User talk:Swarm/Archive 18

Need to fix an error on my page
I just went and read my Wikipedia page thoroughly for the first time, and there is an error in terms of my education. The page is protected so I can’t make the change. Is it possible for me to get permission to make changes. I am the actual Christine Hallquist. I did not attend university of Massachusetts, I became an engineer while working for digital equipment corporation. Christine Hallquist (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are Christine Hallquist, please confirm your identity by emailing the address written at the end of the paragraph this link takes you to. Once you do that, you may make edit requests(click for instructions) on the article talk page (Talk:Christine Hallquist).  I would gently note that it is not "your Wikipedia page", but a Wikipedia article about you. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

New user disruption?

 * Special:Contributions/Yansytang
 * Special:Contributions/Kenwongtk
 * Special:Contributions/AMLSIU
 * Special:Contributions/Charlespsml
 * Special:Contributions/Hkgeo4869
 * Special:Contributions/Alexnlk
 * Special:Contributions/HelenHYW
 * Special:Contributions/JacqCLSin

I guess they're students? I'm really not sure if there is something I am supposed to do here. It isn't clear if they are only posting on talk pages with folks associated with the class. / &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 07:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Query
Hello, Swarm. A while ago you were helping me perform copyright cleanup by removing the visibility of selected revisions from article histories. I appreciate that you may well be too busy to continue with this. However, do you think that there would be another administrator who might be interested in helping? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What needs doing? -- The SandDoctor Talk 21:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There are various articles at which, in my judgment, it would be best if the visibility of certain revisions could be removed. Some months ago, Swarm was helping me with this; I understand if he is no longer interested or too busy.


 * Six examples.


 * 1. Reading Capital. Here it would be good if all the visibility of all revisions beginning with this edit I made as Polisher of Cobwebs on October 23, 2012 and up to and including this edit I made on February 27, 2019, could be removed.


 * 2. The Origins and History of Consciousness. In this case, I believe that the visibility of all revisions beginning with this edit I made as Polisher of Cobwebs on July 7, 2012 and up to and including this edit I made on September 8, 2019 should be removed.


 * 3. Psyche (book). In this case, I would like to see the removal of the visibility of all revisions beginning with this edit I made as Polisher of Cobwebs on April 14, 2012 and up to and including this edit I made on August 22, 2019.


 * 4. Logical Investigations (Husserl). In this case, I would like to see the removal of the visibility of all revisions beginning with this edit I made as Polisher of Cobwebs on April 6, 2012 and up to and including this edit, which I made on April 3, 2019.


 * 5. Sexual Desire (book). In this case, I believe it would be desirable to remove the visibility of all revisions prior to this one.


 * 6. The Mismeasure of Desire. In this case, I believe it would be desirable to remove the visibility of all revisions beginning with this one of April 24, 2014, and up to and including this one of February 2, 2018. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What is the rationale for the removal of these edits (in other words: why do these need to be removed and why is it "desirable")? Any revision must match at least one criteria of WP:CRD to be deleted. If it is because of copyright issues with the content, then please see Template:Copyvio-revdel and add it (with start/end revisions) to the articles in question. -- The SandDoctor Talk 04:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue is copyright in each case. I was not previously aware of that template, and I don't know how to use it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You just copy and paste it to the top of the article. would be the code to put on Reading Capital as an example. That is okay that you do not know how to use it, however...just a future reference sort of thing ;). I will work on these. Are there any others? -- The SandDoctor  Talk 05:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. There are a whole bunch of them, including some that I would have to do more work on to remove potential copyvios before making a request. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, . Please post on my talk page with links and start/end diffs when ready with more. I will pick away at these current ones when possible. -- The SandDoctor  Talk 05:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Blocking for personal attacks
In my long experience I have learned that blocking for personal attacks does not improve editor behavior. It tends to have the paradoxic effect of making behavior worse, triggering retaliation by the editor or their friends. What does seem to work in moderating the behavior of incivil but otherwise productive editors is to (1) identity comments that cross the line and (2) ask them to redact or refactor. Let them do it themselves. Eventually they come to understand what sort of communication is over the line and then reduce the frequency of it. This requires patience. My practice is never to block an established contributor unless their behavior goes so far over the line that they must be indef blocked. Check my logs, you will see no time length blocks except for IPs and when mandated by arbitration remedies that specify block lengths.

We really need a good thorough community discussion about the methods for dealing with incivility. We should list the types of comments that are never acceptable (bright lines) and have a clear process. Additionally, I find that WP:ANI is set up in a way that intensifies disputes. There should be a template to start a thread that has fields: involved editors, editor filing the request, links to relevant history, and then sections for uninvolved editors to comment, and a section for patrolling admins to comment, and finally a section for one admin to make a decision on the evidence and post a result. This is somewhat like the structure at WP:AE, which seems to be helpful. Jehochman Talk 22:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * While I don't agree that blocking in these cases is never helpful, I do like the ideas about structuring discussion at ANI. Presumably you stole them from some Harvard man. EEng 00:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, we ought to think seriously about structuring discussions.  These discussions are just brutal. Jehochman Talk 01:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I am all for patience, understanding, and extending ROPE in cases of incivility, particularly among MOSTACTIVE users. I agree with the general approach that it should be reserved for particularly egregious offenses. Even in such instances, I will defer to any voluntary resolution offered by the offender, as seen here. And I 100% agree that editors should be asked to improve their behavior, not threatened with blocks. I'm not naive nor new at this, I'm fully aware of the negative repercussions of blocking power users over incivility. However, this was not "incivility", this was direct, willful bullying, in which the user not only expressed unusually severe and unprovoked disdain in response to a perfectly valid and innocuous message, invoking both ablest slurs and sentiments that the user was better off dead, going back several times to re-edit their comments for the sole purpose of adding more personal attacks. When an uninvolved user reported them to ANI, they did not take responsibility, but personally attacked the reporter, resulting in several other users jumping in and doing the same. In my opinion, a blanket "no block" policy enables this behavior, and has led to a toxic environment where we have WP:UNBLOCKABLES. This environment is upheld by a vocal minority of the community who bully anyone who tries to appeal to us, users who are supposed to use our block tool when behavioral issues get out of hand. With all due respect to you as an admin, I do not think your "never block" policy is the right stance to take. Nor do I think aggressively blocking is a good stance. Handling incivility is subjective and imperfect, and requires nuance. I think AE sanctions are living proof that the mere prospect of blocking does improve the environment. If it doesn't change underlying behavior, that's fine. We're not behavioral therapy. Our job is not to improve editor behavior. Our job is to enforce the community's standards for behavior. I think it's clear that if we don't step up when we have the opportunity to do so, Arbcom will take over more and more of this responsibility, or the WMF will continue to encroach, and we'll be perpetually complaining when users like Fram or Ritchie or Eric continue to get aggressively shadowbanned. That's just my take. I don't think we differ as much as it may seem. ~Swarm~  {sting} 01:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Asking for redaction also has the advantage of giving the (possibly) offending party a chance to explain their meaning; misunderstandings do occur (though in this case that's not in play, except to the extent that Ceoil's English is poor enough that he often misunderstands what's being said to him, and consequently starts spouting abuse in response to something quite innocent).
 * Wait... let me add that I'm no fan of redaction; I prefer that such stuff be left in place, struck, and apologized for. Thus others can learn. EEng 01:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I think we need to have a community discussion and try to adopt a common process to create more uniform enforcement. We need to do something because the current situation is not sustainable. Jehochman Talk 01:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's sustainable, but it's far from optimal. Before we start talking about a big community discussion, we better let things simmer down after ... you know. EEng 01:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

 * Kudos from me, too, Swarm. I appreciate your willingness to state opinions that might be seen as unpopular. I think the most important aspect of adminning is the appearance of impartiality which is, hopefully, backed up the reality of impartiality. Liz Read! Talk! 01:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

RfPP
Sorry about the edit conflict! Feel free to restore a month, if you think it needs it. I am leaving right now, the page is yours to deal with! -- MelanieN (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 GOCE Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

IBAN issue
I have saved this notice from you sitting in one of my 37 open tabs on my browser as a perpetual reminder of this IBAN. Every once in a while I find myself clicking on it and re-reading your message just to refresh my brain and ensure that I do not fall into even the inadvertent trap of committing a violation. Every once in a while, I wonder if it's reached the point where it might make sense to appeal the IBAN. I didn't do it at the six-month mark; even after a year, I was still waiting for the right time.But the turn of events over the past two weeks find me rather disturbed by some actions taken on contecnt that I've edited. This started with this TfD on September 11th for a template that I had created more than a decade ago, followed in succession by Yet another TfD on September 24th targeting my work.The most egregious -- and most clear provocation -- is Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Shin. I edited the article for Elizabeth Shin in this edit, only to have the editor in question tag that article for deletion in this edit, just hours after my edit. The editor in question had never previously edited the article and only appears to have nominated the article for deletion based on systematically monitoring my edits. Same with the two TfDs listed above, which appear to be in response to my edit that reinserted the templates that were then targeted for deletion.I am obligated to check the history of every single article I consider editing to avoid even inadvertently violating the one-way IBAN. Among my several hundred thousand edits, I'm sure that I've created or edited articles and templates that are worthy of deletion, but it seems clear that I'm being stalked, harassed and monitored. There are hundreds of thousands of editors who are more than competent to tear my work to shreds and there are millions of other articles that the editor in question could find fault with, without having to target my work.What action do you suggest here? Alansohn (talk) 04:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:AGF
So I'll see your avalanche of essays and raise you a guideline. I'd also like to point out that casting aspersions goes both ways: I've been generally productive and stayed out of harms way for the past ten years with only two blocks (one of which was fairly quickly reversed). I thought I made it clear in my reply to you at AN/I that what you're trying to do is unacceptable, and certainly not within the setting of a user actively harassing me over some BS with Commons. And yet you took it upon yourself to hat the discussion making sure to note that I was on some sort of "final" warning (who died and elected you ArbCom). I'm sorry you're a pessimist and see the worst in people, but maybe that says more about you than it does about me.

Yes, ten years ago I had all sorts of problems. I'm not going to try and justify them to you because frankly you don't deserve it, and you're certainly not entitled to it. If you can't look at someone without presuming the worst though, maybe it's time to turn in the mop and leave it to more level headed admins? —Locke Cole • t • c 01:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not assuming bad faith against you, because that's a matter of interpreting a person's motivations. Whether you feel you're acting in good faith is irrelevant when you're objectively being combative and disruptive. And yes, every specific behavior I articulated in my warning is objectively a violation of policy that was committed by you. I find it difficult to believe that you would actually deny that you did the things I warned you for, or that said behaviors are actually prohibited by policy, or that you have a history of the exact same said behaviors. This isn't coming from essays. I could easily list the policy violations with both links to the relevant policy and the corresponding diffs if it came down to me having to block you. And, for the record, that is not what I want. Obviously, I would not typically hold 10 year old block log entries against someone. I'm not insane. I am making an exception in your case, for reasons that I have already explained. Your lack of block log entries does not correlate with continued problem-free editing, it correlates with a lack of editing during that period. You have a substantial block log during 2005-2006, when you were active. When you returned to activity in 2008-2009, you, again, were repeatedly blocked. Then you stopped significantly editing until 2013, when you were blocked again, and after that you were not substantially active until February 2019, when you were blocked again. We indef block when an intractable behavioral pattern is apparent, and a direct and obvious correlation between sporadic periods of active editing and combative behavior resulting in blocks, from your very earliest edits 14 years ago, and continuing rather severely and unapologetically as of now, is an apparent intractable pattern. The fact that you go long periods without significant activity is not a mitigating factor, it's "flying under the radar". Your behavior hasn't improved, per the situation the user reported at AN/I, nor per your continued personal attacks and aspersions against the user after you were warned, nor per your personal attacks against me here. Closing an AN/I complaint with a summary of the result is standard, and did not change anything, it just recorded that action was taken. If you think this is harsh, it's the opposite. I am not out to give you a hard time for no reason, nor do I want to block you. I cut you a break by warning you. I cut you another break by closing the discussion without blocking you for your continued personal attacks. I'm cutting you a third break by not blocking you in response to your personal attacks here. The latter two are in spite of you having received an explicit warning that you will be blocked if you continue said behavior, which you very blatantly did. So you're far from being railroaded. But I strongly advise you to drop the stick and take what I said seriously, rather than playing the "admin abuse" card. My job is not to rush to block people without giving them all possible alternatives, but I do have to step in when it seems that there is no other alternative. Frankly, your message here does not give me the impression that I've got it wrong, it gives me the impression that my warning isn't working. I hope there will be no further issues in spite of that. ~Swarm~  {sting} 05:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Barkeep49
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Beetstra • KillerChihuahua • Kusma
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Arcadian • Extraordinary Machine • Xeno
 * Pictogram voting rename.png JamesBWatson →

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Evad37

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news
 * As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration
 * The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
 * The arbitration case regarding was closed.  While there will be a local RfC focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous
 * The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for clarification
You said here that: Are you saying WMF board members are above policy? And that editors are required to know who they are by username, so as to treat them deferentially? If that's the case, I must ask: are you a WMF board member? Thank you. — Guarapiranga (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm saying templating regulars is a competence issue. Templating a WMF board member is just silly. ~Swarm~  {sting} 02:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

More examples for your consideration:. --- Coffee  and crumbs  03:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have no jurisdiction over journalists who choose to use the title "Ethiopian Prime Minister". However, that is not the actual title of the office, but a creation by independent writers. Our policies allow us no license to invoke an unofficial title. As the unofficial title "Ethiopian Prime Minister" is otherwise indistinguishable from the common adjective-noun "Ethiopian prime minister", we will err on the side of the grammatically correct usage over an informal title created by some writers. ~Swarm~  {sting} 02:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Adoption request
"Hi! Could you adopt me? I'm a new user in Wikipedia, in Hong Kong, and want to be a WikiDragon or a WikiOtter. :)" InsaneScholar (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not very active at the moment. Let me refer you to WP:TEAHOUSE for anything you need help with. ~Swarm~  {sting} 16:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg GermanJoe • Girth Summit • Kees08 • Nosebagbear
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg DESiegel • GB fan • MSGJ • Voice of Clam • WilyD
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg DeltaQuad • Fang Aili • Pakaran

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg DeltaQuad • Pakaran

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg MSGJ

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg L235 • Mz7 • SQL • ST47
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Ivanvector
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg DeltaQuad

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg L235 • Mz7 • ST47 • Stwalkerster • The Blade of the Northern Lights • Xaosflux
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg DeltaQuad • DGG • Julia W

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.
 * The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).
 * A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration
 * Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

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

Black Panther (film)
Hi Swarm, I completely understand if you don't want to get involved in this, but I am having a problem with Hijiri88 and was hoping you could step in here and help resolve the issue. I was involved in getting Black Panther (film) promoted to GA, but due to the toxic relationship I and several other editors have with Hijiri (and my wish to generally avoid him where possible) I have not been involved with the article again until recently, and it has since been delisted from GA due to Hijiri's efforts. I would like to get the article promoted up again, but in multiple discussions Hijiri has made it clear that he will not allow this unless the issues he has seen in the article are addressed. He has also refused to aid in identifying these issues so they can be fixed, so I opened a peer review to try get help from other editors before I renominate the article. However, Hijiri has just left a hostile comment at the review that will definitely deter editors from getting involved and helping to improve the article. It also conveniently means that the review is no longer "unanswered" and so will not be as likely to receive responses. I don't want to make a big deal out of this, I just want a fair shot at improving the article and renominating it to GA. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * in multiple discussions Hijiri has made it clear that he will not allow this unless the issues he has seen in the article are addressed. He has also refused to aid in identifying these issues so they can be fixed I have identified the issues multiple times, most recently here and here. In fact, I have repeated myself pretty much every time I was asked to give a list of concerns. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You have never made any genuine attempt to work through all the problems with the article, and you literally refused to do so when I offered to work together to address the issues. And now you have made the situation even worse with this comment, which includes overtly false statements that again will be swaying the opinions of neutral third arties who otherwise may have actually helped out. What you are doing is so clearly a cynical attempt to stonewall me and prevent the article from ever being promoted to GA out of spite, it's almost funny in how unsubtle it is. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If I recall it was me who spontaneously posted a peace offering on your talk page, offered to help cleaning up the plagiarism, and made a whole bunch of other concessions, and you spat in my face. Twice. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Is your concern that the delisting was not legitimate, or that you're being stalked? If there were copyvios, then that's a quick-fail criterion for GA. If you feel the concern was illegitimate, or if it was legitimate but has been resolved, then you can just renominate it for GA. I don't know why you seem to think that one user can stonewall the GA process. Copyvio concerns are objective, they're either there or they aren't, it's not up for debate. If your complaint is that you're being harassed, that's fine, but you need to present your evidence. ~Swarm~  {sting} 17:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think a user can stonewall GA because I've been watching Hijiri do it: he came to the original GA review and almost succeeded in derailing it with WP:BLUDGEON, until the reviewer pointed out how ridiculous his actions were. He then succeeded in having the article delisted because he had scared off anyone who would want to try improve it, not because it genuinely met quick-fail criterion. And he has now successfully stonewalled my attempt at resolving the problem by adding hostile comments to the peer review, making it harder for other users to find and also presenting prospective reviewers with an argument that they surely would not want to get involved in. Whether this counts as harassment is not something I want to get into, I don't have the energy to try and stand up to him for much longer. I just want to give the article a fair chance, as I believe it deserves to be GA and not to be caught up in this personal fight between editors. I have made a genuine effort to address Hijiri's concerns through use of the copyvio tool and a peer review to try identify problem areas that can be improved, but this has been shut-down. If I just went ahead and re-nominated for GA, hoping that any further issues would be identified then, I would do so knowing that Hijiri will definitely be showing up to try stop it and I don't know if I can deal with that at the moment. I realise that life isn't fair and Hijiri generally gets what he wants, but my hope is that somehow I can find a way to put the article first here. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * until the reviewer pointed out how ridiculous his actions were That reviewer was obviously either a sockpuppet or a NOTHERE troll. That anyone could continue defending his actions is frankly bizarre. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * And now he is trying to stop two more GA nominations: Captain Marvel and Spider-Man: Far From Home. At Captain Marvel he blames plagiarism, which he has conveniently discovered just now after I nominated the article and is of course not interested in trying to help resolve himself. At Far From Home he blames the "problematic" resolution to a move discussion that has been held three times already at the article and always ended in the same result, but because he doesn't like that result he is going to try stop the GA nom. And if it wasn't clear enough, he has now added cleanup banners to Captain Marvel since he knows that they are criteria for immediate failure of a GA review, despite admitting that he hadn't even checked the sources that he was tagging! The fact that he is allowed to get away with this blatantly cynical and vindictive behaviour is absurd. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Adam, you need to make sure the articles meet the GA criteria before nominating. You also need to stop attacking other users who disagree with you, and take their advice when, as I was with the copyvio and the cast sourcing and the like, they are right. These are essentially two separate issues, and Swarm has never expressed any interest in the former, so your bringing it up here hardly seems constructive. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And here he is again, making it very clear that he will oppose these GA nominations but refusing to help fix them. I have brought these concerns to Swarm because I wanted a neutral third party with knowledge of our history to help mediate this issue, but if Swarm is not interested then we can take this discussion elsewhere. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, Adam, every time I try to make even minor tweaks to these articles, let alone "fix" them, you respond by making my life as unpleasant as you can. I asked you in January to stop this, even offering some carrots in return, and you spat in my face. What on earth is it that you want me to do? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 21:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You are the one making my life as unpleasant as you can, and part of that is pretending to "fix" articles by filling them with maintenance tags, outright removing chunks of content that you don't like, and blocking genuine attempts to improve them by editors who just want to spend some time working on the encyclopaedia rather than having to fight with you all the time. What I want you to do is stop using these articles as a way to personally attack me and others, but I'm not sure you are even capable of that. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If something I am doing is making editing unpleasant for you, please tell me what it is. As far as I am concerned, 90% of our interactions have consisted of me doing copyedits and the like on these articles shortly after I see the films and/or TV episodes, and you autoreverting me. There's not a whole lot I can do to make this a more pleasant experience for you. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, it seems a bit unfair for you to start demanding that I sink time into helping you fix these articles that have nothing to do with Asia in the first week of Wikipedia Asian Month. Can't we discuss this at ... pretty much any other time of the year? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Rossendale and Darwen
You've chosen the wrong stable version! One candidate promoted with no others mentioned is bias and against electoral law. Change it. Change it quickly. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what? There's only one "stable version", see WP:STABLE. It's simply the no-prejudice, pre-dispute revision. Secondly, my reading of the dispute is that the candidate is not being "promoted", but simply listed. It just so happens that there is only one candidate at the moment, thus only one on the list. Am I wrong? ? It's a bit odd, and unreasonable, to interpret the listing of the only candidate as "excluding" the other candidates, who aren't known to exist. Also, Wikipedia is not under the jurisdiction of whatever electoral law you're referring to, though invoking the law to make an editorial demand is likely to be construed as a legal threat that you will be blocked for. Even in cases where an edit does violate a law, Wikipedia's legal disclaimers state that the editor is responsible for their own edits. But to be honest, you're coming across as the hysterical POV-pusher here, because the situation seems fairly innocuous. ~Swarm~  {sting} 20:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You've misunderstood the situation. We now have an article where one candidate is the sole candidate for this constituency for a good number of days, giving the impression that there are no opponents, giving the impression that the one sole candidate is a "shoe in" for the seat. That is bias. That is misleading. That is not encyclopedic. The stable version - my version - is to have no candidates at all, so at least Wikipedia is not seen as favouring one over all others. If you want to misrepresent my post as a legal threat then that's on you. I don't want to be blocked, I have been a proud Wikipedian for many many years. On this single page, on this single point, I am most adamant that my position is the correct one and you are misunderstood and wrong. Please please lock the page with no candidates rather than the current page with one: it's a matter of bias and prejudice, and a matter on which I am not budging an inch. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In the great majority of cases, lists of candidates are created when an editor finds details about one candidate and starts a list. Other candidates are added when information becomes available. This seems to me reasonable and innocuous. However, I do not see any point in continuing this dispute as nominations close in four days time and official lists of candidates will then be available. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * To be honest I'd rather not drag this out much further either, though I really do feel like I must say one more thing. I reverted an edit on the Preston constituency page a few days ago because there was only one candidate. That edit has NOT been reverted nor part of an edit-war. It has been left as I left it, with no candidates rather than one. R&D has been part of an editing bun-fight. I can't see why one constituency article has been the centre of a to-and-fro while Preston has remained untouched since my edit. As you say, nominations close soon, and this can be left behind us. I just feel that my correct editing decision, based on WP:BIAS, has been misconstrued. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Loosening my Restrictions
Hello Swarm,

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

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

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

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!

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

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

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

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

Happy Adminship Anniversary!
 Happy Adminship Anniversary! Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Happy adminship day, Swarm!! :D &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 03:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

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

Looking for Help Getting Started - Would you like to Adopt Me?
Hi there Swarm!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Beeblebrox
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Deskana

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Evad37

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
 * Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.

Technical news
 * Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)

Arbitration
 * Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous
 * The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

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

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

Question...
Per this diff, I can't determine if it violates Nemo's topic ban or not. I don't particularly want to get them into trouble, but if it does, they should probably be warned to not activate CitationBot or at least closely check what the bot does. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would say that that is a very direct violation of the topic ban, both in letter and in spirit. As for the letter, Nemo is quite simply banned from adding links to existing URLs. The context does not matter, he is banned against doing exactly this. This was very clearly explained to him because he asked for clarification about the ban's scope, so he has know excuse. As for the spirit, he was banned because he was adding links to these open access repositories of copyrighted content, just as he is here. While this particular file itself is presumably not a copyright violation, linking to the website is still very much a breach of both WP:LINKVIO and WP:ELNEVER, and that is exactly what the ban was intended to protect against, and that is something Nemo very much knows. I interpret this as nothing more than an attempt at gaming and/or boundary pushing. ~Swarm~  {sting} 21:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Latins (Italic tribe)
Hi Swarm, it all starts from the persistent edits by a user (with 3 different Ip) of a paragraph in the Genetic studies section that is based on his personal reading of a graph inside in a recent genetic study. The authors of the study do not make any reference to what he wrote, do not draw any conclusions and nowhere wrote what he inserted in the article of Wikipedia. I left a more specific comment in the talk page. --Tursclan (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Literally slander
Come on man really? On ANI with diffs in the background section going back to 2008 with instances of incivility. I am "literally slandering" another editor for bringing it up in a discussion about their incivility? I agree with you the vast majority of the time, I really do, we just happen to disagree on this case. What the heck? PackMecEng (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC) IRL and politics, there is a saying: we all (in a given political party) are on the same train heading the same direction, and all we disagree about is when to get off it. Swarm shares your goals of creating a civil environment, but he gets off the train here because the prevailing view of the opposition is that by endorsing the warning against Fut. Per. that the community is endorsing the outsized attacks against them. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that your comment there was probably a bit unhelpful. To place the blame solely on Fut. Perf. for creating a toxic atmosphere around them is a bit too harsh. What creates a negative atmosphere, imo, is when we have... well certain user(s) who have taken their opposition to the warning a little too far.
 * tl;dr: In the struggle to make Wikipedia more civil, it is being questioned whether this particular battle is justifiable. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not really looking to rehash the multiple arguments in that train wreck of ANI. Perhaps I was a little harsh in my criticism, they are not the only or even main cause of the problems on Wikipedia with regard to civility. I was just surprised by the baseless slander comment, that is out of character for them. I have no doubt Swarm and I generally share the same ideals, just as you said, but perhaps have different stop points. PackMecEng (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Tensions were high and people got heated. You're still cool with me, though. { &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 20:22, 17 December 2019 (°UTC)
 * As are both of you btw. PackMecEng (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for the exaggerated rhetoric, but I believe the incendiary tone was not set by me, but by the reactionary mob mentality that was trying to run away with the falsified narrative that FP was bullying a disabled female editor. Reviewing the situation, FP's conduct is pretty understandable and he never says or does anything particularly egregious, beyond what could be expected from anyone stuck dealing with a disruptive editor and frustrated because of it. Yes he's been admonished for incivility, but the SR situation does not actually show that he's an extraordinarily uncivil editor, in spite of the fact that you'd expect it be easy to prove. Holding past mistakes over an editor's head is of very low value, unless it's convincing that the problem continues to exist. The SR situation is particularly unconvincing. It seems fairly straightforward that SR is a problematic editor, and that it's understandable that FP is frustrated having to deal with them. The actual current incident is particularly benign still, and mostly reflects badly on SR and justifiably on FP. And yet, throw the words "disabled" "female" into the mix, and suddenly, there's a lynchmob calling for FP's head for "bullying"? In this context, I refuse to let previous admonishments be used as a silver dagger to facilitate the agenda of a mindless reactionary mob. If there is really a legitimate pattern of incivility that we need to have a community discussion about, whatever. Honestly. Nowhere did I defend FP for being uncivil, in spite of your incorrect assertion that I was "making excuses" for an out of control uncivil editor. I simply refused to let a reactionary mob mentality run away with the narrative on this one. If there is a legitimate pattern of problematic behavior that some were attempting to speak up against, that's great, but the moment you attempt to use a "disabled female" as a catalyst to stir up reactionary backlash to support your cause, I am going to step in and call you out on it. ~Swarm~  {sting} 00:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, the mobs on both sides were rather heated. I do want to note though I never brought up the fact they were female or disabled. But just so you know as a minority female immigrant engineer that is reprehensible! PackMecEng (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I gotcha, but at that point it becomes impossible to distinguish users who have a genuine problem that they want discussed in good faith from the mob environment. That discussion cannot exist using an unhinged mob backlash as a springboard. Once we're in this territory, the discussion needs to be put down with extreme prejudice, and an independent, unrelated discussion needs to stand on its own merits. ~Swarm~  {sting} 00:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I dunno man. But anyhow I think we are on similar enough pages now. Happy holidays and new year{ PackMecEng (talk) 04:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Me too
Hi Swarm, sorry to pile on with post-ANI posts on your talk page, but the thread was closed before I saw your most recent response to me, and I didn't want to let it go without addressing two things. First, I totally agree with you about not letting this disagreement come between us. Second, you wrote Just my way of saying "the pot is calling the kettle black". I am just making the point that you're attacking a user for starting a subsection in your thread, ..., but that wasn't me, that was a different editor. I also agree with you here: it would not be cool of me to attack a user for starting a subsection in "my" thread, and so I did not do that :-) Anyway, I think we're both happy to agree to disagree on the rest. Vexatious ANI threads aside, I hope the holiday season is treating you well! Cheers! – Levivich 19:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ohhhh. I'm so sorry. I totally didn't notice that that was "Lepricavark" and not "Levivich". Your usernames just blended together in my brain lol. I was definitely just trying to point out the perceived "pot/kettle" situation via a sardonic retort, but in reality, I just made some completely unprovoked declaration that your opinion doesn't matter enough for the thread. No wonder you said "ouch". Jesus, that must have come across as so excessively aggressive and hostile. I apologize, that was a genuine stupid error on my end, and the hostility that must have come across was totally unintended. Best holiday wishes to you as well. ~Swarm~  {sting} 23:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should change my signature to be more distinctive?  ~Leviv <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em; color:DarkViolet;"> (ich)  ~  03:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Haha, woah, I appreciate the Swarm-esque sig. It trips me out. You know, I had a psychedelic dream-vision about a neon purple and green sig, but it just didn't translate into the mind bending reality the way I would have wanted it to. ~Swarm~  {sting} 05:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Space force page protection
Swarm, first off I want to say thank you for protecting United States Space Force due to anticipated political edits (both pro and anti trump). When I made that request I forgot to add Space force for the same reasons. Would this be something you would be able to directly do or should I go through the page protection page? Thanks. Garuda28 (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry merry !
 ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  02:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px; " class="plainlinks"> 豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune. このミラPはSwarmたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！ フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE! ミラP 03:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Swarm!!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FF4646; background-color:#F6F0F7; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:0.5em 0.5em 0 0.5em; border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);;" class="plainlinks">Happy Holidays text.png Hello Swarm: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, The SandDoctor  Talk 07:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
 * From my family to yours, I hope that you have a wonderful Christmas holiday and a Happy New Year! Here's to another year -- The SandDoctor  Talk 07:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Dreamy Jazz • Newslinger • Rosguill
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Deor • Spartaz • Xeno
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Angusmclellan • clpo13 • Edgar181 • Matthewedwards • NCurse

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Bradv • Casliber • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Bradv • Casliber • DGG • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Someguy1221

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
 * A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
 * Following a successful RfC, a whitelist is now available for users whose redirects will be autopatrolled by a bot, removing them from the new pages patrol queue. Admins can add such users to New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist after a discussion following the guidelines at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist.

Arbitration
 * The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
 * Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee:, , , , , , , , , ,.

Miscellaneous
 * This issue marks three full years of the Admin newsletter. Thanks for reading!

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

In other news...
I got my first GA recently. Our Lady of Vladimir. Pretty neat, right? &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 00:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , good work. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  10:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Question
You don't think it's the least bit heavy handed to revoke TPA from a user who's been here for more than a decade because they made a single comment on their talk page after you blocked them? G M G <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  23:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I second the sentiment. Bus stop (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Considering they had five years to address the issue: says the entire approach was actually pretty lenient.  ——  SN  54129  23:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ...  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  23:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, an ellipsis should definitely be the grounds for appeal. Until then: "sigh". ——  SN  54129  00:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I've seen it all. Someone was blocked for a signature... and then had their talk page access revoked after just one comment. Were we worried the bots might choke on his talk page? —Locke Cole • t • c 02:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I can understand why it would seem outright draconian to revoke TPA over a single harmless post on one's talk page. However, the context renders it a baseline response and nothing more. The ANI thread was itself an extreme measure of last resort. Said ANI thread generated a consensus that the sig was disruptive and was to be changed. The user was directly notified of this consensus, and asked, reasonably, and in good faith, to simply respect the consensus and change their sig, even if they disagreed with it. I literally explained to them that nobody wanted them to get blocked, and that this was a silly hill to die on, and that they and only they were forcing the block to happen. They were directly warned that their rope had run out, and that they would be blocked if they refused to fix their sig. They did continue to refuse, for reasons unknown, and they were blocked accordingly. The block was specifically notated to make clear that it was not intended to be a long-term block, and that it was only intended to enforce a consensus regarding the resolution of a very minor issue, and this was explained to the user. They could, and still can, be unblocked, and all they have to do is stop using a disruptive sig. As someone pointed out, there is literally no burden on them. All they have to do to resolve the issue is nothing. There is no effort required to use the default sig, and as such there's no real reason that a user should continue to do so. The block was and still is expected to be incredibly temporary. The only caveat to this lenient block was that the user would not be allowed to continue to post the offending sig on their talk page once blocked, or, in other terms, to continue the disruptive editing for which they were blocked. This is such a low-level resolution that is being asked of them, and to refuse to do so in spite of repeated requests, an ANI thread, a community consensus, a warning, and an indefinite block, is nothing short of trolling. No, I would not normally revoke TPA over a sig vio, but I will revoke TPA in response to malicious trolling 100% of the time. As SN says, their treatment here is lenient. As I told the user, I will be absolutely happy to unblock them when the issue is resolved. However, any continued discourse that does not resolve the issue is an intentional waste of time. The issue can get fixed, or the user can remain indefinitely blocked for as long as they want. It's up to the user. It's not on me. ~Swarm~  {sting} 07:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Indef+TPA revoked="lenient"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you literally restricted him the maximum extent of your technical ability to do so. If that's "lenient", what would be an example of "harsh"? Going to his house and kicking his ass for having the wrong signature? 😂 – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 07:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I fail to see what particular egregious damage to the project is supposed to be resolved by disabling talk page access, and I struggle to conjure any example where we would do so to a long-term user after a single comment, when discussion regarding the block was ongoing on their talk page. In this respect, TPA seems a great deal more like a show-of-force than a preventative step. At the very least, it simply makes more work all around in the case that they do wish to return to editing, which it seems all agree is the most desirable outcome, as changing their signature and demonstrating it by posting on their talk page should be prerequisite for an unblock. Do as you will. My disapproval is probably fairly clearly noted at this point.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  13:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * An indefinite block is some not some draconian "show of force", it is simply a tool to prevent disruption as needed. In a context such as this, where the user can be unblocked without prejudice immediately upon making a single minor change, it is in many ways more lenient than a timed block, as it can be as short as the user wants. I assume you're employing a rhetorical device to make the block seem more absurd, because nowhere is anyone claiming that there's "egregious damage to the project", or that they had TPA revoked because of a single innocuous comment. The revocation was for the timestamp. Continuing to post the offending timestamp on their talk page after the block was clear trolling, and a direct and willful attempt to disrupt, by continuing the behavior that led to the block. The user did not have the option to continue to post the timestamp. They are required, by the community, to change the timestamp back to normal. There is nothing to debate or discuss in that regard. They need to make a minor change in order to continue editing here, and that includes posting comments to their talk page, purely because the problem is the timestamp that accompanies any such comments. It is simply the only tool at our disposal to prevent this specific issue. However I will make a note for UTRS to allay your concerns that it will make the unblock process more difficult. ~Swarm~  {sting} 22:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We take different approaches to administration. Apparently I hold TPA to a higher standard than you do. I will continue to do so.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  02:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

New message from DBigXray
 D Big X ray ᗙ  21:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Oh, thanks! The rare shoutout of support is always appreciated. This was just the latest in the never-ending saga of WP:UNBLOCKABLE. It actually makes for an interesting case study, because it shows that even in the most uncontentious, minor blocks, which are not even an admin exercising individual discretion, but merely enforcing an explicit community consensus, will still result in the admin getting abused for the block by the power user's fanbase, while the blocked user, who is the one in the wrong, objectively, per the community, gets celebrated. It's all a bit silly and there's no reasoning with these people who ignore logic. Luckily the users who do this never get through RfA in their own right, often purely because of their judgment when defending power users, so their influence is limited to harassment and baiting, and that's good enough for me. As for the current drama, I'm just glad it's resolved and the user resolved it and is back editing, even if the whole situation was avoidable and will now permanently and needlessly mar their block log. ~Swarm~  {sting} 22:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "an interesting case study" indeed. I think it is human nature to blame others, IndelibleHulk (until he was blocked) kept on blaming others for raising concerns about his signature. Once he was blocked his fans found the blocking admin as the punching bag. The only good thing in this entire fracas is that the sign is fixed, although we still have 60,000 backlinks linking to dates and years, due to the old sign, waiting to be fixed, with no clue who will fix them.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  19:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The logical thing to do might have been waiting till I was done responding to questions on this needless clusterfuck, as I thought was our understanding. I would've gotten around to your demands after finishing answering Mr. Evans' more concise and direct query, but you buried me in the cold, cold ground before I could even fix "clear about" to "clear on". I'm not complaining, just alluding to a famous quote by The Tasmanian Devil while affirming, cooly and objectively, that my fans were mostly rabid about how suddenly you just happened to "kill" me. It'd be more understandable if I was an actual troll account named TheEnigmaJeffHarvey420, showing up in no state to perform. Anyway, I'm alright, you're alright, so the local majority here is alright by my count, in my books and on my page. DBX, though, remains pretty clearly warned about continuing to disrupt the relatively chillaxed atmosphere on my Talk Page. I've had the patience of a saint with the patronizing bait-and-switch tactics since two Remembrance Days ago, but bringing an obviously fake zombie with unrealistically coloured blood and a shitty prop arm to a hardcore wrestling fan's return party is tasteless and offensive on enough levels without inviting comparisons to Lazarus and refusing to drop the time zone schtick. It's still gravedancing, despite me clawing my own way out like a succesful version of the '91 Ultimate Warrior (even non-fans should study that angle on YouTube, just for pure wonder). So, just saying. Have a good one! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * For the past five years you had been "answering these so called questions" on your signature and here you are complaining that you did not had "enough time" to answer questions. From what I saw, you had enough requests, suggestions, warnings, threats (even on ANI) to resolve the situation, but you chose not to resolve. You can think whatever you like to, but you kept refusing to do the obvious and continued trolling everyone. I am sure if you got 5 more years, you will still come up at the end with "I did not get enough time to answer all questions". The fact remains that when the time came to fix the sign, instead of changing sign you chose to say "" This unnecessary block was entirely avoidable but it was you who "chose" to take it. And here you are blaming an admin for doing his job. There is a popular proverb that says: "A nod for a wise man, and a rod for a fool." And it is up to you what you choose to be. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  19:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to explain why I didn't just wait for you to change it on your own. You were at the point where you exhausted every last opportunity to resolve the situation voluntarily, before being blocked. You claimed you would change it, and if you had just a few quick and final replies to get in before the thread closed, fine. However you seemed like you were just continuing to be argumentative, minimize the situation, reject the consensus, make clear you're not taking the situation seriously, blame the community for giving you a hard time, plus you were engaging in menial banter on talk pages, while continuing to post the offending timestamp without changing it, apparently as much as you could, over the course of several hours. That was not the arrangement you requested. You even left one comment undated, acknowledging that you'd likely be blocked for continuing to post it, and then you continued posting it anyways. Nothing about that situation comes across as an editor who's working to resolve a problem, it comes across as trolling, which is why I deliberately described it as trolling in the block log. However, I cannot imagine a more concrete affirmation of the perceived refusal to provide a voluntary resolution, than literally posting a goodbye message on your talk page, with the signature that you know, and have directly acknowledged, is going to get you blocked for posting it. I mean, I'm genuinely glad this wasn't a suicide-by-admin situation, but it was a pretty direct and intentional continuation of disruptive conduct in which "less than blocking" measures had failed. You knew what you were doing and you knew what the consequences would be, at that point, even up to the point when you were blocked, and again posted the timestamp after being explicitly warned not to do it again. I don't know what that was, pot stirring, boundary pushing, drama mongering, trolling, but I do know it wasn't "just fixing the sig", which was all that was asked of you from the beginning. You earned the block, whether or not you care to admit, and you earned the unblock by doing the simple thing that was asked. No one created the drama and disruption as much as you did. ~Swarm~  {sting} 23:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I used it three times, not as much as I could. Never said anything about doing it quick. Twice on pages archive bots don't touch, and only once it seemed clear you had your mind made up. Better to say goodbye before the end, I find, no good after. Anyway, thanks to you legit surprising me with the TP revocation part, I also came back a changed editor, rather than resign in protest, so consider it canceled out. I don't like you, don't dislike you, same as before we met. You can find me confusing and provocative, but you're barking up the wrong tree with all these "evil" or "suicidal" synonyms. If I were evil, I wouldn't use Wikipedia at all, too easy to get caught here. I'm good, just weird. Still leaving soon, so this is probably it for us, socially. Thanks for explaining your decision, hadn't thought about it like that! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Minor quibbles: I didn't tell you I'd change anything, only stop using. And I didn't get unblocked through either of your supposedly simple suggestions, I rebooted my modem, evaded honestly and asked a guy to erase my IP. It was trouble. But it's over, so cheers! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is exactly why I do indeed you confusing, provocative, and weird. You posted the offending timestamp eight separate times after promising to change it, by my count? And no, you never said anything about doing it "quick", but "take your time" or "when you're ready" wasn't an option, nor was it a request on your end. You simply said you would change it, and did not change it. "Quick" should have been understood once it was made clear that you were going to be blocked. I'm not sure where I said or implied that you were "evil" or "suicidal", I said you appeared to be intentionally trolling, pot stirring or boundary pushing, which is true. "Suicide by admin" simply means forcing an admin to block you as a method of leaving the project, which you appeared to be doing. If you're just eccentric, and I didn't pick up on the fact that there was no bad faith intention, I apologize. We cannot read minds or personalities, merely act on what we see, and that's how things appeared to me at that point. Sorry to hear you're leaving, I wish you all the best IRL. ~Swarm~  {sting} 06:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In honour of Poppy's new album and mistranslated Sumerian records everywhere, let's agree to disagree on everything except that last part. No apologies or sorrow needed, but thanks for the gestures! I've never wanted the best real life, being born Epicurean, but I'm leaving with every intention of a pleasant tomorrow for every dick, pussy and asshole I meet in the wild. If it helps any, it's only the second-most absurd reason I've ever been blocked, and nobody remembers second place after the hoopla dies down, in anything resembling a contest. Just seems controversial and adversarial because it's still fresh, perfectly normal. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello
Hi. I just realised you havent edited in ~two months. I hope everything is fine in real life, and you come back soon. Best wishes, —usernamekiran (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Huh? I know I'm less active than usual lately but I've edited within the past week, and I've edited on this page within the past two weeks lol. Everything's fine on my end. But, regardless of the misunderstanding, I appreciate this gesture. This is very kind of you Kiran. I hope everything is going well IRL for you too. I am less interested in Wikipedia lately, but I've always gone through phases, and I'm sure at some point I'll be highly active again. I am not going anywhere! ~Swarm~  {sting} 03:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Ergo Sum • Nick Moyes • QEDK • Wugapodes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Dennis Brown
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Aude • BrownHairedGirl • CALR • Jengod • John Reaves • J.smith • Kim Dent-Brown • K1Bond007 • MECU • Refdoc • RHaworth



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Partial blocks.
 * The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news
 * Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating.  There is currently one template: uw-pblock.
 * When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title.

Arbitration
 * Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous
 * Voting in the 2020 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2020, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2020, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
 * The English Wikipedia has reached six million articles. Thank you everyone for your contributions!

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

JoshuaIsTheFalco
Hi, I have a feeling that (formerly named } is subject to a topic ban, something to do with ethnicity. Where is that ban recorded, what are the details? I ask because recent edits by  to Brownhills railway station, Pelsall railway station and South Staffordshire line are very much the kind of thing that JoshuaIsTheFalco was doing; and looking back through the contribs of JoshuaGuest96, I find . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:ER/UC, "indefinitely topic-banned from the area of racial demographics, broadly construed" ~Swarm~  {sting} 04:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Mail Notice
Celestina007 (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Possible adoption
hi. i was wondering if it is possible for you to adopt me, under the Wikipedia program to do? I could really use your help and input. I appreciate it. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Question
Do my editing restrictions include editing templates? Because I noticed a problem with template:uw-pblock where the template wording is awkward. Aasim 00:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear Swarm
This user User:อัลเบิร์ is trying to make an edit war and I explain about the Wikipedia policy to him but I argue to block anyone who blames to edit in content that this user only thinks he is true. No one can edit on the page that the user was overseer. I need you to tell him to understand the rule and don't make another misunderstanding in Wikipedia rule, especially I need you to BLOCK him to resolve the problem that this user make.

Thank You Ministerboy (talk) 05:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Excuse me but are you, Ministerboy, the IP that are constantly making reverts on those pages? If you are, I believe that you are the one that are violating the rules and try to put your faults into the other's hand. The other user is asking for a discuss with you but you don't do it. Your version of edits cannot be accepted because it came later and the other user is not consenting with you. So you have to discuss first but you choose not to do it and instead, committed warring edit violation. อัลเบิร์ (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear User:อัลเบิร์ That another IP is my friend that sits behind me, I work for Wikipedia Thai football for 4 Year and I was work for Thai FA for 2 years until now. Why you delete the honor content of every Thai team and why you delete the history of every Thai team. All the information I find with my ability with my Wikipedia user friend for 4 year and you came here to delete and tell me to talk with you first. That was absurd and can't accept. STOP doing this action for the better way of finding the information from Wikipedia. Ministerboy (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * @Ministerboy, don't you see the reasons I have written after making edits deleting the history and honors content and so on? They are just not necessary and made these articles a mess. It's simple. We will discuss further if you want, in your user's talk page. I have left a message there and we will talk there only. I have watched your talk page. There's not need to disturb others, including admins.อัลเบิร์ (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As info, I blocked all 3 users for 24 hours for edit warring. Didn't realize Ministerboy had left this same message to 6-7 admins. -- ferret (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Closing RFCs
I have mostly stayed away from WP:AN/RFC for almost a year now, but I think I have sufficient relevant experience to resume closing RFCs again. I mean, there are 49 open requests right now, and it isn't going to get better. What do you think? &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 14:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Talk page stalkers are welcomed to respond as well. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 14:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Hello there! Shearonink (talk) wishes you & yours the very best of the season!

Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia, here's to hoping your holiday time is wonderful and that the New Year will be an improvement upon the old. CHEERS!

Share these holiday wishes by adding   to your friends' talk pages.

Process of Ending IBAN
I had reached out to you three months ago here regarding an issue that I had been having regarding an IBAN. I was already considering then if it was time to end the IBAN and I wanted to wait to see what happened with the climate between the two of us. In the more than three months since I had reached out to you, I have studiously avoided the other editor and there appears to be no conflict regarding either of us.I thought that three months after the most recent incident was an appropriate point to consider ending the IBAN once and for all. Can you point me in any direction as to how to best start the process of ending the IBAN? Alansohn (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that the time is right for an appeal to end the IBAN and just wanted to see if you had any guidance to offer. Thanks in advance. Alansohn (talk) 05:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I started a request at WP:AN to end the IBAN that you had extended about 18 months ago. I hope that I have demonstrated a good-faith effort to abide by the terms as you had laid them out and would appreciate any response that could help me better understand what I can do to best gain community consensus to end the IBAN once and for all. Any assistance in pointing me in the right direction would be most helpful. Alansohn (talk) 04:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Money emoji
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Athaenara • DeltaQuad
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Fishhead64 • Kudpung • Mikaey

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg DeltaQuad

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg DeltaQuad

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg DeltaQuad

Guideline and policy news
 * Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
 * A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news
 * Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present.  You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous
 * Following the 2020 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: BRPever, Krd, Martin Urbanec, MusikAnimal, Sakretsu, Sotiale, and Tks4Fish. There are a total of seven editors that have been appointed as stewards, the most since 2014.
 * The 2020 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Ajraddatz and Uzoma Ozurumba; they will serve for one year.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

F5pillar request
Hi, i just view the request reply by you on Event cordinator which stating that is for what on, not contacting people. But for sure i know that, but i really think you should consider this permission for me because it is so important for me hosting an event in my geographical community. (F5pillar 15:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

block on George Michael page
I contact you from am official source and I wondered about how we can go about keeping the page updated with the right information. I believe the block on the page came about as many people have been updating it with the wrong info I am told. We were talking to someone about managing that for us but they cannot do this with the block. Can you advise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NobbiesHobbies (talk • contribs) 14:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Wylie39 Rollback Priveledges
I believe this person that you gave rollback privileges too reverted some parts of my talking points in the article 2020_coronavirus_outbreak_in_Washington_(state). I personally believe that he/she is misusing it since I was only talking about possibly adding a map to improve the article information-wise. If, however, I am in the wrong please tell me so. I really don't want to look like some uneducated guy who is complaining for no reason. Thank you. StickyKeys (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened
In 2018, you offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has now accepted that request for arbitration, and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org

For the Arbitration Committee,  C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Request
Respected sir, I applied for Pending changes reviewer. I kindly request you to kindly go through my application and promote me to Pending changes reviewer if you feel that I'm eligible. Thanking you Sri Harsha 191817 (talk) 10:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

If you feel that I'm not eligible, please mention the reason sir so that I can improve myself to become Pending changes reviewer Sri Harsha 191817 (talk) 10:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. ~Swarm~  {sting} 21:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Cabayi • Lee Vilenski
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Boing! said Zebedee
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Jonny-mt • MarkGallagher • PeaceNT
 * Pictogram voting rename.png →

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg SilkTork • WereSpielChequers

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg NativeForeigner

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Someguy1221
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Daniel Case

Guideline and policy news
 * There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news
 * There is a plan for new requirements for user signatures. You can give feedback.

Arbitration
 * Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.

Miscellaneous
 * The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)