi Swarm,, whom you had recently blocked hasn't learnt from his/her experiences and has one again resorted to creating articles in rapid succession, which is taking time to perform cleanup. I had warned this user months back for plagiarizing and creating unnecessary redirects, but appears that it hasn't been heeded. Hope you take notice once again. MT TrainDiscuss 06:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked indef. S warm   ♠  23:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

possbile sock
I saw that you recently indeffed the above user, and that another newer user who participated at the above's AfD, has a talk page full of notices for the creation of inappropriate articles and otherwise similar behavior. Because of AGF I didn't want to start an SPI if I was the only person seeing or imagining a behavioral shared between the 2 users. Do you think Ratsama is a new user learning about how Wikipedia works or is their enough evidence to request a CU? Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  13:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hm, so M stopped spamming articles from 1/27 to 2/8. R started spamming articles between 1/29 and 2/8. M continued spamming articles on 2/9, and kept doing so until they were blocked again on 2/16. R immediately continued spamming articles on 2/17. This passes the duck test. Good catch. I'll block now and speedy any articles that I can. S warm   ♠  19:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  20:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Resumption of edit warring from 2.232.70.45
Hi Swarm- The editor at 2.232.70.45 seems to be resuming his/her edit war: Special:Contributions/2.232.70.45. Is it ok for me to simply alert you here, or should I open something at ANI for edit warring? Last week's ANI discussion here. Thanks in advance for your help. Eric talk 14:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Swarm...I'm not a problematic IP ... wikipedia is not a blog ... this is an encyclopedia. We need to consider academic studies ... scientific studies and not your personal interpretations (Eric), This is the discussion page with all the changes and opinions ; Thank you for your contribution   --2.232.70.45 (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help, Swarm, though I expect we'll see that editor resume disrupting in a couple weeks. Seems to be a recurring problem. Eric talk 21:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Histmerge possible?
Is a histmerge possible for Kalindra Faria and its draft? Bennv3771 (talk) 04:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Widespread POV-editing and edit-warring on articles related to "Polish death camp" controversy and Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II
I'm coming to you because there is a problem that hasn't been addressed in regards to the editing on both articles. If this isn't the right place for it, then please let me know where to go. It's all stemming from the news that Poland passed a law barring people from ascribing complicity in the Holocaust to the Polish nation, people, etc. Users from Pro-Polish and Pro-Jewish/Israeli POVs are warring with each other attempting to insert their views into the articles. I think it's ruining the content of the articles. What steps can we take to stop this? Sanctions on the topic? I took part in some of the editing, tried to stay neutral, added information sourced by the likes of Haaretz, The Washington Post, and Vice, but was still told I was POV-pushing, and most of my edits removed. I stepped away from editing the articles after that, only engaging on the talk pages, feeling very discouraged. Looking for some advice on this as it has now hijacked an AN/I report for something entirely different. also made a NPOV noticeboard post about it, which recieved little attention. There are at least 10 different users who have taken part in this, including myself. The editing and commenting has gotten heated and I feel like it is a little out of control. R9tgokunks  ✡  09:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is quite simple. Here are your resources: if users are edit warring, report them at WP:AN3. Note that if you report here, both sides of the edit war will be blocked. If many users are edit warring and the page needs to be locked from everyone, request full protection at WP:RFPP. Beyond that, everything you need to know is located at WP:DR, which offers many avenues for handling disputes, including the very useful RfC. AN/I is for severe behavioral problems not content disputes which have gotten too heated. S warm   ♠  10:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Swarm - sorry if I'm out of order, responding since I was pinged. It might make sense to place this under a page-level Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions, e.g. 1RR (the underlying POV problems are similar in general to EE (besides the addition of Israeli and Jewish editors due to the Holocaust topic area and the heated Polish-Israel government exchanges), you have some edit warring between Polish and other neighboring countries. In addition you have a communist vs. post-soviet nationalist POV issues). This has however calmed down a bit (it was fast a furious two weeks ago when I posted to NPOV/n asking for more eyes) - but it might flare up again.Icewhiz (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If it flares up at all in the future just let me know and I will do so. In the mean time, I'll start issuing some DS notifications. S warm   ♠  10:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Tabeer
Hi admin! I found some updates about this. Please see official website, OST and 21 February 2018 as release date. Please can you update, so there will be no fight with that anonymous? Thanks! M. Billoo 22:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Wondering about what to do on an edit
Hi there. Coming to you again aboutI reverted the removal of sources and content at Mass shootings in the United States and tried to clarify the relation to the content, as well as some style fixes, and all edits were reverted here: I really don't want to engage in an edit war, but I feel the user is blindly reverting. They haven't even read the sources involved, or even considered I made some good edits to the article. Where can I take this to? R9tgokunks  ✡  06:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, it seems it was already reverted by someone else. If you do have advice as to how I should proceed in the future, it would be helpful though. R9tgokunks   ✡  06:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Reach out to them in their talk page. S warm   ♠  18:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018
Hello, I'm ChieftanTartarus. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''I'm not blind you know, your snarky comments violate the guidelines you are meant to enforce. Adding fuel to a raging fire is not a wise decision. Good Day.'' Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * And yes, I did just template a regular ;) Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I'm not sure if you're actually mad, but I'm sorry if you are. I was just giving you some well-deserved guff for the statement "I didn't do that, Twinkle did". Take it in stride, it was all in good fun. Fundamentally my point is that one should examine their own own role in provoking incivility before complaining about it. We have to be flexible with the civility policy. Sometimes things get heated between two editors and they fuel incivility between each other, and we have to just let it go. That's something that boils down to nothing but human nature, which is something no blocks or warnings can control. And, sometimes it's best to just steer clear of editors with "short fuses", because Wikipedia's culture and norms don't allow us to kick them out. S warm   ♠  20:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I'm not mad you were just doing your job, the Barnstar is 100% genuine :) (I just thought templating you would make fun of the situation which I realised was dumb to begin with) Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In that case, thanks, I'm glad you were able to take it in stride. :) S warm   ♠  21:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter
You have not committed any offenses that have tarnished your reputation. AFAIK, you have not committed any offenses at all. Um, no. Telling an editor "fuck you" in an edit summary just a week or two back is hardly not committing an offence. This is the problem with admins trying to playing off against admins and your so-called "power editors". You need understand that your "nice" approach is actually undermining the position of adminship because telling someone "fuck you" is clearly a problem, especially in the context of then raising an ANI because someone else claimed they were simply "lazy". Ridiculous. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Really? Who hasn't said "fuck you" at some point? We're all human. I wouldn't be an administrator if that was an unforgivable offense, but fortunately, no one saw fit to hold those times over my head. The ANI was insufficient, true, and that was the response they got from myself and other administrators. Your commentary was not needed in that regard. My message was not about that. My message was about a perfectly fine admin, and more importantly, a real life human being becoming so downtrodden and discouraged that they've handed in their admin bit for no reason, and then retired for no reason. Don't give me grief for being an empathetic human being. I don't know anything about your relationship with Ymblanter, but whatever your beef is, don't even try to bring me into it. I'm not going to be complicit in your role in antagonizing an editor to the point of quitting, which is what happened at ANI today. S warm   ♠  22:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't said "fuck you" on Wikipedia ever. In nearly 13 years.  Your empathy is fine and dandy, but don't misrepresent the situation.  Less than two weeks ago this user was telling someone "fuck you", and now lodging the weakest claim of NPA at ANI I've ever seen.  You need to work on reality checkpoints if you're going to empathise with these kinds of users.  Giving them a line about how they've done absolutely nothing wrong is bollocks I'm afraid, and misleading in the extreme.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, so it was a really hypocritical NPA complaint given their own recent "fuck you". That's still nothing remotely near the level of offense worthy of driving an editor off the project. I commend you for never using the term "fuck you". Really, I do. But the underlying point that incivility is something we're all guilty of at some point still stands. We don't deserve to have it hung over our heads, especially when we're already in a bad place. It seems petty to be bringing that up given Ymblanter's current deafeated state. S warm   ♠  22:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ymblanter was the one to bring up the initial complaint against Lugnuts. It's not petty at all to suggest that Ymblanter should practice what he preaches.  And a diva departure is nothing to do with this, especially with you pretending that Ymblanter has done nothing and you're going to help, all guns blazing, to get him another opportunity to "get people blocked" which seems to be his mindset.  It's all wrong, just Ymblanter has got it more wrong.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Look, regardless of who's "right" or "wrong" in the conflict between Ym and Lugnuts, or Ym or yourself, or Ym or Fram, I'm trying to help him simply because I find him to be a good admin with good judgment who does productive administrative work, and he's clearly reached a breaking point, probably in large part to picking battles with power users and losing. Just to be clear, I don't use the phrase "power user" as a pejorative, but as a non-judgmental term to refer to the class of exceptionally active users, such as yourself, who the community (including administrators) is fiercely protective of. Any naive admin who comes into open conflict with such a user may well get eaten alive so thoroughly they'd be willing to quit the project, even if they committed no serious offense otherwise (the "fuck you", assuming it's not a pattern of misconduct, is still not a reason to strip adminship or force off the project&mdash;I'm not excusing it&mdash;singular instances of incivility are just not that dire&mdash;we all have bad days). I suspect the strong rejection against appeals made against Fram and Lugnuts played a role in Ym's demoralization. Regardless, this doesn't mean that one is actually a bad editor or admin. Rest assured, I am not trying to join a "guns blazing" approach to block Lugnuts or anyone else. I'm merely letting Ymblanter know that I'm willing to hear his case. I'm not predisposed to taking his side, I'm just letting him know that I'm willing to hear him out. I don't see what's so wrong with any of that. S warm   ♠  02:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

GOCE February 2018 news
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Apitherapy Science
"Apitherapy is the medical use and the application of honey bee products and in recent years there has been a growing interest in studies of this field." Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice Volume 31, May 2018, Pages 47-52 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1744388118300641 --Мит Сколов (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Sport and politics
User:Sport and Politics came back and responded to our only warning. The response she gave was not in keeping with the warning and I was left with no choice but to block her. Canterbury Tail talk 14:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I never could have seen it coming. :P S warm   ♠  14:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow! I'm honored! Thank you so much, . I'll display this with great pride. S warm   ♠  15:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! - The prize of the Cabal of the outcasts, - hope you don't mind ;) - I added Ymblanter, who helped me often, to our sad list today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You kidding, I'm so happy about this the user box will be going up momentarily. :P Btw, I'm fairly impressed you dug up that WQA history. That's a deep cut. And yes, I hope to see Ymblanter return. Great admin who should have never resigned the tools, much less retire. I hope his desire to edit comes back very soon. S warm   ♠  00:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Martini Lewis X
Just created a new sock in. Reported via SPI.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Olsen24 socking (again)
Immediately after you blocked him, came back as  to sock on MTA Regional Bus Operations bus fleet. Didn't even make it subtle - his first edits were re-adding images by Olsen24. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Personal Attacks
If you examine User:Hrodvarsson's editing during the period, you will see that the personal attacks have not been one way, and even continued after the ANI was raised. Also, he has continued to edit war rather than engage in dispute resolution. MaxBrowne (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Since you tagged me: removing the categories was a proposed change, which you reinstated without consensus. You did not return to the talk page after removing your "fuck off, creep" (lol) personal attack, and there was no consensus for the removal. I gave it a few days and then restored the categories. In any case, you removed the categories in June 2017 without discussion and repeatedly called the subject of the BLP a "creep" (which you were blocked for doing), "retired", then returned 8 months later and removed the categories again, without discussion. This is disruptive behavior, so the assessment of you as a disruptive/biased editor on the Peter Thiel page is correct. There are also larger problems beyond making false claims in edit summaries if you are calling BLP subjects creeps and telling other editors to "fuck off, creep"; such problems hinder any productive discussion. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!
— CYBERPOWER  (Around ) 03:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

ANI
Regarding your close of a recent ANI discussion where you said "disruption of any kind on [Peter Thiel] will lead to a block without further warning", User:MaxBrowne has returned again and reinstated edits they made previously, without discussion, and edit warred instead of waiting for a talk page discussion. They have repeated an edit they edit warred over 8 months ago. See the edits 8 months ago here: 1, 2, 3. See the recent edits here: 1, 2, 3. The placement of the Gawker lawsuit section is also something they have attempted to change (the previous placement has been stable for over a year) yet have not discussed on the talk page either. They did respond to my request of discussing these changes on the talk page, but reinstated their changes again just 15 minutes after creating the talk page discussion. I had not even seen, let alone had a chance to respond to, the talk page discussion. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Adding: User:MaxBrowne has also continued the direct personal attacks on the talk page, "Blah blah blah" (not responding to the counterarguments I made) and "You are nobody. You don't get to tell me what I may or may not say." (referring to my repeated requests for them to not insult the subject of the BLP while edit warring over the same change they are now trying to make again—1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've blocked for continued personal attacks. S warm   ♠  14:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

re
Thank you for the feedback. I disagree that it's pointless to take the admin hat off if you're only going to put it back on. We handle things via a standard warn→escalating block progression. If a user is responsible and can be reasoned with, we don't even have to employ this method, and can resolve things simply by talking to them. MP responded to criticism at AN/I by suggesting that they would hear out any complaints in good faith, so rather than slapping them with a warning, I actually attempted to reason with them about it, as they supposedly wanted. That resulted in their vehement disagreement. They were supposed to be fielding my complaint. Not wasting my time by being overly-defensive. So if I seemed like I suddenly flipped into admin mode came down hard, then that's why. Because they implied at AN/I that admin intervention wasn't necessary if only someone tried talking to them. I found that exceptionally disingenuous. If I'm extending the courtesy of trying to reach a voluntary resolution by talking to someone, and the user simply wants to argue about whether there's a problem to begin with, then there's really no point. Trying to talk sense into somebody out of simple courtesy should not be misconstrued as willing to engage in debate over non-negotiable issues. If you don't want to resolve a behavioral issue voluntarily, that's fine. We'll go the warn-block route, because it's not actually a choice. S warm  ♠  13:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

In all my years here, you win the award for first user to actively encourage trying an unambiguous block warning. Standing up for your friends is all well and good, but perhaps it's counterproductive to tell people to ignore formal block warnings, lest they're not as empty as you think they are. It's clear you don't know me, but all of my communications and logs are easily reviewable on-wiki. Please do not hesitate to conduct as thorough of a review as you wish&mdash;I've never been one to casually issue empty threats, or shy away from blocking. I don't appreciate the unfair implication that I'm just casually going around threatening people, but more importantly, you're spreading the false notion that there can't or won't be consequences for behavioral violations. That's something you're very wrong about and we'd all like to avoid that outcome. Save the boundary-pushing machismo for off-wiki. S warm  ♠  14:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

When you have a moment
Hello Swarm. The protection that you applied here is on a page that transcludes to several others. This in turn has caused those pages to show up in the Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. All that is needed to fix this is a command being placed around the protection template. As I am not an admin I can't make the edit so if you could do so when you get a chance it would be appreciated. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 19:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops, done. For some reason I didn't think those templates transcluded. Thanks for letting me know! S warm   ♠  19:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You are welcome and thanks for the edit. Enjoy your week. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 19:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

IP desruption.
Hello, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=822686661#IP_(well_a_user_with_so_many_IPs)_making_a_desruption. you said here to let you know if the IP returned]. he is not just working from an IP. He is a blocked user with many blocked accounts. I forgot the name of the puppet master though. He edited the pages of Mari, Syria, Tell Brak and Ebla. Again he inserts cuneifurm charachters with no sources.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * All three pages protected. Let me know if there's anything more. S warm   ♠  20:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

TheOldJacobite
I'm concerned about TheOldJacobite. He has a history of being confrontational with some users when it comes to film articles plots and cast sections. He was hostile with some of the users in Armageddon (1998 film), reverting their non-vandalizing edits, reverting warnings from other editors with his behavior on his talk page. and refusing to listen to reason. He's one of the reasons that page was in full protection for a week. His behavior about the rules of this site about film articles has been disruptive and I have to tell you he is becoming a problematic editor who thinks he's doing it under "WP's guidelines and Filmproject consensus" but he's acting like he owns some of those pages and reverting some non-vandalizing edits relentlessly. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

re: Block of Chester_Leszek
I concur in the hindsight it was a good block (of a sock). But would it really kill you to add a few diffs in the future to your otherwise nice block rationale(s)? PS. The odds are good that this user is back under a new sock at Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany or such. But I guess there's no easy way to test every new account for socking... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well obviously it was a good block now that we know it was a sock. But short of that information, you claimed it was inappropriate. Providing diffs up front is quite simply unnecessary in virtually 100% of blocks. It wouldn't kill me to provide diffs if asked; in fact, as an administrator, I'm required to do so. But you abandoned the conversation where you asked me to explain the block, to accuse me of administrative misconduct at AN/I. Had you not done that, we could have had a perfectly reasonable discussion, diffs included! S warm   ♠  23:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

User:MaxBrowne
User:MaxBrowne has made another completely pointless personal remark on the Talk:Peter Thiel page. "you are beyond hope as an editor" for not agreeing with an argument which they did not make, namely that the placement of a section was a NPOV violation (they did not mention NPOV in their edit summaries when changing the placement of the section—and did not discuss the edits on the talk page beforehand—instead giving IDLI edit summaries "it sure ain't philanthropic" and "nothing even remotely philanthropic about this, stop putting it under that heading"). Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that literally every. single. post. in that thread by Hrodvarsson contains baiting, personal remarks, ad hominem arguments and references to months old events despite repeated requests that he stop this behaviour. There's also a good dose of WP:OWN and WP:IDHT thrown into the mix. My response was pretty mild under the circumstances. Please don't become the go-to admin for this bully. MaxBrowne (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Swarm is the admin who closed the ANI discussion about your edits on the page, so they are the relevant admin to contact. You yourself created a section here before I did. Describing me as a "bully" is another pointless personal attack. I have lots of chess articles on my watchlist and have seen you make good edits on them (recently respecting BLP by removing a "nontroversy" on Nigel Short's page), so I still do not understand why you behave in this way on the Peter Thiel page. I mention your conduct as you are often arguing from a position of incredulity that anyone could disagree with you or take issue with your edits. You repeatedly violated BLP despite my requests you not do so while edit warring on the page (disrespecting both the LP and myself), returned several months afterwards and edit warred again, then when you discussed your edits on the talk page you soon told me to "fuck off, creep" (redacting an insult does not change the fact that it was uttered anymore than saying "oops, I guess that was impolite" after telling someone to "fuck off, creep" in real life does). You also later responded to my comments with "blah blah blah" and said "you are nobody". Despite all of this, you say I am "baiting" you by mentioning your conduct and describe your comment that I am "beyond hope as an editor" as "pretty mild"? I am still quite amazed by this whole situation, I have never experienced such behavior in real life. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Look I know I blocked Max for violating the warning I gave him, but let me be clear. There's too much personal commentary on both sides (there should be zero), and it's still happening. I get the distinct impression that the initial exchanges between you two have created too much bad blood, to the point where you're incapable of resolving content issues with each other in good faith, and are more inclined to argue than to compromise and resolve minor disputes. This is not good for either of you as contributors, or the article. These disputes aren't worth getting blocked over. When any sort of interpersonal dispute between the two of you arises, you need to stop going back and forth, and immediately proceed to WP:DR. You should not be wasting any more time arguing with each other until you can both sincerely move past your issues with each other and genuinely work together. And, I'm sure you'd both blame each other for that not happening thus far, but save it. Literally focus on content, period, and if there's no agreement or compromise at the very beginning, get a third opinion, have an RfC, or consult WP:CONTENTDISPUTE for other options. But change the approach going forward, and there will be no need for administrator intervention. S warm   ♠  19:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Useful idiot
I don't want to clog up the ANI any further, but when you said, "Jack Upland incorrectly interpreted and accused Drmies's edit as attempting to override the decision of the RfC", you misinterpreted what I said, as did Drmies. I did not "accuse" Drmies of anything, and I understood what Drmies was trying to do, but I called it an "apparent perverse result" in that his revert overrode the RfC. But, as I said, if the RfC is upheld, that's the important thing.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

AN/I closes
Hi! You made two closes at AN/I which I think you forgot to sign, so I signed for you, but you might want to go back and make it more official. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * One was the Spintendo thread. Looks like the other has been archived already. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocking user Niele~enwiki
Thank you for blocking user Niele~enwiki. Just to let you know, this user (Niele) was also banned indefinitely at Wikimapia for the exact same reasons here. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for what reason and till when?
Since I am not familiar with this type of blocking, may I know what are the "personal attacks" I am accused of, and for how long I'm blocked? Thanks.--Skylax30 (talk) 09:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Trying to remove own section at ANI
I am trying to remove content I added. That shouldn't be against policy. I mistakenly removed others comments at first. R9tgokunks  ✡  20:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That is against policy, see WP:REDACT. S warm   ♠  20:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Lawrence Liang
Thank you for enacting page protection at Lawrence Liang. The SPA has been on a crusade against the subject of the biography and has been adding similarly contentious material in violation of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons to other articles on institutions that the subject is and has been affiliated with.,, — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  17:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yikes. I've blocked the account indefinitely. Hopefully they'll agree to discuss the issue from their one account and not get carried away socking and edit warring, but until that happens we'll have to keep an eye out. S warm   ♠  18:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy Vanishing at CHUS
That is technically possible, but since it will leave a permanent record of rename, it is not recommended. That is mentioned in Courtesy vanishing. Please inform them to use Special:GlobalRenameRequest themselves or mail in the future. Thanks! &mdash; regards, Revi 16:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

To Tarage
I understand you thinking that, but I was genuinely not mocking you. Nor was I attempting any sort of trickery or games. It was a perfectly sincere offer, with no additional strings attached. All I wanted was to give you the immediate opportunity to settle your claims against me. Why would you accuse me of admin abuse, and threaten to take me to ArbCom, and then immediately reject my offer to unblock you so that you may do so? It's very confusing. If you would like to take my straightforward, simple unblock offer, then you may ping me back and I'll literally leave you alone afterwards (with the exception of an Arbcom statement). S warm  ♠  01:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, be it what you wish, I will self-request a block review at AN right now. Feel free to ping me if that is what you wish as well. Just let me know. Both offers stand and are sincere. S warm   ♠  01:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * This is inappropriate and pointy. Stop it. You know as well as I do a single questionable 24 hour block isn't going to get an ArbCom case accepted. But pointy crap like this certainly can be used as evidence in one if this kind of behavior continues.  G M G  talk  01:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I blocked someone, they said it was abusive and wanted it taken to Arbcom, so I offered to unblock them so that they could do so. Are you assigning bad faith for my motivations for doing so? Because I wholeheartedly assure you, there is none whatsoever. Whether or not the case gets accepted, the issue regarding the appropriateness of the block will be addressed, and that is something and I want equally.  S warm   ♠  01:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * First, when someone asks you to stay off their talk page; stay off their talk page. This is the type of thing I explain to people at the Teahouse.
 * Second, you know as well as I do that ArbCom is not the standard venue for appealing the rationale for blocks. Don't play ignorant so that you can use your unblock button to set someone up to make a fool of themselves for no reason. You know, we're are actually supposed to be trying to work together. If someone says something you know is not the right course of action, you, even as the blocking admin, you should correct them as the more experienced and level headed person, and point them to the correct venue. That's what someone who gives a shit about the community would do, and so that's what you should do. Doing the opposite facetiously strongly implies the opposite, even if they're wrong and you're right when God and everyone has their say on the issue.  G M G  talk  02:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm guilty-as-charged for editing their talk page after being told not to, but silly me, I thought a straightforward unblock offer ceding to their demand for an Arbcom request outright would be viewed as a reasonable exception. I also offered to immediately self-report to AN as an alternative, another offer which went rejected. I don't know what more he, or you for that matter, want from me. If this was an abusive block he's rejected multiple offers to kick the review to Arbcom or to the community. Don't say I didn't try. S warm   ♠  02:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Wait, you yourself accused me of potential misconduct in need of a review at AN or Arbcom. Both of these things I offered to initiate. Both offers were rejected, and now I have you attacking me for even making the offers. What do you want? Seriously! What do you want?! S warm   ♠  02:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What I want is for you to consider how something like this is obviously going to be perceived, and whether that is inevitably going to waste a metric shit ton of time verses the "imminent damage to the project" of preventing what?...a decade long editor with a clean block log from calling something vandalism when it isn't, and not-editing a page that had already been full-protected. I probably chose wording that was overly-aggressive out of frustration. I was not threatening to immediately draft a request for arbitration (which I certainly was on ANI), but if you don't think this is going to at least end up in what would otherwise be an unnecessary review at AN I think you're kidding yourself.
 * But you had some pretty impressively bad choices of words in that discussion too, that did nothing but escalate a situation you started, by taking unnecessary admin action which compounded the existing issue of outright improper admin action, and apparently just thought that everyone would be hunky dory with it. If you again find yourself with the opportunity to defend obvious misuse of the tools at ANI, don't, and if you do, don't enforce that poor decision making with the block button. A certain level of community frustration with both unnecessary and improper admin actions is to be expected, and moreover, is healthy for the project. And if you had not made the decision to block a long time editor for the type of incivility more likely to get you a BOOMERANG than a block if reported to ANI, someone like me would probably have spent my morning coffee clearing out advertisements from the new pages feed, rather than trying to explain to someone who should damned well know better, that just because you can block someone, doesn't mean it isn't going to predictably make the situation worse in every possible way.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  10:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear, you still have the opportunity for the next 12 hours or so, to unblock the user with some kind of rationale that at least attempts to save face for all sides involved, like I believe the block was warranted at the time, but I can see that it unnecessarily escalated a frustrating situation. The original issue has since been resolved, and there's no obvious and imminent reason to keep this in place.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  11:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Tarage has already received three unblock offers though, two of them from me! I also offered him an appeal directly to the community, if going to Arbcom was indeed going to be too drastic. All offers were reasonable, and all offers were rejected. It's not like we haven't been jumping through hoops trying to cut generous deals with him. Really the only thing I'd be unwilling to do is backpedal completely and concede to his accusations of wrongfully blocking him. It wasn't an abusive block, and if he's unwilling to concede that, then I will fully cooperate with whatever measures he wants to take as I was attempting to in the message that you accused of being POINTy. S warm   ♠  19:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Please do not forget to add me as a party to the current RfArb, or to notify me of your doing so, should you report me in the current case request. S warm   ♠  00:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Do Boing a favor and don't track in real time how long it's been since they've responded. It's unbecoming. Take a break. Go for a run. I've always said a good run should be added as a step in the dispute resolution process.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  00:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * On the run part, I couldn't agree with you more! But I think it's fair that an extraordinary unblock deserves immediate communication. I'm not going to be keeping a stopwatch, but I am going to point out if the unblocking administrator goes awol after executing an extraordinary unblock in contravention of blocking policy... S warm   ♠
 * Please stop highlighting me. Even though I am sure you are following that case page like a hawk given you've already made a statement, I am not so petty as to call you out and not tell you. And for the record, I did not reject Black Kite's offer. I said I had no desire to continue to edit that page two times, so I don't know what else he wanted to hear from me, but that is neither here nor there. I rejected your offers because, once again, I said I did not want to engage with you further. That statement STILL stands despite you highlighting me THREE TIMES since I asked you not to. After you posted on my talk page a further THREE TIMES after I asked you not to AND e-mailed me. I would ask you to consider my side, having dealt with someone who I feel unfairly attacked me with a punitive block, then proceeded to rub it in my face for several posts, then coming to me with snarky unblock offers designed to rile me up further, and imagine how you would feel in such a situation, but you have shown an inability to have even the most basic empathy, so I know such an endeavor is a waste of time. Please, just leave me alone. Stop harassing me further. I don't think that's too much to ask from someone who is an administrator. --Tarage (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. You're accusing me of "rubbing it in your face" when I've been justifying the block in accordance with WP:ADMINACCT? You're accusing me of "snarky unblock offers" when I offered you an unblock in order to appeal to Arbcom with no strings attached? You're accusing me of lacking empathy when I offered you an easy unblock, not one, but two times? You're accusing me of harassing you when you could have redacted the "vandalism" accusations and we could have gone our separate ways? You were the one who rejected every good faith effort I made towards you. S warm   ♠  01:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Who knew that there was so much personal interaction among uninvolved editors on Wikipedia that they know what each others hobbies are and how they relax and even how to "talk them down" by suggesting they go for a run? Too bad it doesn't appear to have worked but its the thought that counts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.169 (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

More incivility/personal attack from User:MaxBrowne
User:MaxBrowne has continued the uncollaborative, hostile remarks. I responded to a question they asked on Talk:Peter Thiel. They ignored my response and told me to not reply to them. I stated I would agree to their request, yet they replied to me again afterwards, saying "Obviously I wanted a reply, just not from you" and making some other pointless comments. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Stop snitching. If you've got a problem go to ANI, but don't think your own behaviour will evade scrutiny there. Obviously it would be better if you just stay away from me. Like, forever. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Snitching"? I am not in elementary school or a member of a prison gang so I do not place much value in elementary school or prison slang. Also, you made a comment about ANI in the diff I linked above. If you think this should be discussed at ANI, feel free to create a section there. Additionally, I did not ping you here; saying you want to avoid someone while simultaneously replying to their posts is contradictory behavior. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Max, technically Hrovarsson wasn't wrong in his reply to you, but if there are too many hard feelings between you two, there's not much I can do. I don't think this bickering is helpful to the project or the article, or to either of you. What are the odds of you two agreeing to a voluntary IBAN? That's what I would propose at AN/I if this goes there, but it would be in everyone's best interest to avoid the drama. S warm   ♠  00:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * He did slip in some snark in his reply. Voluntary IBAN sounds good to me. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That is the thing: I am capable of letting go of grudges, especially those of the ridiculous, online variety. I replied courteously—no bickering involved—to a question yet I experience the same behavior. For that reason and others (particularly the overlap in editing of chess articles), I would not voluntarily accept an IBAN, except a unilateral IBAN for them (my consent would probably not be needed for that, when I think about it). Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It was because of your pigheadedness that I felt it necessary to raise an RFC in the first place. My question was not addressed to you and no reply from you, no matter what, was ever going to be welcome. Unilateral IBANs don't really happen and it is very arrogant of you to think this could be an exception. In any case what Swarm is suggesting is a voluntary and informal agreement to avoid each other. That includes replying to me on talk pages, leaving snarky edit summaries addressed to or referring to me, continual references to past incidents, wholesale reverts of good faith edits etc. I am perfectly willing to comply with this. And for fucks sake stop ratting me out to admins, it's not only at elementary schools and prisons that such behaviour is held in contempt, and it always creates ill-will. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I enlisted the opinion of an uninvolved editor and said I would be willing to go along with their suggestion, as I previously did with the issue of the chess infobox. He had no objection to moving it. You could have moved it but decided instead to create a rfc, which you requested to close 3 weeks ahead of schedule. I said you could close it anyway, but that was still not enough. I am capable of letting go of grudges, but you clearly are not if you cannot handle a courteous answer to a question you asked just because you do not like the person who gave the answer. Also, you created a section here before I did, so if "snitching" is a valid complaint (it is not), you have either contradicted yourself or admitted you attempted to create "ill-will". Hrodvarsson (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That was not so much raising a complaint about you as replying to his comments on the ANI closure, which I didn't think were entirely fair in that they took no account of the repeated personal attacks made by you. But enough of the petty point scoring, just stay away from me, ok? Leave me the hell alone. You creep me out. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Saying "Also, he has continued to edit war rather than engage in dispute resolution" is raising a complaint. Raising a complaint with the relevant admin is fine, but it is a good idea to not criticize others for what you have done yourself. And again, you were not pinged here: following someone around while telling them to stay away is contradictory behavior. As is repeatedly replying to someone after having asked them not to reply to you. If you do not understand why this is contradictory, this essay may be of relevance. If you do understand why this is contradictory but continue anyway, it reinforces my decision to raise a complaint. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * just stay away from me, ok? Leave me the hell alone. You creep me out.. Which part wasn't clear to you? MaxBrowne (talk) 10:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, you were not pinged here: it is difficult to stay away from you if you follow me around. I am leaning further towards thinking this is a CIR issue. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * just stay away from me, ok? Leave me the hell alone. You creep me out.. Which part wasn't clear to you? MaxBrowne (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

From Boing's page
I don't want to clog up Boing's page any further, but if you're genuinely interested in assembling a defence for an ArbCom case, here are my replies to your last round of comments: I didn't mean to imply that you were under pressure when you made the block, but you've certainly been under pressure since. Review your contributions after the block as dispassionately as you can, and perhaps you'll see what I mean. --RexxS (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't find this deplorable episode ridiculous. It's troubling that you can make light of it.
 * To refute is to disprove. You merely contradicted without offering one shred of evidence to back up your assertion. Contradiction may well be part of the process of refutation, but alone it is never enough to disprove.
 * Guy added a comment to his warning template (check the diff that I gave): "Accusing other editors of vandalism is uncivil and may lead to your being blocked from editing." It was the misuse of 'vandalism' that was characterised as "uncivil" as a reason for potential blocking – and that is squarely PA territory, despite the template he used. The recipient is going to take more notice of the customised comments than the boilerplate text.
 * No, you're simply wrong. Tendentious editing is "not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been [[WP:PROPOSAL|thoroughly vetted by the community." There is no link from WP:DE to WP:TE and the behavioural policy does not recognise the essay (or "explanatory supplement" as it calls itself). The section you're counting on is mentioned on its talk page and was added by the consensus of two editors. That's fine for an essay, but completely insufficient for a behavioural guideline.
 * Examples of tendentious editing are not blockable offences per se. If they rise to the level of disruptive editing, then you have an argument. You made a mistake by seizing on a single instance of an example of behaviour that is on an essay page, and thinking that was sufficient grounds for a block. You're going to have to reconsider the wisdom of that, and the sooner the better.
 * No matter how much you wiki-lawyer it, the block was bad. Trying to deflect attention from your mistake by criticising Boing is not going to garner much sympathy for your case.
 * "Goad: provoke or annoy (someone) so as to stimulate an action or reaction." Your response, quit threatening me and just take it to ArbCom, was goading. More importantly it was combative – and that's the problem.
 * Thank you for taking the time to comment. Even though we don't see eye to eye, I appreciate you providing me with feedback. I think I've argued my points sufficiently, and do not wish to become mired in endless debate. I'm prepared to see how things play out at Arbcom and to cooperate with whatever happens there. Thanks again for your feedback, and apologies for calling you ridiculous. You were just sharing your thoughts, and even though I disagreed I should not have used that word. S warm   ♠  16:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words, and it's okay for folks to disagree. The exercise in discussing with me hopefully may prove fruitful to you if the case request proceeds at ArbCom. I hope it turns out okay for you, as I don't consider one debatable block to be grounds for losing a decent administrator. And you can quote me on that. --RexxS (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words, and it's okay for folks to disagree. The exercise in discussing with me hopefully may prove fruitful to you if the case request proceeds at ArbCom. I hope it turns out okay for you, as I don't consider one debatable block to be grounds for losing a decent administrator. And you can quote me on that. --RexxS (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Arbcom cases
I am not commenting in Mop 2 because we are in disagreement in Mop 1. Also, I do not think your actions come close to rising to the level of an Arbcom case. I do, however, want to make a couple of observations. The first is I, like several others, do not think that making that block was the right call. I would go so far as to say it was a bad call, but it was within your discretion so … meh. The second is, after explaining your reasoning it would have been best to disengage. You are the administrator so it is your responsibility to de-escalate. Comments like "feel free to ArbCom me. Seriously. Go for it" are more appropriate coming from the editor who was blocked not the one who set the block. Starting a block review was the right call. Doing it as soon as an experienced editor questioned it would have been better and AN would have been, in my opinion, the better venue but, again… meh. Anyway, it is not my intention to start up a conversation on these events or to attack you with could've/should've. I commented obliquely on your actions in other venues which I feel can be seen as 'talking behind your back'. I felt it proper to 'say it to your face' as it were. I have seen enough of your work at ANI and comments elsewhere to know you are a good admin and one situation handled in what I perceive to be a poor manner does not change my opinion. Jbh Talk  16:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I know we fundamentally disagreed regarding the FPaS situation, and I know Tarage was a strong supporter of yours in that regard. Much respect for your friendly and constructive feedback given the circumstances. I do appreciate it and I will keep it in mind going forward. Take care. S warm   ♠  17:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration case request
Dear Swarm, On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, I would like to inform you that the Misuse of Administrator Tools 2 case request has been declined. The Committee has concluded that a single mistake while using the administrator tools, without a similar pattern of behavior, does not require its intention. However you may wish to read through the arbitrators' discussion and take it into consideration while being involved in similar incidents in future. Best regards, Kostas20142 (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Topic Ban
Hello Swarm. I haven't touched WP all year and I am just getting used to strange editing features I have never noticed before!! Incredible what you miss when you're away. Anyhow. I am still topic banned on Balkans subjects and basically I would like to have this reviewed. I tried once before but it failed to register, and got one negative remark from one admin who said he wasn't going to support the lifting, and so I steered clear for a while. I may be in need of guidance as to what the correct procedure is, that is if you cannot grant the privilege yourself. BTW I am happy to kick off on some form of 1RR rule that applies personally to my account. Or sommething else to that effect. Thankyou. --Sinbad Barron (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

ps Here is link. --Sinbad Barron (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but ...
Would you mind protecting Momoiro Clover Z again? Spacecowboy420 waited for the protection to expire, then waited a bit more to avoid seeming tendentious, then started edit-warring again. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Shit. Sorry. Forget I said that. You're "involved" at this point so I'm not requesting you do what actually needs to be done, but the above-requested action would probably decrease the chances of someone else doing that. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Aargh Too late! I'm really sorry about this... Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, what’s up? Is there some sort of concern as to my involvement? If so, i’ll gladly reverse the action, but I personally see no problem with it. S warm   ♠  12:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No one will challenge your protecting the page, since the offending parties can just game the system by pretending to support "the option that prevents edit-warring" while actively refusing to use the talk page and just waiting it out. I meant that if you tried actually blocking those parties (which is the only real solution at this point, sans a TBAN) they might raise an uproar about your being involved, and I wouldn't post on your talk page requesting that anyway. The problem was that I realized there was an ANEW thread open moments after posting the above, and now I'm worried that with the page protected someone will just close the ANEW as "page protected by Swarm, apparently". Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Well, I assure you that you requesting my intervention directly does not make me involved, and any such claim would be baseless. I can and will handle it if your fears of gaming play out. S warm   ♠  12:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think I get it. You think that this should be handled via blocking and were hoping that AN3 would produce that result. Oh well. FWIW, I agree with your assessment that if they don’t take this time to resolve the dispute through discussion, blocking or a TBAN would be the next step, which I would be willing to do myself and can do via DS. Just let me know. Regards, S warm   ♠  12:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you mind blocking, or at least talking to, ? Since you protected the page, he's really gone off the deep end, reaching so far for mud to sling that he is now using the talk page to make fun of everyone's usernames. The fact that he has insinuated that both and I are "Japan advocates" and therefore biased (even though the same logic would dismiss his only ally in the dispute as well), and is now making fun of us by transcribing our names into butchered Japanese and adding diminutive titles onto them makes this ... I dunno: since neither CT nor I are ethnically Japanese it's not really "racist", but it certainly feels very off-colour. (Full disclosure: he's been making fun of my username for weeks, so this isn't an entirely new development. That he's still calling me as "Hachi-ju Hachi-kun" even after that ANI thread should be proof enough that it was not a good-faith misunderstanding and he was and is deliberately baiting me.) And even apart from the username jabs, remarks like there are just a few disruptive editors with long block histories who are trying to whitewash the blackface are clearly unacceptable. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Christ. Although you're not actually Japanese, this kind race-baiting snark is unacceptable and needs to be nipped in the bud ASAP. I've banned them from the article for a month, and I'll ping you and if there's an appeal.  S warm   ♠  03:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You can see from the discussion on my talk page that I didn't think much of what Spacecowboy was doing with Hijiri's username at first, but the fact that he's only stepped it up since Hijiri made it clear how he felt about it is uncivil at the very least—and, really, it's just part and parcel of the nonstop trolling he's brought to the page. Spacecowboy has been editing the page in bad faith from the get-go (and this is aside from the multiple cases of editwarring). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Arianewiki1 won't stop
Swarm, I am making constructive edits on the Australian rules page in an effort to appease Arian, but the user keeps reverting them with the nonsensical accusation that I am "Avoiding discussion on Talkpage" (as can be seen here, I have not avoided the discussion at all). The user would rather revert my good faith contributions for no legitimate reason than reply to me, address my points or help build the page with me. - HappyWaldo (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The user has just removed yet another reliably cited constructive edit added by me days ago. - HappyWaldo (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Now the user is deleting more reliably cited material and adding their own POV slant that does not represent the source. - HappyWaldo (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I gave you straightforward instructions to proceed to RSN, which you've decided to ignore, so I'll just lock the page from the both of you, and if you want to stop arguing and start seeking dispute resolution, this will give you plenty of time to do so. S warm   ♠  03:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have already requested the WP:THIRD opinion of two regular contributors to Australian rules football pages. See here and here. Is this sufficient? - HappyWaldo (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Super Bowl LVII
Over the last couple of months an IP has been repeatedly trying to start a Super Bowl LVII. I am now the 5th separate editor to try to restore the redirect. Can the page be semiprotected? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Done! Also upgraded Super Bowl to semi-protection. S warm   ♠  00:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban?
Could you explain exactly which edits and/or comments resulted in this topic ban? And actually, could we continue this discussion on my talk page rather than on here? Initially, I have a few concerns about this topic ban, but it seems sensible to clarify exactly why this happened before considering my next steps. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, you can see the section immediately above for the specific complaint that backed the rationale given in the template. That evidence was directly supplied to me, and directly led to the AE sanction; there is nothing else to disclose. If you would like to clarify exactly why this behavior is happening, please see the template I sent you for appeal information. S warm   ♠  07:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

So there is a topic ban because I translated their names into Japanese (hachi ju hachi = 88) (kuru kuru - curly)

Or was it because I responded [] to a question regarding the consequences of the incident?

Or did you really consider me saying "Right now, I see people with a history of promoting Jpop or Japanese focused articles" to be "race-baiting snark"? Considering the amount of accusations I've had thrown at me suggesting that I'm socking, I would have considered my comments to be very mild - but you think they are "race-baiting snark"?

Or was it Curly (you know, the guy who posts "The flying fuck is this shit?" "You admitted to it yourself. Now fuck off" "just fuck off with the trolling horseshit and PAs."[]) saying that I'm not civil?

It seems a little strange that this whole incident was dealt with in a rather underhand manner on an admin's talk page, based on a personal request from an editor who has an extensive block history for personal attacks and battleground behavior and with backup from another editor who has an equally interesting block history - but it's not surprising, you made it very clear that you had already chosen a side and were looking forward to slapping some sanctions on me. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is more evidence of the way you troll these discussions. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Umm ... an editor who has an extensive block history for personal attacks and battleground behavior is a baseless personal attack, and you should retract it if you don't want to be blocked yourself for battleground behaviour and personal attacks. My block log mentions each of those things once, and each one was the result of a bad-faith personal request from an editor who is himself de facto site-banned (and actually received a block to match my own -- the reason I didn't appeal was because at that time I thought having a block on their record might bring an end to the IDHT, and thought not appealing would be more constructive than appealing under the circumstances). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

No offence, but I'm here to discuss the issue with the admin concerned not either of you, thanks. Swarm, this is why I requested a response on my talk page - but that's entirely up to you. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You can't attack other editors and then tell them they are not welcome to respond. If you want to talk about us behind our backs, activate email. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome to respond (on any talk page other than mine) nothing is behind your back - I just have no interest in talking with you on this subject. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Indef 1RR and civility restrictions on the article?
Swarm, you know I appreciate all you've done for us in the dispute so far, but I have to question this action. For one, you were discussing it on Spacecowboy420's user talk page (a forum from which Johnuniq, CT and I are all apparently banned). Discussing something like that on a talk page only one side of the dispute is allowed edit is not a good idea: we were unable to present counter-arguments (virtually everything SC420 said was untrue -- I haven't accused him of socking in weeks).

The topic is not actually a controversial one that would benefit from these restrictions in the long run, as this is purely a problem with a single user; if said user's TBAN were indefinite, there would literally never be another edit-warring problem on the article. Presumably the civility restriction and 1RR will have the same practical effect, but only because both have the effect of preventing SC420 from instigating disruptive incidents.

Removing the TBAN and placing the DS1RR (it works like the Israel-Palestine 1RR where making a new edit that is subsequently reverted counts as a revert, so reverting it back in is already in breach, right?) also has the negative effect of preventing other editors (notably User:Moscow Connection, the principal author of the page and the only one involved in is dispute apart from me to have edited it before March) from making uncontroversial new edits as long as SC420 (or whoever else) sees fit to revert them.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree. What restrictions, why? This is not a controversial topic. The editors who started all this will go just as quickly as they came. While the users who actually work on the page will feel vulnerable cause they will have to remember not to revert and will be under a constant threat of being blocked. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you see this?


 * Doesn't it look like trolling? The user is just having fun. I don't think he is interested in improving the page whatsoever. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should just take Spacecowboy's contentious editing, editwarring, trolling, and general obvious bad faith on that page to ANI. Spacecowby's only obviously going to game this to the hilt—such as spinning any (totally legit) accusations of bad faith as breaches of WP:CIVIL.  It has to be recognized that this user is WP:NOTHERE. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not meant to be a long-term restriction, it's only in response to the current dispute. But, it's a dispute over BLP, and these DS are authorized for exactly these reasons. I did see the quote supplied above, and in fact I banned him for those comments, even though I didn't have to and no one suggested that I do so. But, he thoroughly and reasonably explained the relevant context that made clear that it was not the racist trolling that it appeared to be; he also made clear his intention to move forward and ensure that the discussion does not go off the rails again. This is a fairly straightforward content dispute, and the problem is that there has been no attempt at DR and discussion degenerated into mudslinging. The only thing that's changed is that for the duration of this content dispute, personal commentary has been disallowed, as has edit warring. This is something that no productive editors should have a problem with. Gaming is not going to be tolerated; any appearance of gaming discretionary sanctions will result in a block. S warm   ♠  00:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, and it's a relief you didn't intend for the restrictions to be long-term (in a brief moment of madness on my part, I thought you had bought into the idea that the group is controversial because a Wikipedia editor made that claim). Would you mind unprotecting the page, anyway? If the restrictions do what they're supposed to, the page protection is meaningless (heck, 1RR arguably makes it redundant by definition). SC420 has already said he's not editing until after the protection would expire anyway (also, Monday is a public holiday in Japan and his talk page says he doesn't edit on weekends), and the version of the disputed content the rest of us prefer is already live so it's not like we could restore it while he's away or some such. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate that this is being framed as a content dispute, when the issue is entirely behavioural. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right, ✅. I mean, it has every appearance of a content dispute that got overheated. If this is all just SC being a bad faith, disruptive editor, then he sure as hell manipulated me by pretending to be perfectly reasonable. I hope there are no hard feelings, I just don't see how I could get a one-sided action to stick given the information I have. I wholly encourage you to build a case and take it to ANI.  S warm   ♠  03:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The next trick he pulls (and it'll happen) I'll be right there. The diffs start with editwarring over this and devolve from there. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

adopt me please
hello i just want to learn the in and outs of this place and how to make constructive edits and stuff like that if you could do that that would be awesome thanks.

Update
Hi Swarm. It's been a week since the Australian rules kerfuffle. I'm glad you protected the page from further damage. Immediately after, I started a discussion titled "clean slate" on the Australian rules talk page (here), and although I pinged Arianewiki1, it has attracted no response from them. Instead they have returned to editing pages of their primary interest (astronomy), and gotten into new editing disputes. Good for them (really, it appears they are being productive). In the meantime I created my preferred version of the disputed material in a sandbox. Since Arianewiki1 is not engaging, how do I get this added to the page? Can I run it by you or another admin for accuracy/reliability? Thanks. - HappyWaldo (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, WP:LETITGO is a perfectly valid resolution to a dispute, and if Arianewiki is going to bow out, I see no reason to keep the page locked. Happy editing! S warm   ♠  19:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, . I built the reputation that made me an admin being an advocate for newbies at WP:AAU and being an advocate for patience and civility at WP:WQA. The administrative role has definitely made me lose touch with this kind of simple, pure kindness, and it felt good just to go back to that, much less to be recognized for it. I appreciate it. S warm   ♠  20:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for this. I missed the ANI thanks to being on Wikibreak, but based on my previous interactions, would have strongly recommended a net-negative block. It was overdue, and only hadn't been pursued before because of Mkv's absence of activity. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

ANI - Indian Christianity template
Hi Swarm.

I refer to this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive982#Is_Christian_evangelism_promoted_by_Wikipedia? ANI] re Is Christian evangelism promoted by Wikipedia?

While I certainly agree that the situation went well past where it should have ever gone, and the alleged faith pushing would seem to be 99.9% improbable, I do think there might be grounds for a broader view to be taken, so if I may I would like take a few minutes of your time to offer an alternative assessment?

Until I came across this ANI (I go perusing there very late at night when I have a little insomnia!), I had always assumed that images/emblems/icons/symbols in Part of a series of articles on templates were taken directly from the subject matter itself, ie, were actual encyclopedic objects from (directly or potentially) referencable material. I looked at a few templates and this does indeed seem to be mostly/usually the case, for example, a random first selection Anthropology of art, History of Austria, Sunni Islam, Psychology sidebar, and Christianity sidebar. The important thing here is that all these images, or imaged objects, appear independently of Wikipedia, in their own right, or something very very similar exists.

The image in Indian Christianity, as far as I can tell does not exist a priori outside of Wikipedia. It appears to be solely a construction for use within Wikipedia. While this is entirely appropriate for a Wikiproject, I suggest it is entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedic article, ie, for use in main space.

When I first looked at the article I thought that the template image related to some form of official image used by an over arching association of Christian groups in India. But no. As far as I can tell it is not used by anyone in India.

In the context it is used in main space, I believe it is WP:OR and-or WP:SYNTH.

Its use in main space to me certainly implies the existance and use of a recognised emblem which in fact does not exist (outside of Wikipedia).

I am not sure if the block you placed should remain or not, but I do believe the image should be removed from main space usage. It could remain in use in wikipedia project space.

There may be other such WP:SYNTHed images too, which should also be removed from main space?

Comment?

Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

PS I had/have also read the user's talk page, the template talk page, the image's file details, etc.   Aoziwe (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You're still free to propose the image be removed from the template. But, I will let you know that the policies you're citing do not apply to that image. The image does not contain any information that requires verification, so you can't claim that it's improperly sourced. It's just a decorative illustration for the template. Also, images that are user-created specifically for Wikipedia are encouraged for copyright reasons. The fact that it does not exist outside of Wikipedia is not a problem, in fact, that's a good thing. I also don't see any violations of Image policy. Maybe you could make an MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE argument claiming that it's a decorative image that doesn't add anything to the articles, but it's a long shot. S warm   ♠  03:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me. Please bear with me for a little longer.

But, I will let you know that the policies you're citing do not apply to that image. If it is decorative I agree, but in a main space article in this context I argue that it is not, and hence they do apply to the meaning conveyed by the image.

The image does not contain any information that requires verification, so you can't claim that it's improperly sourced. I agree that the two components of the image do not require verification, and can easily be sourced. My issue is that in conjunction the two components, and hence this image (as a whole), cannot be either verified as valid or sourced, and hence should not be in main space.

It's just a decorative illustration for the template. This I would agree with. But this means that it has no encyclopedic value and I would argue that it actually has negative encyclopedic value because it is implying an emblemism which does not exist.

''Also, images that are user-created specifically for Wikipedia are encouraged for copyright reasons. The fact that it does not exist outside of Wikipedia is not a problem, in fact, that's a good thing.'' For the image itself I agree. It is just that this image in this context is very misleading in its status.

I also don't see any violations of Image policy. I would suggest that it does contravene Image use policy. It shows a concept which is neither presented in the article nor exists in reality, ie, some over arching Christianity emblem for the Indian State.

Maybe you could make an MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE argument claiming that it's a decorative image that doesn't add anything to the articles, but it's a long shot. Perhaps as per above?

I can easily see why someone with a non-Christian religious leaning might be concerned with the image.

Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

"fox"?
Hey, I noticed this edit of yours, and was wondering if "fox" meant something in particular?

I've been having a dog of a time trying to link section headers in diffs and/or permalinks (primarily because when citing past discussions generically rather than any particular edit, I normally like to give a permalink of the archived discussion so that it looks the same as the diffs rather than having to format it like a wikilink), and am curious if you've got any insight as to why it never seems to work.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It was just a typo, I meant "fix". And no, I didn't even know that linking to section headers changed the diffs like that! I don't know if you can! S warm   ♠  02:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ha! That didn't even occur to me -- I was searching for WP:FOX and all that... anyway, according to a quick edit summary search it's been bugging me for at least three months but I definitely recall it working at some point in the past... Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Further disruption
Hello. I apologize if this is nearing the point of pestering, but User:MaxBrowne has continued the disruptive behavior at Peter Thiel. After initiating a new RfC, they edited while logged out to remove terms related to the RfC. See the logged-out edit here, and their other Auckland-based Spark NZ addresses here (Special:Contributions/222.153.254.63, Special:Contributions/125.236.165.185). Should I create a report at ANI about this or is this better suited to SPI? Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey . I would say take it to SPI. I don't think I could claim to have sufficient behavioral evidence to issue blocks on Max or the IP, but maybe a checkuser over there could help. I also don't think I could protect the page based on that edit alone, but if any more IP disruption happens, please let me know and I'll do what I can. S warm   ♠  19:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I created a report at SPI but did not request a CheckUser as I read on user talk:Bbb23 that CUs should be not requested if the only suspected sockpuppets are IPs. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Lorty, see how easy it is...
...to flub-up? Thank you for the understanding and patience you've shown over the years. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 20:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hah, yeah! Just glad I caught myself before some trigger happy admin jumped on me for it. :P Thank you for the compliment though, it means a lot and inspires me to keep improving. S warm   ♠  03:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I've posted to that ANI thread way too many times over the last three days ...
... and this is more a personal disagreement with a minor sidenote of one of your comments than something that really needs to be included in the archived ANI thread.

Actually, I get the impression that They engage in sketchy behavior, and the second they get called out on it, they play innocent is how CWG responds to (a) admins and (b) non-admins he suspects he has a realistic chance of "winning over".

My only action directed at with him before opening this thread was this and this, neither of which could reasonably be called "calling him out"; when I actually called him out by opening this thread he responded by lashing out with a long string of off-topic accusations against me -- he seems to think "bad-faith grave-dancing accusations" are a recurring problem with my edits and is obsessed with it, his sig currently appearing on this page 33 times and ten of them being attached to comments about "Grave Dancing".

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for help
Hi Swarm. You've suggested recently that if I am a subject of peronal attack that I should seek protection from such attacks. Could you please help me evaluate recent comment by MVBW [diff] particularly that editor's using the phrase "including some poorly written nationalistic texts" to describe my edits that I perceive as veiled/masked peronal attack aimed at labeling me as a "nationalist". I would be grateful for your input.--Piznajko (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That was merely an advice, with an explanation, to user Piznajko. Every my comment can be supported by diffs and additional comments. Should I provide them here or elsewhere? I would rather not at this point, in agreement with the closing on ANI. My very best wishes (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see any "personal attack" here. My very best wishes seems to be playing the ball, not the man. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of YouTubers (3rd nomination)
If you must know, I went through every deletion discussion and contacted those, not blocked, who not only voted keep, but who voted delete. But there is a bigger issue. The list was nominated seven times prior. Every time it has been nominated a lot of the same reasons were brought up that are not valid try and get it deleted. There is a bigger issue if it gets nominated for a ninth time. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 01:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I can take your word in good faith that your notifications were attempted fairly and without the motivation of willfully fabricating a "keep" consensus, in spite of the fact that there's quite literally no reason you should have been notifying anyone, especially given that you were involved. And, given that the only effect your notifications had was to solicit a massive pile-on of keep voters, there's simply no way the appearance of canvassing could possibly be overlooked, even if your intentions were pure. There should be no reason to send out notifications like that. It's completely unusual and unreasonable. Please refrain from doing that again. S warm   ♠  02:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Like I said on the noticeboard, I won't do it again. Something needs to be done about it getting nominated so many times.  Six out of these eight times, the consensus was keep yet it continued to get nominated.  I'm sure I'm not the only one who sees an issue with that.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 02:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe you, and I have no desire to bother you about it further. But your desire to prevent it from being repeatedly nominated ultimately counteracted your own goal. There's now a procedural opening for it to be nominated yet again, and there's nothing policy-wise that can actually prevent it. Each nomination buys a longer amount of time, but nothing can prevent repeated nominations. WP:CCC. S warm   ♠  06:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Just reviewed it and I thought I should drop you a note to compliment you on your closing rationale. I was one of the people that turned up after being notified, and while I completely stand by the rationale I shared in the AfD, the way you've phrased your close really did cover the issue well. There's clearly plenty of support for keeping it but the scale of the notifications really did muddy the waters and make for a flawed discussion. Cheers ~ mazca  talk 22:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! S warm   ♠  20:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Adoption
Hi, I'm Squashbby! I've been a user for a about a year, but I've never done anything more helpful than adding links and correcting typos. I would love to get more involved! Let me know if you think we'd be a good adopter/adoptee match (I'm not really sure how this works, lol). Thanks! Squashbby (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey ! I'd be happy to adopt you. You can contact me here at any time, or you can also email me by clicking the email link above. I'll be around to help you whenever you need it, and we can communicate as much or as little as you like. No pressure! Did you have any questions for me to start with? Need some suggestions on how you can get more involved? S warm   ♠  21:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Adoption?
I came here to thank you for closing an ANI and blocking a disruptive editor (Aheezau) who was wasting my time here. (So, thank you!!) Looking at your talk page, I wonder, what is adoption? Like somebody else who asked you about that, I want to be a better editor. If you have time, I would be grateful for your help and advice, on occasions you can spare them. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey! No problem! So, Adopt-a-user is a program that allows less experienced users to find experienced mentors to help them with Wikipedia. I’d be happy to “adopt” you as well if you want. Feel free to come to me any time! Have any questions right now? S warm   ♠  15:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * (Removing long question that got solved already, by changing section title to something the other editor preferred. Hurray!) 17:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)