User talk:Swarm/Archive 6

How about this then?
Good luck, you'll make an exceptional admin. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 19:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and let me know if you need any help transcluding.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 19:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Worm. Whatever the outcome, I appreciate your confidence. :)  Swarm   23:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're off to a great start. I've already given you my own support so unless someone comes up with a good reason to oppose you'll certainly get the promo.  –BuickCenturyDriver 04:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought that I would nominate you immediately when I first met you :) .Jasper Deng (talk) 04:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, guys, I appreciate it. It is off to a good start, and I must admit, I'm blown away by the comments thus far. Still, though, I'm certainly not picturing a mop topicon just yet! An RfA can reach this point and still go down in flames. I don't believe that anything exists in my editing history that would cause that to happen, but at RfA one thing's for sure: nothing's for sure. We'll have to see what happens. :) Thanks again,  Swarm   04:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Userpage
It appears broken to me, the title is not visible (screen cap). Good luck at your RFA! JORGENEV 02:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know (and for the good luck)! It displays fine on my desktop monitor and laptop (and my iPhone), so I'm not sure why that is (apart from the fact that I stole a div box from someone's userpage and experimentally fiddled with the settings :P). Ah well, it's gone now. Thanks again. :)  Swarm   02:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * Thanks!  Swarm   06:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

RfA question
No hurry, but I've posted a (lengthy) question @ your RfA; hope you can answer it. Cheers,  HurricaneFan 25  01:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sorry for the delay; I've really been busy both on-Wiki and off and it's been hard to respond quickly. I'll get to it right now, though. :)  Swarm   02:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoa, exactly what I was looking for - evaluation and a CSD decline. Good luck on your RfA!  HurricaneFan 25  11:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * :D Awesome!  Swarm   18:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey Swarm, thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. Also, good luck with your RfA! There's no point wishing you luck, unless the Earth enters a Nuclear Winter there's no way you'll fail... The Janitorial ranks will be much better for having you in them :) &mdash; Oli OR Pyfan! 06:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, no problem, Pyfan. :) And I'd be happy to continue reverting if this dude's 'infinite resources' are wearing you out. :P And thank you, both for your kind words here and in my RfA. I greatly appreciate that. :D I must admit I'm happy it's turned out well so far (though I'm well aware that it's not over yet). I honestly wasn't sure how it would unfold!  Swarm   06:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Much appreaciated :). I laughed a bit when he was blocked a couple of minutes later, I must admit ;). I don't envy anyone who is going through the RfA gauntlet, having some experience myself (although mine was actually quite tame). That being said, the fact that you have not gotten a single oppose, not even one DougsTech-esque "Too many administrators currently" oppose, shows that the community has great belief in your ability to be an admin. RfA is an incredibly unpredicable process. If you could manage to predict the outcome, I'd have to believe you had the gift of prophecy! :) &mdash; Oli OR Pyfan! 08:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I had no idea you ran for adminship in the past, and I just looked up your RfA. Best reading I've had in a long while! You nominated yourself with 290 edits and somehow managed to get nearly 30 support !votes (many of which were completely serious), answered the wall of questions you got slammed with, and just overall seemed to be having a grand old time. Amazing. And then you then nominated yourself again two and a half months later?! Hah! You couldn't make this stuff up. xD Living proof that you can never predict what will happen in an RfA!  Swarm   03:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good times, good times. :) That was back when I was naive enough to believe that being an admin might actually be fun...I know better now. :P &mdash; Oli OR Pyfan! 03:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Hah! Thanks very much. :P Best regards,  Swarm   18:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You just had to do it...
You just had to screw up the !vote count on my close of ItsZippy's RFA, didn't you?  So Why  19:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey! I'm not the one who closed an RfA while someone was obviously in the midst of moving from oppose to neutral! You will not silence me! :P Seriously though, sorry. My mistake! :)  Swarm   19:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Rfa
Remember me, the user with the bad revert =). Well I just wanted to say your Rfa's sure to win and I'll be happy to see you as an admin. Remember to change the template on your talk saying that you're not an admin :P. -- Kangaroo powah  23:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and I appreciate the support! Thanks, Kangaroo!  Swarm   02:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

question
You corrected an edit of mine and mentioned "25 to life" has a different meaning. What meaning is this? Under Florida statute 775.087 it states:

3. Any person who is convicted of a felony or an attempt to commit a felony listed in sub-subparagraphs (a)1.a.-q., regardless of whether the use of a weapon is an element of the felony, and during the course of the commission of the felony such person discharged a “firearm” or “destructive device” as defined in s. 790.001 and, as the result of the discharge, death or great bodily harm was inflicted upon any person, the convicted person shall be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of not less than 25 years and not more than a term of imprisonment of life in prison.

That is what I stated. The minimum sentence is 25 years in state prison with the maximum being life in prison. "25 to life" is not a real term nor is it used by the Florida legislation(that I can recall at least). That is a media term much like the term "statutory rape". So I'm confused as to what this means. Florida has no parole for crimes committed after 1983 and capital crimes committed after 1995(dates could be slightly off) so a sentence of "25 to life" is not possible. In other states it would be the person is eligible for parole after 25 yrs, but would serve life if he never paroled. In Florida this is not possible since we have no parole. Thanks man, good article anyways. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 05:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * PS. Just noticed you submitted an RFA. I'll endorse you. KING GRIM LOL YO WHATS UP (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've always understood the "X to life" phrasing to mean "parole eligibility in X years". Didn't realize the case was different in Florida with there being no parole. I was simply wrong then, there was no "different meaning" as I had thought, and your wording change is actually more appropriate to avoid that confusion. My mistake! I'll re-add your change. Thanks for your work on the article! Also, thanks for the RfA support! Regards,  Swarm   05:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's what I figured, but I wanted to ask first. It's no problem; there are people here(in FL) who still don't know we abolished parole LOL. Also, no problem on the RFA. You got it, looks like a clean sweep. I don't think I've seen that before in the votes I've done. Congrats. :) KING GRIM LOL YO WHATS UP (talk) 05:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Some help please
Hi, I'm new to editing wikipedia. I'm currently updating a number of pages regarding schools in Canada. I've found a school with the same name in a different province, how do I go about creating separate pages for the two, when one already has a page and has the same name as both of them? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex van d (talk • contribs) 16:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it's quite simple. Just move the page so that the articles are at " ", and then make the main page a disambiguation page. So here's a good example: Scott High School is the disambiguation page, and it links to Scott High School (Toledo, Ohio), Scott High School (Taylor Mill, Kentucky) and Scott High School (Madison, West Virginia). If you need any help, let me know.  Swarm   11:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

And that's 100
Well done mate :D  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 13:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That's something I did not expect. :)  Swarm   14:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes you did ;) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No! Ask Worm, I was telling him how surprised I was back when it was 33-0; I honestly didn't even know whether I would pass. I was just hoping I wouldn't ruin Worm's credibility with an epic fail. :P  Swarm   20:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I had absolutely  no  doubts at  all. Shame about  the single oppose marring  an otherwise immaculate RfA - schadenfreude from an expected quarter. Anyway, it's due to  close in  less than a minute, so here's some beat  the 'crat  congrats :D --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I guess RfA doesn't need reform after all! (Kidding, kidding, of course :P).  Swarm   01:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Congrats! :) &mdash; Oli OR Pyfan! 05:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Pyfan!  Swarm   X 05:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone's been swarmed with supports
I've closed your RfA as successful. The New Admin School might be useful to play around with admin tools, and here is the how-to guide. This and this are good words of caution&mdash;had I known of that before, I wouldn't be the reason as to why these two pages exist. :p Good luck with the new tools. PS - the pun is lame, isn't it? :p  Maxim (talk)  01:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Congrats Swarm! You are the latest banhammer-wielding slave of the wiki! Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

So sorry
I am so very sorry to hear about the results of your RfA. Better luck next time!!! ;-) Glad ya got the tools! You've definitely earned them! R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 01:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, thanks. (Just wait, we'll get you in our ranks eventually.) ;)  Swarm   02:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * LoL, I thought threats were prohibited on Wikipedia. ;-) R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 03:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on Adminship! You've earned it. --   Luke      (Talk)   02:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! I guess you need to put templates on all your user pages... WikiPuppies! (bark) 02:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Congrats on a job well done
Hi Swarm. Congratualtions on a job well done. I can see above that you didn't realize the good name you've created for yourself here. You've done a fantasic job and put in a lot of effort. You can see by your RfA that people have noticed and appreciated your support of the project (even if they don't say it that often). I'm really thankful that you've offered to help with the admin tasks around here. You've been a great example to others and your help with new users is extremely valuable to the project. Thank you kindly for all your effort and dedication. Thanks also for the new/old sig. You really didn't need to do that. Keep up the good work. Best regards. - Hydroxonium (T•C• [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&amp;username=Hydroxonium V] ) 02:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Can't thank you enough for the kindness. Oh, and the sig wasn't a big deal in the least. :D Best regards,  Swarm   X 04:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Congrats - again!
I echo  Hydox's thoughts entirely. Don't hesitate to  plunder my  User:Kudpung/vector.js for  some usefull  scripts - as if you  need them :P, and you  might find some useful junk  in here, especially  in  Pandora's Box (which  is quite a mess, but  only  I  use it). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks! I'll sort through it all. I've also got to track down and steal one of those mini dashboard menus that some admins have on their user pages. I've seen them countless times yet now I can't remember a single admin who has one. I'd like to jump into some admin work, but I woke up at 3 AM and it's midnight here now (I'm just a bit tired). :P Anyway, thanks again!  Swarm   X 04:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Great job
Great job on your rfa. I think your opponents were desperate to stop you from being an admin =P. -- Kangaroo powah  04:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! We met on somewhat unusual terms, but I'm very happy to have had your support. :P Oh, and I think you mean opponent. ;) Seriously, he's more than entitled to his opinion, but I definitely think it does me credit that that's the worst thing someone could dig up! :P Best regards,  Swarm   X 04:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. Opponents outnumbered 100-to-1 (literally).Jasper Deng (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, yes, great job. More congratulations spam for you. Spam, lovely Spam, wonderful Spam!  S ven M anguard   Wha?  04:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the ghetto, Swarm :) Gwen Gale (talk) 04:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hah! Now I can block my own mentees, thank you very much. ;)  Swarm   X 04:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm delighted that my AIV report allowed you to make your first real block :) .Jasper Deng (talk) 05:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, yeah, that is quite a coincidence, isn't it? :P  Swarm   X 05:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep xD . You did it quickly and cleanly.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I was waitin' for an easy one. ;)  Swarm   X 05:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Every admin has one! Now you get the exclusive... Admin T-shirt. Well, as the shirt said, "this crappy T-shirt". Ebe 123  (+) $talk Contribs$  10:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Sureshsuthari
Hi Swarm, You recently indef-blocked User:Sureshsuthari. Many thanks. It looks like he's back with a sockpuppet account User:Rajeshyt which appeared shortly after User:Sureshsuthari was blocked and made the same edit to TV9 (Telugu). Thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 11:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked.  Swarm   X 14:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sparthorse (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems like someone forgot something...


Congrats!  HurricaneFan 25  11:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Adminship
Well done from me too!  Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere!  (Whisper...) 12:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

please, restore my page
Hi, I am an author of "AGRODEP", and you deleted the page. The page is for he African Growth and Development Policy Modeling Consortium (www.agrodep.org) which is the project for AFRICAN researchers. Please restore the article  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soonho.kim (talk • contribs) 15:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Oh, thank you. :) I'm sorry it came to a block, but now I hope you can just totally put that behind you and remember to discuss changes on talk pages rather than edit warring. I strongly recommend you adhere to the concept of bold, revert, discuss and even voluntarily restrict yourself to a one revert rule, and you'll almost certainly stay out of trouble in the future. Regards,  Swarm   X 19:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thx
- common sense might prevail eventually; I don't give a wossname who is right/wrong, but yes, it's disruptive - easy. So, can be sorted via email or whatever; that's fine and dandy. Meanwhile - yep; thanks.  Chzz  ► 02:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, no prob.  Swarm   X 03:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Ring Cinema
Thanks but... I have to ask something: He knows how to use unblock requests, he's done it before, but I believe he knew it would be futile so he decided to enjoy himself at my expense, probably trying to bait me somehow. It didn't bother me, especially since he wasn't using profanity or being vulgar in any way. Was it necessary to revoke his access? ~Amatulić (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would absolutely say he was abusing his talk page access. If someone gets blocked and believes any unblock request would be futile, and decides to just sit on Wikipedia and fire off personal attacks from their talk page, then there's really no reason whatsoever that person should be allowed to keep editing their page. Good that you're able to brush comments like that off, but it's still a blatant breach of policy meant only to be disruptive. I must ask where you disagree with me (as I assume you do)?  Swarm   X 16:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I neither agree nor disagree. I was just curious about your reasoning, since it didn't quite meet my own threshold for revoking talk page access (but it came close). I probably would have objected to your revoking his access had he shown more creativity in his taunts! ~Amatulić (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the help you gave me earlier about how to create disambiguation pages. I think I've got it figured out now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex van d (talk • contribs) 16:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Let me know if you need anything else.  Swarm   X 16:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

CONGRATS
It's Grim! Just wanted to congratulate you on getting the admin status. Good job brother! KING GRIM LOL YO WHATS UP (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Swarm   X 19:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring
Hi Swarm. I must say I disagree with your interpretation of WP:EW in terms of templating me. I have made one single edit (a revert) to WP:MOSCAPS, in line with WP:BRD in which long-standing content was boldly removed, and I restored it and made a lengthy post on the talk page. EW says 'an edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions', where I will emphasise the word 'repeatedly' - one revert cannot by any stretch be interpreted as repeated. If it's your intention to say that collectively we as editors have edit-warred, then I would challenge your interpretation once more - it isn't the responsibility of an editor to review pages upon pages of revisions to see if other editors happen to be back-and-forthing over a particular snippet of content. I did my duty in seeing a bold edit I didn't agree with, reviewing the talk page and seeing that there was no existing consensus to support that edit, reverted it and then engaged directly in discussion - WP:BRD to the letter, I would think.

Perhaps you can elaborate on your decision to include me in this matter? I'm not sure I understand your reasoning in sending me an edit war template for one single edit, to the best of my knowledge performed within Wikipedia's rules. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied on TS's talk page.  Swarm   X 02:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Dear Swarm - cool! Thanks for adding the "Autopatrolled". Also, thanks for tending to the issues with regard to the Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan page. Hopefully the message will now be 'received' so to speak by the IP. All the best -- Presearch (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. :) Regards,  Swarm   X 03:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: I/O Album
Thank you for the kind words, Swarm, but I'll just note that you did say it yourself "a small bit of", when clearly the discussion page was already open for discussion there, and not in the edit summary. I'm just questioning where WP:CRYSTAL comes into this particular sentence, that had been removed: On February 2010, in an interview for The Daily Telegraph Gabriel stated: "...I'd love to try doing a joy record at some point. What I want to do with the next one is make it really up, like disco." His/Her "adequate" edit summaries just told myself and others, that the person had made simmilar announcements and not acted on them - but this is different to an announcement, as he aspires to do this - other words not commiting to anything. Thank you.

Anyway, barring that, I can see you recently became an Administrator, congratulations on that :) -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 02:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (don't know where to reply) You are the administrator, voted in by the community, I will take your advice for it, lecture or not, whatever you say is what I should be following, since you are the experienced editor out of the both of us. Which is totally fine, and I respect that :) Thank you, and I'll do my very best of making sure I'm not in violation of any policies - or in the path of "block-happy admins" :D Thanks -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 03:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

YouTube
Hello, Swarm, you still haven't replayed me via e-mail :( . But, as you are new admin, I would ask you to replace Template:YouTube with this code:  [http://www.youtube.com/ on

Mostly because of layout and renew-aesthetic reasons. Cheers!  Alex discussion ★ 18:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

A WikiScotch for you!


Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding WikiScotch to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 20:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello
I was wondering if you could help me out with a user. The user (Mathiassandell) insists that a song was released as a single, when it wasn't, and continues to revert and not see my explanations of why not. See Killer Love, Nicole Scherzinger discography and Wet (Nicole Scherzinger song) (the song in discussion). — Status  &#x7B;talkcontribs 21:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll take a look.  Swarm   X 21:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems to boil down to a content dispute, so my advice would be to take this to the DRN. It looks like you're both editing in good faith and both believe you're right. DRN should sort out the issue.  Swarm   X 22:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

DrKiernan
Hello, Swarm. You said "it continues (on either side), report it back here". DrKiernan has just reverted yet again for a fifth time in less than 24 hours. There are four editors opposing his actions in the article but he doesn't care. --Lecen (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look when I get home in a few hours, if you need a faster response I suggest you seek out another admin. user:HJ Mitchell seemed to be following this, try asking him.  Swarm   X 16:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If HJ Mitchell is following something, I haven't noticed, because he made clear to me that he cant do a single thing about it.See here Four editors, including me, were accused of edit warring against DrKiernan by Betty Logan. She is not even trying hard enough to pretend that she hasn't taken his side. What everyone seems to ignore is that DrKiernan has never contributed to any article about Brazilian history, he does not speak Portuguese and he does not know a single thing about Brazil. I am the one who work on the articles related to brazilian history and who made eight of them be promoted to FA status. Four different editors (including myself) told him to stop and in the end, what happened? The article was blocked. No one cared that those four editors are the ones who work on Brazilian-history related articles. DrKiernan reverted five times and nothing happened to him. And he is obvioulsy not reverting again because... the last edit in the article was made by him before it was blocked! --Lecen (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S.: Although there is a present ongoing discussion in Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil over whether the Portuguese title Dona should be italicized or not, DrKiernan nonetheless started making changes by himself on other articles, which includes Pedro II of Brazil,, Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies and Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil.. All three articles which I brought to FA standard. DrKiernan never worked on any of them. As you can see, he doesn't care about consensus or even to discuss about the issue. He does what he wants and no one does anything against it. But well, according to Betty Logan (see here), he can do whatever he wants because he has the right to. If someone tries to stop him, this person is bullying him or edit warring. --Lecen (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that another admin has protected the page, so I would recommend that you take the next week to discuss and gain consensus on the matter (and pursue dispute resolution if need be). I'd offer to keep an eye on the page after then, but I'm taking a break from Wikipedia so I'm sorry I can't be of any help. The page is protected, the edit warring has been stopped, and any block at this point would simply be punitive.  Swarm   X 22:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What will happen once the block is lifted and DrKiernan's actions remain universally opposed? One editor, who never contributed to the article, who knows nothing of Portuguese language nor or Brazilian history will outweight all the others who are experts on those subjects? Lastly, you made no comment on my remarks about DrKiernan's edits to other related pages as he continues to ignore an ongoing discussion. --Lecen (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Once the page is unprotected, you simply resolve the matter through discussion, negotiation, consensus, if need be, utilize our numerous methods of dispute resolution. DrKiernan's edits to other pages are irrelevant&mdash; I'm not involved in this particular content dispute. That said, I'm sure their actions are incredibly frustrating to you, but I can't do anything other than advise you to seek out some dispute resolution. If there's further edit warring, you know what to do.  Swarm   X 22:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan page
Hi Swarm, the IP that you blocked for 48 hours because of disruptive edits at the Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan page came back and reverted your changes. I reverted them back. But it strikes me as time for a longer block. I don't have time to file a full edit warring report like I did last time, but I will see if I can get something onto the board. Thanks -- Presearch (talk) 09:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Gave em 3 days. Regards,  Swarm   X 16:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Swarm, I'm wondering if you could give me tips about how to most efficiently file administrative reports on edit warring or disruptive editing, such as at Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan. I'm concerned that it takes several minutes for me to file a report like the two I filed (the WP:ANEW template is complicated). I have a suspicion this IP may just come back at us again in 3 or 4 days (assuming he even notices the block - who knows how often he logs on?). What would you recommend as the most time-efficient way to file a 3rd notice, if needed? And how in the filing should I mention that there have been previous filings? Many thanks -- Presearch (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, in this case, the most straightforward way to handle this is probably ANEW, complicated template and all&mdash the IP is blatantly edit warring (over a disruptive change in itself). For the record, if edit warring is not involved, IP disruption like this would typically be reported at WP:ANI. But anyway, don't worry about it in this case. I'm fully aware that the IP may just ignore this block and continue their edit war, and I'm keeping an eye on the article and I'll simply reblock them for a longer period if it comes to that, no noticeboard reports needed. :) Hopefully this will wake them up and they'll use the talk page...if not, a longer block will simply be necessary.  Swarm   X 05:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, many thanks - both for the tip, and for keeping an eye on the page. Of course, once you take the long Wiki-break mentioned at the top of this page, if it's not resolved by then, then I suppose the process will need to begin again... (?)... Many thanks -- Presearch (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, let's just see what happens. If this continues, semi-protection might be necessary. But here's hoping this latest block was a wake up call and that now they'll just let it go.  Swarm   X 17:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Civility, or a Lack Thereof
Just wanted to thank you for speaking up with regards to my recent ANI filing. Frankly I had no idea that the matter was going to explode as it apparently has, and I think it's regrettable that "disgusting" actually seems to be an accurate term for some of the dialogue I've witnessed. It rather horrifies me to think that admins might be willing to turn a blind eye to incivility as long as it's coming from a "valued contributor". If anything, to my mind, those with more experience should be held to a higher standard, as they've been here long enough to (theoretically) know better. Thanks again. Doniago (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Swarm, just wanted to thank you again for getting involved in the debacle that I inadvertently started with my ANI filing. The filing has now been archived due to being inactive for 24 hours, which concerns me a bit as my original question was never actually resolved...I made a couple of suggestions, but nobody replied. There may have been other aspects of the conversation that also merited further discussion. I'm reluctant to just renew the filing and I'm not sure what the protocol is for such in any case, but I remain concerned that the template suggests that an editor will receive a response in a timely fashion when that does not seem to be the case in practice, and at least one admin acknowledged that they deliberately ignore such requests. I'd appreciate your thoughts on the best course of action...or if you feel the best course of action is no action, please feel free to say that as well. Thank you for your input. Doniago (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"Gang of lackeys"
Really? If I'm calm and respectful, but disagree with you, I'm a lackey? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Floquenbeam, I have to agree with you on ANI that this is really all getting out of hand at this point. I would describe you on Moni's talk page as trying to diffuse the situation, but I hope you can see how your involvement there can be perceived as defending Moni's behavior.  Let's all just agree to not create divisions amongst each other and let it go.  I'm really not interested in making enemies out of folks today.--v/r - TP 19:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My comment was hyperbolic and driven by the frustration that resulted from your apparent justification/defense of Moni's blatantly inappropriate behavior ("perhaps it wasn't saintlike" my ass), as well as the overall tendency of multiple editors to rush to the defense of any admin who acts inappropriately, regardless of whatever problems exist with said admin's behavior. Far too often, administrators think that they are "untouchable" and can flaunt even our core principles, and thanks to the people who stringently fight any effort to call a sysop on poor conduct, this is essentially the case. Overall I have nothing but respect for you, and I recognize that you tried to leave a constructive comment rather than attack TP, but still I was a bit taken aback by your apparent defense of Moni. Apologies if you were offended.  Swarm   X 19:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Swarm, surely you can see the irony-- that you acknowledge hyperbole driven by frustration at the same time you criticize Moni for exactly that? The "Gang of lackeys" approach is not going to get this real problem addressed.  Moni is not one of those admins who thinks she's above the crowd or who abuses of others-- she has more likely just honestly given up.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a reason for a cruise to the Caribbean, not incivility.--v/r - TP 20:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm unhelpful. TParis, it strikes me that those who just don't get this haven't had to contemplate walking away from years of hard work of creating featured content, knowing that within months it will end up defeatured if one goes on that cruise.  Please, folks, step into the mindset of others for a bit or this problem will not get attention it deserves.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll take your word that Moni is not usually the "fuck civility", "I don't give a shit" kind of admin, and that she's been, as you put it, "driven to the brink". Still, that's not an excuse. There has to be dozens of essays and guidelines on how to appropriately deal with stress. Starting to throw around comments "fuck civility" is not how to deal with stress/frustration. Situations like this in general may well be a real problem but incivility and the "untouchable" admin corps are two very real ones as well.  Swarm   X 20:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't misunderstand me-- when Moni says "fuck civility", she's probably gotten to the point where she means just that, because she's tired of seeing content destroyed. She is not, however, an abusive admin.  Anyway, to repeat my point-- you are coming down hard on her for "civility" at the very same time that frustration led you to the hyperbole of "gang of lackeys".  Goose-gander, plank-eye, glass houses, all that-- both are driven by frustration.  Try to understand what it is to see day after day after day content destruction after you worked years to create it. I am not asking you to excuse, just to understand, since you, too, can lash out in frustration, as we all can. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, fine, I'll just leave it at point taken, although I hope my overall point is taken as well.  Swarm   X 20:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (e/c because I type slowly and then got distracted by something shiny) I'm not offended (I don't care what some disembodied username on the internet calls me), just puzzled that you're so good at seeing other people's rudeness, but willing and able to call me a name that you would consider warning someone else about (did you know Malleus once was blocked for calling unidentifiable editors "sycophants"? (tiny pseudo-in-joke) ). I don't defend Moni3's comments, but I understand them. Yes, I do think Moni's comments were less problematic that RAP's; I wouldn't say I was defending it, just putting it in context. You're seeing it through your own filter of what you think this place should be, I'm sure I'm seeing it through mine. But I'm not calling people names, and I'm trying to point out things for both sides to think about; you were criticizing people on one side of the disagreement for being rude, while you were being rude to them yourself. That is exactly how these things spiral out of control. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (Redacted) Totally dickish comment redacted.  Swarm   X 20:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (Redacted) redact own comment --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for butting in, but the above 2 redacts make me smile. I've got a lot of respect for both of you, and I'm glad content disputes and various talkpage comments aren't going to get the best of this situation in the end. I think everyone here for any length of time has been guilty of a dickish comment or two, and I hope things work out amicably in the end. Best to you both, Rob R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 23:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I want to echo the above. Everyone gets uncivil from time to time, but it's nice when you see people that realize when they are going overboard. Kudos to both of you. Trusilver  23:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the understanding, both of you&mdash; only a few things get me going, but this incident struck two of them: blatant and direct disregard for the notion of civility, and admins/experienced editors always getting away with any inappropriate behavior. As I said to Floquenbeam, occasionally becoming uncivil myself in response to incivility, ironic as it may be, is one of my many flaws. But "WikiProject Buffyverse" is seriously not worth any bad blood.  Swarm   X 02:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

First, this notion that certain folks can or are "getting away with it" is just wrong, wrong, wrong-- the whole revolution over this notion started long ago because some people get blocked for saying far less than admins can regularly get away with, so y'all should disabuse yourselves of that mistaken idea. Second, Swarm, I wonder if you could reflect on how your comments about Buffyverse feel to someone who has written some seriously good featured content about Buffy (along with some seriously good featured content on a diverse range of incredibly difficult topics). I'm curious-- how many people in this discussion have written something like that, to see it mocked? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I know of at least one editor who, by phrasing nasty insults as theoreticals "vaguely" directed so they can be denied later, has made it through multiple AN/Is. His massive edit count and value to the community seem to come up a lot during such. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 02:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies... it actually finally caught up to him last month... and escalated from a block to an indefinite ban. Took years though. ;-) R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 02:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Meh ... it's hard to care too much about vague or direct insults when there are boatloads of editors who get away with destroying content and consuming the time of productive editors (oh, right, ArbCom doesn't do content disputes, and admins only block for behavioral issues-- which leaves content contributors nowhere but frustrated). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I dont care about insults (directed at me, anyway). As for what that leaves... yeah, mentioned that on your talk page. :-/ Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 03:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sandy, this isn't some vague conspiracy theory that I've bought into, it's a belief I have solely as a result of things I've directly witnessed. I see it all the time and I have noticed it for a very long time. For example, just a few days ago I remember checking in on AN3 and seeing every report answered except one where an admin was reported for a blatant 3RR vio. Just a few days before that, I recall an admin and a newbie were blocked for edit warring over some dubious content, and after a heated ANI thread, the admin was unblocked within a few hours (thanks to the flaming rhetoric of his friendly fellow admins). Overall, I would say most of the blatant incivility I witness on this site comes from admins and experienced editors who think they can&mdash; and can&mdash; "get away with it". I can think of many incidents and editors, past and present, admins and non-admins, who only confirm this (from my perspective, at least). My consolation in all of this is that, as Robert says above, it usually catches up with them eventually (though it almost always does through the protests of friendly fellow admins). Your experiences have evidently been different and thus you disagree, and hey, whatever. It's fairly clear your chief concerns are completely different from mine. Fair enough. But kindly refrain from telling me that I'm wrong, plain and simple.


 * Secondly, what do you mean by "how your comments about Buffyverse feel to someone who has written some seriously good featured content about Buffy"? Are you under the impression that I was mocking the subject matter? Because I wasn't trying to do that at all. Seriously; I was just trying to say that a conflict stemming from a semi-active Wikiproject about a TV show is not worth ruining the "relationship" (for lack of a better term) between me and any other editor who I respect. I'll also add that I generally have far greater respect for the content writers of this site (the true encyclopedists here) than I do for anyone else, so apologies if you misunderstood me on that point.  Swarm   X 03:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, your wording did leave that impression-- thanks for clarifying that was not your intent. No, my experience with admins is no different than yours (in fact, far worse-- I was the target of an admin cabal when I was a new editor, and it was years before the leader of the pack was desysopped, so I've been there done that much more than you've probably come close to observing), it's one of the many reasons I've never wanted to be an admin, and it's part of the problem that plagues content contributors.  But that does not describe the Moni situation, so we agree and disagree. The problem here is that the admin corp refuses to see the problems that content contributors deal with, because many of them know nothing of those issues, and only know how to police.   Content contributors may stick together (your "band of lackeys") but not because one is or is not an admin-- it's because we build content together in the trenches and know what we face from disruptive editors destroying excellent content that took years to build.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I still think Moni's comments were unacceptable, particularly for an admin, and that combined with you calling TParis (IMO one of our best admins) "disruptive" genuinely pissed me off. But that said, I do appreciate you explaining the situation from your perspective, and I understand where you're coming from. I'll certainly keep that point of view in mind in the future (for what little that's worth). I suppose my reaction is just another symptom of the massive disconnect between the admin corps et al. and our core content writers.  Swarm   X 04:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My point to TParis was that, once you're registered your concern, warning, whatever, you don't do any good by continuing to poke at someone in that situation and expect anything productive to come out of it. He had already registered his point-- assuming Moni was obtuse and repeating it wasn't going to do anything but goad.  And I'm not here to defend anyone's ideas of civility or lack thereof, rather to try to refocus people's attention to the severity of the problems this site is beginning to see wrt editors who destroy content and drive content contributors to the point of distraction.  The timing of the Buffy sitution made it a final straw for a boatload of editors who are sick of seeing content destroyed and time wasted.  It wasn't about admin corp and their abuses and power or whatever-- it's about content contributors giving up in droves and this same scenario playing out on article after article -- worse than I've ever seen.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (stalking) So what is the solution? Because I really don't have any idea. The big problem with having an encyclopedia that anyone can edit... is that it's an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I doubt there's anyone reading this that hasn't facepalmed at some point when they see an excellently written article get reworked by someone lacking both a high school-level writing ability and a clue. I look back at some articles I've done work on in the past that have turned into disasters in a short time after I stop tending them. While I totally reject the idea that a long-time editor gets immunity from civility policy, I also reject the idea that we "need" to coddle new and obviously clue-free editors. On my big list of essays that should be policy is WP:CIR. I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that while Wikipedia is the article that anyone CAN edit, it's not the encyclopedia that anyone SHOULD edit. My kids grew up when the public schools were preaching what I refer to as "The Self Esteem Movement" where the core principle is "It doesn't matter how good you do, as long as you try your best." I spent a great deal of time unbrainwashing them from this. I feel that it DOES matter how good you are. When they tell you that you can do anything you set your mind to, they are lying. Not everyone is cut out to be a doctor, or a laywer, or a astronaut... or for that matter, an editor on Wikipedia. Can we do a better job defending the editors who are fighting for good content? Absolutely. But at the same time we can shuffle off the editors who lack the necessary skill sets to edit Wikipedia is as civil and humane a method as possible. To me, this requires two key things: An end to the enablers who defend incivility, and an end to enablers who somehow feel that new editors have some kind of manifest destiny to edit the project regardless of their level of disruption, POV-pushing or plain ol' fashioned incompetence. Trusilver  16:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Can't disagree with anything you write, don't know the solution either, but do know it's a big problem that we must begin to address. (For those who aren't aware, because of the diverse nature of the articles she has written, some on topics that everyone thinks they know everything about even if they've never read a source, Moni3 probably gets hit with this problem waaaaay more than even the average FA writer, which is why I understand her frustration.)  As Karanacs proposed, perhaps redefine to strengthen our notion of content disruption, and rejig our procedures for dealing with disruptive but good-faith editors.  Admins can't always or won't engage the content problems, and it takes too long to deal with low-level disruption via dispute resolution-- that time takes content contributors away from writing and leads to frustration and so many giving up.  Even if we disagree with the way some admins enforce civility, at least they do something ... with content, the wheels that grind never get there, and content contributors who know and respect policy have to give months to years to the dispute resolution process to deal with disruptive editors.  If I had no life, I would have brought an ArbCom on Hugo Chavez years ago, but I don't have four months of my life to deal with the well-documented POV pushing on that article, quite a bit of it from admins, all of it ignored whenever it has come to ANI.  All I've been asking throughout these discussions is for some admins to give at least the same amount of importance to content disruption as they do to civility policing, and not just for the obvious BLP or COI cases.  Those are easy-- it's the constant low-level stuff that grinds down editors.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Amend, it came to me while I was mopping the kitchen floor, I disagree with this:"An end to the enablers who defend incivility, ..." I do wish it were possible to get the message through, but it hasn't happened even after years of same.  How about, an end to the uneven application of Wikipedia's civility policy?  The problem is not definitions of civility per se, but clear discrepancies in the enforcement-- at least three cases in evidence in the last few days.  Sure, I understand the hailstorm that would have resulted if Rusted Auto Parts had been blocked for saying "fuck you" and more to Moni3 after Moni3 said "fuck civility", but fact remains, Rusted Auto Parts got away with an undeniable breach of civility after Moni3 expressed frustration at the relative unimportance of content enforcement over politeness enforcement.  I don't think any of these alleged "enablers who defend incivility" are defending uncivil behavior-- they/we are trying to get the message across that it is policed unequally, and content disruption is not given the same importance.  Solutions might begin to appear if folks would stop unfairly accusing those who try to get this message across, and recognize that there's a problem in civility policing.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This delves into the problem of the open ended and ambiguous interpretation of civility (as perceived by those who potential incivility is directed at). If you said to me "you're an idiotic fucktard who doesn't understand policy and guidelines" I might respond with "Depending on the amount of coffee flowing through my veins at any given moment, you might be right". Yet, if you tell User:BillyBobOverSensitive "your understanding and application of policy is sorely lacking, and I'd suggest you read up on it before you continue to edit" you may find yourself at AN/I. Yeah, nothing would come of it, but that's not the point. Many people don't enforce civility because of the differences in perceptions and reactions to what some might consider uncivil. And in that aspect alone, the dilemma will rage on - because warning people for minor or moderate incivility is frowned upon by some who don't particularly care about such; just as not warning is frowned upon by others. That's compounded by our own perceptions of incivility being what is used to determine/decide whether a warning is warranted. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 18:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, anyway, my point is that those who raise these concerns are unfairly characterized as defending uncivil behavior when it's the uneven application, and relative importance to content, that is the concern. Meanwhile, Rusted Auto Parts, who started all of this, has now moved on to edit warring elsewhere, displaying still his lack of understanding of our sourcing policies, taking another admin's time.  Why am I not surprised?  How much time must we spend on these issues, to the point of exasperation.  Rhetorical.  Everyone would rather worry about Moni3's "impoliteness" than what RAP does to content.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say both should be a concern. But both should be weighed against the editors' other comments and contributions. Inotherwords, we're all human. Did Moni3 get pushed to the point where things were said that shouldn't have been? Perhaps. Is that (or edit warring and disruption) standard fare from Moni3 or a rare slip-up from someone who's a human being and will err from time to time? I'd lean towards the latter. Now... on to Rusted... you've already indicated that situation above. I'd weigh a pattern of behavior as worse than an occasional slip-up any day. Yes, there's the whole "higher standard" thing, but that still does not invalidate the "Moni3 is human, and this isn't an ongoing, unending pattern" portion of the situation. But that's just my thought... R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 19:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sandy, perhaps the reason folks get more flak for civility is because if our parents brought us up right then being polite is one of the first things we learn when we're young. With my three year old in particular, I already have her address people as Mrs. Sussie and Mr. Mike.  Content policies, though, are something we learn when we get here and need a much longer learning curve to get up to snuff.  You're approach gives absolutely zero value to someone who can be taught content policies.  Most folks who come here with attitudes cannot be taught civility.  If they've grown up getting away with being dicks then nothing we do here can fix that.  That's why folks are given more patience on content guideliens.  Reverts/rollbacks are easy to come by, you don't need admin tools for that.  For the record, RAP was given a warning well before Moni was and I'd expected a tenured editor to know both content and civil policies.--v/r - TP 15:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is exactly my way of thinking. I have three kids, two teenagers and a third that thinks she's a teenager. If all three of them can be polite and respectful, I have a very hard time seeing why grown adults I collaborate with on Wikipedia are so incapable doing so. I totally agree with TParis' assessment as well... You can teach a new editor (with varying degrees of success) to learn to follow our policies on thing like notability and verifiability, but you can't teach a person to not be an asshole. I'm willing to show a huge amount of patience to work with new editors until they get it, but not patient at all with old editors that feel the fourth pillar was removed due to popular demand. Trusilver  16:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with the above. At the very least, it's nice to see people saying this out loud for once, as Trusilver did at ANI.  Swarm   X 17:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Dealing with disruptive editing
For those following this topic here, Karanacs got the ball rolling at Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 02:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Joseph201
Hello Swarm not sure if you remember this. I am unhappy to report our little friend has come back from his/her block and went right back to copy and pasting from external sites like thebiographychannel. Its clear we have a user that has not read what has been shown to them or simply does not care about our polocies that have been pointed out to them and was the reasons  for the longer 3 day block. Moxy (talk)
 * Ah, another admin just beat me to it. Cool. :) Regards,  Swarm   X 02:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry :-) ... realized it would be best to get someone not involed to look at the whole thing.Moxy (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

My RFA
I replied to your comment in my RFA concerning stress. Thanks Secret account 18:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll consider your comment.  Swarm   X 18:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Your break and reply
Hi, can you tell me why you're taking a long wikibreak immediately after getting an admin mop up, why don't you show us how you use it for some time? As for second question, I would ask you why you still haven't done nothing about my post at the top. -- Alex discussion ★ 21:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Baseball  Watcher  02:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Serienfan and DIsneyCSIfan
I see you just blocked these two Cookie Monsters for edit warring on CSI Miami. If you check the main page for CSI, you'll find they've been at it there as well; I just tagged both their talk pages with Level 3 warnings (which DCSI managed to remove in record time). I'm a little confused why DisneyCSIfan's block was so lenient, but I'll leave that to wisdom of the administrator. Drmargi (talk) 03:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, I did see that it was on multiple pages but CSI Miami seemed to get the worst of it. 24 hours is sort of the "standard" for 3RR violations, and while it could have been longer, considering that DisneyCSI is a relatively new user and this was their first block, I don't think it needed to be. Further edit warring from this user will, of course, result in longer blocks. Serienfan, on the other hand was blocked for 3 months due to this being their sixth edit warring block. Come January, they'll literally have spent half of 2011 blocked for edit warring!  Swarm   X 04:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I figured it was something along those lines. DCSI seems to be young, judging by the tone of his/her edit summaries, with the accompanying "my way or the highway" approach to editing.  I just retagged his/her talk page with another warning for CSI: NY.  Probably futile, but it needed to be done.  I'm not sure the block will have much effect, either, but we can hope.  I didn't realize Serienfan had quite history he/she does.  Surprise!  Drmargi (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You might want to take a peek at this edit, and the edit histories of 71.38.89.154 and our pal CSIDisneyfan. I hear ducks quacking when I see a familiar edit summary and recent edits on the DirectTV page. Perhaps a bit of block evasion in the night? Drmargi (talk) 05:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, they're quacking quite loudly. Good catch. I gave both the IP and the account a few more days off. If you see any more socking, feel free to drop by and let me know.  Swarm   X 05:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do! Drmargi (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Swarm, I know you're taking a break soon, but wanted to give you a heads up about something. It appears DisneyCSIfan (I've had the username wrong all this time!) almost immediately set up a second account CSIdisney2000 and began editing with it when you imposed the second block. He/she stayed clear of the various CSI articles, although they're back there now, but did edit on DirectTV about the Fox dispute. That gives him/her at least three accounts operating with the IP factored in, and clear-cut block evasion yet again. I'm not sure what should be done after the fact, since the latest three-day block on CSID is over, but wanted to check in with you, regardless. Drmargi (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So, CSIdisney2000 is indeffed and DisneyCSIfan is suspended without pay for another week. Was that it or was there another IP?  Swarm   X 11|11|11 23:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's it. I feel like the class tattletale, but rules is rules.  Enjoy your break.  This Cookie Monster alone would drive a body to needing one!  Drmargi (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good job, thanks for keeping an eye on this. Let me know if you notice any more socking, because I really wouldn't put it past this user. Thanks again,  Swarm   X 11|11|11 01:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

IP you blocked
Hi Swarm, just notifying you of this - an IP you blocked for edit warring is evading the block. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Why did you block me
I want to know why I was blocked and why my changes are being reverted for no reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeyheyMJ (talk • contribs) 02:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Shahed Ali Khan
I suspect that Niazification10 might be attempting to evade being blocked by editing as Caterpillar000. The new account has started adding Shahed Ali Khan back to some of the same articles. By behavior, I think it's most likely him, but only a checkuser would be definitive. Of course, it's entirely possible that Shahed Ali Khan is a real person and the information is not "incorrect", but it's a mystery without the editor in question supplying some verifiability. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, this edit clinches the identity question:  Clearly, it's the same editor, as he must have taken the time and trouble to "save" the draft of the questionable BLP he was working on. AzureCitizen (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Great catch! Tagged and blocked.  Swarm   X 18:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger that, thanks for quickly putting that to bed. I reverted the new edits made by the sock, then left him a message at his primary account talk page as to what he should do if he sincerely he wants to edit productively.  AzureCitizen (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI & Easy4me
Since you've commented on this, I figured I'd let you know that I've moved it to ANI. Here's a permalink. Cheers, m.o.p  04:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Not to be a pain in the arse
But would you look at the edits for IP:198.83.120.99 and IP:24.103.234.74 on Iron Chef America? This is an old trouble-maker who pops up periodically, bounces between three or four IP's (notably these two) to edit/stir up trouble, doesn't leave edit summaries and won't respect WP policy. His recent edits violate WP:INFOBOX, and I know from history that no amount of discussion and no warning template will do any good. He's already got a long history of warnings and blocks on both accounts, and is tagged for sockpuppetry. Is there anything you can do? I've tried to explain why the edit is incorrect, but he just reverts without comment, and I'm not going 3RR over this turkey. Thanks! An accessible admin is worth his/her weight in gold. Drmargi (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. :) I've gone ahead and blocked the IPs. Regards,  Swarm   X 11|11|11 17:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are the best. I'm going to revert again, which hopefully won't get me 3RR'd!  Drmargi (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
...for the new user permissions! ;-) Regards, --Brackenheim (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem!  Swarm   X 11|11|11 04:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Havengore
In response to a report at WP:ANI, I've removed talk page access from Havengore, who has been refactoring others' comments on his/her talk page while blocked. Since you've been conversing with Havengore since the original block was levied, I'd like to suggest that you restore the talk page access if you believe it warranted, without bothering to ask me. Enjoy vacation! Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh, I can't say I'm at all surprised&mdash; I figured it was only a matter of time before he pushed it to this point. Anyway, thanks. Regards,  Swarm   X 11|11|11 04:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Help needed
I don't know how to handle the situation here, but I'm sure you may be able to very nicely.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Request
Would you mind moving Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chao.pradyut back to User talk:Chao.pradyut since I accidentally moved the user's talk page? Thank you. Baseball  Watcher  01:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. :)  Swarm   X 11|11|11 01:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Moving threads
In my  opinion some of the threads are getting  a bit long  here and could be moved to  the talk  page. It's been done before. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Help
Please visit this page and help me please. -- Njavallil ... Talk 2 Me  22:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:BAN
Hi. Please familiarize yourself with the banning policy as can be found at WP:BAN. Your comment here runs directly counter to the banning policy as in directly contradicts the written policy as is. I advise you to redact it may give a falsified impression of the actual policy to others. Generally I take the banning policy very seriously because it prevents other editors from supporting banned editors by editing on their behalf. I view that support for banned users who have harassed others for extended periods of time contributes to the harassment and has real potential to drive away regular editors who are not banned. Hobartimus (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're simply wrong. Editors are absolutely not required to revert positive additions by banned users. Not doing so absolutely does not equate to support for banned editors in any way, shape or form. Regards,  Swarm   X 11|11|11 20:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Direct quote from the banning policy found at WP:BAN "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning an editor, the community has determined that the broader problems, due to their participation, outweigh the benefits of their editing, and their edits may be reverted without any further reason." I feel that your earlier comments clearly contradict the policy, which speaks quite clearly. Also The standard Wikipedia invitation to "edit this page" does not apply to banned editors. from the same policy. Banned users are not members of the community and are not allowed to edit.   Hobartimus (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Also please note that I have been personally harassed by banned users for extended periods and will not tolerate such harassment which means I have to use all available policies as they are written. I feel your comment tried to undermine both the letter and the spirit of the banning policy. For example based on your comment an editor, (who is a sockpuppet according to at least one administrator, Shirik, according to his block log) came under the impression that regular editors are forced to justify removing edits by banned users and must come up for reasons for removing them.  when the policy states that anyone is free to revert edits by banned users without any further reasoning or discussion. Hobartimus (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wording is very important. In this case, I'd believe Swarm's interpretation is correct. "Anyone is free to revert[...]" (it does not say "must" or even "should" - just indicates that they can). Next sentence... "[...]and their edits may be reverted without any further reason" - again, "may" and not "must" or "should". Policies and Guidelines are generally very specific in the choice of such wording, and where intended, "must" or "should" are used instead of "free to" or "can" or "may". Hope that helps. Best, Rob R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  20:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)Thanks Robert, but we are not talking about anything like that. The case is simple. There is an suspected and a confirmed sockpuppet of a banned user, user Iaaasi. Iaaasi has an enormous number of IP / Sock / meat puppets as seen here. The SUSPECTED sock, Daccono restores the edits by CONFIRMED sockpuppet Berchea of the banned user Iaaasi. He is only a suspected so he is allowed to freely edit I have no problem with that. But the issue is the banning policy, it is very clear that confirmed edits by banned users can be reverted without discussion, so everyone should follow policy. Which means I shouldn't be having long discussion every time an edit by a banned user is reverted. It takes a huge amount of time to deal with sockpuppet harassment already by reporting /tagging etc etc, having discussion on whether to revert or not revert edits by banned users only adds to the time necessary for dealing with the harassment.  Hobartimus (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, seriously, if you're going to start accusing other editors of being socks, you need to file an SPI, or shut up.  Swarm   X 11|11|11 21:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't really have anything to add that Robert hasn't. None of the wording you cite contradicts anything I have ever said, and if I say something contrary to policy, cite where I did so exactly rather than accuse me of trying to "undermine both the letter and the spirit of the banning policy" with a completely accurate statement.  Swarm   X 11|11|11 21:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your comment Reverting positive contributions to the encyclopedia just because a user is banned (or for any procedural reason, for that matter) is counterintuitive. while the Policy say By banning an editor, the community has determined that the broader problems, due to their participation, outweigh the benefits of their editing, and their edits may be reverted without any further reason.
 * How is that not a direct contradiction to the policy? Your claim it's counterintuitive, yet it's the exact policy. You may revert such edits without any further reason or discussion. It doesn't say that have a ten page discussion and get a consensus with the banned user or anyone else whether the edit was positive or not... (By default the edit is positive to them or they wouldn't be making it...) The policy also talks about "obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism)" which wasn't the case here. The other issue is saying "just because a user is banned" makes it seem like banning is no big deal. Also this "But at the end of the day, blindly reverting any addition made by a banned user really doesn't help anyone" also directly contradicts the policy, which is self evident. If nobody reverts banned users they become regular users and the banning policy becomes worthless. The whole point of the banning policy IS to achieve that banned persons well are actually banned, don't you agree? Let's say you review all the contributions and weed out only the obviously negative ones. Isn't what you would do in any random article with any random user? Would you leave a negative edit in, just because the person is not banned? So how would your policy interpretation make banned users different from an unbanned user? Hobartimus (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Couldn't help seeing this...are you really stating that you feel an editor's positive contributions to the project should be reverted just because they're banned? As in, editors should be required to revert edits if they determine they were made by someone who is banned? I don't see how that serves the interests of the project at all. Doniago (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is in the details. There is no such thing as a "positive contribution" from a banned user. Say it's positive for the banned user and supporters and negative for ones he is harassing. Say he got banned over a pattern of 6000 edits forming into an abusive pattern of harassment, falsification, abuse etc until the community finally had enough. How will you then judge based on a single edit if it's part of the same pattern? Not to mention what's positive for me, may be negative for you. This is why the policy refers to obvious cases like typo fixes, vandalism reverts. Hobartimus (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also editors are not required to revert. Rather they have the option to revert such edits without discussion. However having discussions about this every time, defeats the purpose of the actual policy of being able to revert without discussion. Hobartimus (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as a "positive contribution" from a banned user. That type of absolutist, black and white philosophy is closed minded and ridiculous, and is absolutely not on par with banning policy or the WP:IAR spirit that is central to this project. If you're involved in a dispute about whether or not to revert a banned user's edits, you don't have a trump card because the user is banned, you do have to discuss and if you edit war, you will still be blocked. That's simply the way things work.  Swarm   X 11|11|11 22:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please refer to the rest of my comment without taking my words out of context. I clearly explained that "positive" is up to interpretation which is why the policy mentions obvious cases like typo fixes and vandalism removal. Also which may seem positive to you might not seem so positive to people who are being harassed. Hobartimus (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no "positve contribution" in the sense that you are not able to determine which is which. Let's take a random example. Can you explain why this user was blocked indefinitely? Can you say what was negative in his contributions? Hobartimus (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You can agree to disagree, but quite frankly, the policy does not state such absolutes because such do not exist (as Swarm noted above). Being banned for socking has nothing to do with whether or not certain contributions are worthwhile. You also seem to be under the assumption that editors on Wikipedia cannot judge whether an edit is a valid contribution to the encyclopedia or not. If I interpreted that correctly, that too seems a "black and white" scenario that also doesn't apply. As a "for instance:" one of my ex-adoptees was blocked (and later unblocked) for socking. He's managed to have overwhelmingly positive contributions to Wikipedia, including GAs and FA candidates - and he's learned to work with the community instead of using socking and such as a way around the community. When he was indef'd for socking, should we simply have deleted his GAs and FA candidates and reverted them back to stubs? Final note, nothing prevents any editor from improving an article - regardless of who was working on it previously (or whether they are banned, blocked or neither). In such, (as in other things), it is the content that is important - not the contributor; and there is no wide brush to paint all such contributions as negative. Even in the case of copyvios, where one particular editor had hundreds (if not thousands), a team was assembled (and a bot created) to work their way through every contribution. The end result was a lot of copyvio fixes - but also a massive amount of very good contributions. Had we "painted with a wide brush" on that one, we'd have lost a heck of a lot of content. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  22:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I applaud Robert for his excellent comments. Hobartimus, while I'd normally be more than happy to engage in an extended debate and address every point you make individually and in detail, as you can see by the notice at the top of the page, I'm preparing for a vacation right now and I simply don't have the time to get into this with you. So here's the bottom line, and this is the last I'll say on this matter: I'm sorry you're on the opposite end of a dispute with that user and that you clearly believe they're acting in bad faith, but I stand behind my comment to that user, I'm 110% confident in it and I flatly reject the notion that I'm misrepresenting policy in any way, as well as your advise to redact it. Regards,  Swarm   X 11|11|11 01:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Rollback
Hi Swarm. I noticed that you accorded Rollback to User talk:Tingo Chu. I'm just pointing out that he passes pages as patrolled (Service Plus) that may even be blatant G11 without tagging them. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a mistake. I have add the AFD template now.--Tingo Chu (talk) 10:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hobartimus and WP:BAN
Sorry to bother again, but it seems that the previous ample explanations were not sufficient for Hobartimus. He still refuses to acknowledge that the edits of a banned user may be reinstated if they are considered by an editor to be helpful:

I checked the two contributions myself and and I go along with them, but Hobartimus is not interested to discuss the edits themselves, preferring to refer to their initial author as an alleged criteria for invalidation. His approach is user-oriented, not content-oriented. Instead of focusing on expanding articles, his main purpose here seems to be the complete neutralization of Iaaasi 's sockpuppets, without giving much importance to collateral effects. Some other remarks:


 * He has a special sandbox dedicated to Iaasi and his own revert rule interpretation does not apply when the banned sock master is someone else (here or here he reinstated texts added by blocked socks of the banned User:Stubes99)
 * "if you're going to start accusing other editors of being socks, you need to file an SPI, or shut up." - he has already done that, and not only once. The administrators confirmed my innocence each time and a CheckUser even complained that "It's getting frustrating to review this case over and over again." He is constanly showing enmity towards me. He is reverting my edits without giving a minimal motivation: "rv to an earlier version" "rv" "rv Daccono". Can you please assist me in this matter? Maybe a WP:DIGWUREN warning would be salutary too Daccono (talk) 06:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A previous attempt of Daccono to falsely report me and someone else for "vandalism" resulted in an unrelated and uninvolved user making this comment . Hobartimus (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you believe that I'm involved in this dispute for some reason, I'm not. I answered a policy question a while back, but that's where it ends. For lack of a better way of putting it (I don't mean this rudely), please don't bother me with this. Work it out like any other dispute; I'm not going to get involved.  Swarm   X 02:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Future of the US Education Program and the Ambassador Project
There is a discussion about the future and the growth of the US education program along with the future of the Wikipedia Ambassador Project here. Voceditenore (talk) 07:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Rollback message
Hi,Swarm.I just watched some rollbacker's talk pages,and noticed that,you have put a tag on which it is mentioned with the image of rollback that the request is approved.Can you please do it for me too? You may very my rollback right by clicking here.Best, That's me!  Have doubt?   Track me!  13:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Done.  Swarm   X 17:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Rollback Approved?
Hey Swarm- on the WP:Requests for permissions/rollback page, you put a done check-mark next to my request, but I don't appear to have the rollback permissions (see ). Could you assign the permission? Thanks, --The little green pig (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My mistake! You are now actually a rollbacker. Regards,  Swarm   X 17:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --The little green pig (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleting AGRODEP wiki page
Dear sir;

I am a creator of AGRODEP wiki. I am working in IFPRI (www.ifpri.org: non-profit organization) and I don't create the wiki for commercial use. Could you restore the wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soonho.kim (talk • contribs) 19:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Belated adoptee response!
I have been pretty inactive on Wikipedia for a while; I do most of my work when there is downtime at my day job, and since September there hasn't been much of that.

Now, however, there is, so it's editing time! If you are still willing to oblige, I will likely have questions in the near future. ElectricValkyrie (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good to hear from you! I'm glad you found time to contribute again. I'm absolutely still here for any questions, so just ask away, anytime.  Swarm   X 05:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

3RR
Thank you for closing the 3RR report. I would like to ask you to update your comment to reflect that the report was 2 days (and 2 hours) after the incident, as opposed to three days. Thanks again, aprock (talk) 01:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The time from the last revert to the time of the administrative review of the report was what I was referring to as "nearly three days", not to the time of the report you left.  Swarm   X 05:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Rollback Request
Requests_for_permissions/Rollback. Can I have the rights now, Please!!! (Only joking) If you feel i'm good for it then give me the power.  -- Njavallil ... Talk 2 Me  21:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have just declined this, and I suspect Swarm would agree with me - although as ever I welcome any other opinion. Also I have refactored this to add a header as it seems irrelevant to the the previous thread. Pedro : Chat  21:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. You've only made four vandalism revisions since your last request was declined, and two of those weren't vandalism! This is just the icing on the cake. Anyone who blanks their user page and "leaves Wikipedia" because they can't get something as minor as rollback clearly shouldn't have that tool.  Swarm   X 23:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Help me, please!
Hello Mr. Swarm!

Thank you in advance for your concern but I'm asking you to help me more in depth. Bad day for me in this case is dated October 24, 2011 which is when I made three seem/consecutive errors at the time.

Actually I've always respond to complaints that error, for example, when I was | told, I immediately take corrective actions. There was also about | this, I have to apologize | too. So I guess, I was active enough to communicate with them.

| It may also be a consideration you that other users also have the perception that is almost similar to mine in the same article.

I'm asking your help because my requests | here and | also here have not received a response after waiting for more than 24 hours. Again!, help me so that I can see the problem clearly and studying it in depth so that the application be approved. I'm very slumped with this incident. If you asked me to wait again for another week or month, I also resigned about it, but I ask if you can as soon as possible so that my spirit can recover against acts of vandalism here.

Give me a sure answer, please! Sincerely. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Flyguy33
Hello,Swarm.Jrcla2 recently complained to me against User:Flyguy33;requesting that his rollback tool be removed.Please see the note on my talk page Here.What do you think about it?Standard use of rollback is clearly stated in WP:RBK.If possible kindly notify me on my talk page. That's me!  Have doubt?   Track me!  12:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay, it looks like another admin's gotten to it now, though. Regards,  Swarm   X 00:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

HiLo48
I actually looked briefly at some of the other threads out there and wondered about his behavior elsewhere... but since I didn't know the other cases, I decided that I wanted to get this one on the record. And to document the case.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 18:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sure, seems perfectly reasonable. I'm concerned that people seem to be ignoring the user's behavioral issue because of the overall conflict/incivility on the pregnancy page, though.  Swarm   X 00:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think they are overlooking it because I chose to wait until the RfC was closed... I think it might have garnered more traction if i had raised it during the RfC, but I didn't want to fuel his paranoia about unethical behavior.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 00:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, an ANI thread in the archives, even without any action taken, is still better than nothing. They may "take the hint" or their behavior will continue, in which case a discussion will serve as a precursor to future action. Let's hope it's the former, but it's usually the latter...  Swarm   X 01:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleting AGRODEP
Dear Sir;

I would like to restore the AGRODEP page which you recently deleted. Could you explain why you deleted in detail? I would like to create it again. But, I am afraid that you delete the page again. So, it would be good to talk with you first why you deleted it in detail. Thanks for your considerations! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soonho.kim (talk • contribs) 21:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I deleted it because it met one of our speedy deletion criteria. The article only appeared to promote the subject (it was not written with a neutral point of view). It would have to be completely rewritten for it to be acceptable for Wikipedia. No big deal, but to recreate it you have to address that problem. Now, since you recreated it so many times, the page has been locked. What you need to do is read Your first article, and when you understand our article guidelines, let me know and I'll tell you how to recreate that page. Alright? If you have any questions, feel free to ask!  Swarm   X 00:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply:Rollback removed
Hello, Mr. Swarm!

Infinite gratitude for the trust you have given me. For the future I will do my best to combat vandalism here and rollback tool that you provide I will use for false positive only, the rest will revert it manually after I read and understand it.

But as an ordinary man who certainly has shortcomings and mistakes, admonish me if I do wrong and guide me into a better direction. I will do my better ability to advance the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation in particular and general.

Thanks a lot. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you'll do fine. :) If you run into any trouble, feel free to drop by. Regards,  Swarm   X 00:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, thank you for your attention! Not the slightest intention to do wrong or mess here so that when the verdict was given to me without advance warning, I was really down. Thank God, you came to help me at the right moment so that my spirit was again recovered. Cheers. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to the December Wikification Drive
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 01:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC).

ANI notice
I've brought up some of the issues being discussed on User Talk:Ostreicher in the already open ANI thread on the issue, WP:ANI. I mentioned your name in that process, so your comments are welcome. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm solidly in agreement with what you say there, and I can't think of anything to add. Thanks for bringing it up in the ANI thread though (I didn't know there was one).  Swarm   X 00:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And my personal apologies on the handling of the Ostreicher affair. Will keep in mind the issues you raised. Should you wish me to undertake any administrative move on the user, please do advice. Kind regards. Wifione  Message 19:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Wifione, I greatly appreciate that. I don't see any need for further action regarding this case, but again, I appreciate that you took my point and will consider it in the future. Best,  Swarm   X 02:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tool apprenticeship
Hi Swarm, I just wanted to briefly ask you a question about your opinion at Wikipedia_talk:Tool_apprenticeship:
 * Oppose, per virtually all of the above opposers. My views on RfA reform have been very well advertised for quite a long time, and I'm a coordinator of a reform project myself. So as much as it pains me to oppose an attempt at change, this is simply not the type of reform that I feel is needed. Swarm X 22:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Because there have been a lot of opposers with different opinions, I was wondering if you could clarify your own objections in a little more detail, just for my own understanding. I'm also curious what reform you're involved with. I appreciate you taking the time to consider this proposal. Dcoetzee 02:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm short on time at the moment, but message received. I will absolutely explain and discuss my opinion in detail at my earliest convenience. Best,  Swarm   X 02:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, take your time. :-) Dcoetzee 02:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Belated adoptee response!
I have been pretty inactive on Wikipedia for a while; I do most of my work when there is downtime at my day job, and since September there hasn't been much of that.

Now, however, there is, so it's editing time! If you are still willing to oblige, I will likely have questions in the near future. ElectricValkyrie (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good to hear from you! I'm glad you found time to contribute again. I'm absolutely still here for any questions, so just ask away, anytime.  Swarm   X 05:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: I had the archive bot archiving my talk page way too quickly, plus I forgot to send you a talkback, so I'm digging this back out in case you didn't see it. If you did see my reply, just disregard. :) Regards,  Swarm   X 02:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:ITN/C
Thank you for commenting on my ITN news candidate. I'm seeing that the news is not really notable outside of the United States. What's the criterion for ITN items, besides WP:GNG? Thanks, --   Luke      (Talk)   22:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey there, Luke. The actual written criteria are located at ITN, but to put it simply, there are two: article quality and significance. We also have recurring items which are essentially pre-approved, and minority topics which can be posted with a weaker than normal consensus. The article must be in decent shape, with no orange or red maintained tags, and most importantly, it has to have a quality update to reflect the news&mdash; that's usually pretty straightforward, so most of our discussion is about significance (not notability). Note that newsworthy≠'significant'. For example, Cain's withdrawal was obviously all over the news and even made international news. But, since it doesn't really have any tangible impact on events, and there's not going to be a lot of reader interest internationally, it's not considered "significant". Just hang out at ITNC for awhile and weigh in on some discussions and you'll get a sense of what gets approved and what doesn't pretty quickly. Sorry if this is a bit long, but I hope it's helpful. Regards,  Swarm   X 01:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation Swarm. You're right about how newsworthy in the national and even international community doesn't equal notability on Wikipedia. --   Luke      (Talk)   02:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment
Hi Swarm, um I've just come to say is that I have reported the POV pusher to WP:ANI. Abhijay Talk?/Deeds  03:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

RFA thank you
Thank you for your support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Baseball  Watcher  01:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Forgot one
.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, got it.  Swarm   X 01:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks!Jasper Deng (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Where's the babushka babe...and they must be really scraping the barrel now!
TCO (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, tell me about it.  Swarm   X 03:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Legal threat
Hi Swarm! Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris-Charles_de_Gaulle_Airport&diff=466099013&oldid=466090709 ("Just leave it alone. If I have to start an edit war, I will!") meaning he will start an edit war if the edit was just left alone. Snoozlepet (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a threat, no doubt (and part of what they've been blocked for). But I wouldn't call it a legal threat. I'd say the two day block is sufficient for now.  Swarm   X 04:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! He'll probably continue the edit war after the 2-day block. I would keep an eye on him. If he continues to edit war, then he should be blocked for longer. Snoozlepet (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if he does, he'll definitely be blocked longer. I'll try to keep an eye out, but feel free to let me know if there's anything that needs my attention as well.  Swarm   X 04:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

HI
Hi,

Thanks for the stern warring. However, I am sry but there is very little than edit warring will keep certain editors from molesting certain articles. If you would take a closer look at the following: C. Nagalingam‎, K. P. Ratnam, Royal College (disambiguation), Chandre Dharma-wardana, Jaffna city, Raj Rajaratnam, Official Language Act (Sri Lanka)‎ you would understand the drawn out nature of this edit war. Cossde (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Jeez. One moment please...  Swarm   X 05:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As I've notified you on your talk page, I've forwarded this down to WP:ANI, where hopefully it will be dealt with.  Swarm   X 05:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok Cossde (talk) 05:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Also, talkback at my userpage. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  23:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!!
My heartfelt thanks for your 1 week block of the IP 60 etc from the Northern Football League article. He just wasn't listening and I was just about to do my block over him on the talk page. Footy Freak7 (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No prob. :) Swarmx (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled for User:Nameless User
Hello,Swarm.Although you left a comment on my talk page,I would be very happy if you kindly approve Nameless User autopatrolled right.He,has created more than 100 articles,had edited more than 28,000 times,with only a few edits deleted.Thanks,Night Of Darkness 07:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That user's autopatrolled right was revoked a few weeks ago due to issues with the articles they create...we want new page patrollers keeping an eye on their creations. Therefore your message to them was ill-advised. With respect I don't think you should worry about the status of other people's flags either.  Swarm   X 10:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

3RR Violation
Hi, Thanks for blocking and unblocking me :) . I just did Vandalism revert and i don't have anything to with that user. Thanks. Abdul raja  T  07:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah... The real problem was the other user. Blocking you would have served no purpose. Just remember to report such users in the future. :) Swarmx (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Abdul raja  T  10:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

noting someone's topic indefinite ban
I'm not sure why this was created. LibStar (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Buddhism in Jaffna
User:DishanMudalige started above page with ulterior motive with improper content that is nothing to do with Buddhism in Jaffna. I have added content with appropriate RS. Please have a look on and get involved on this page as you are interested in resolving related disputes.Sudar123 (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any particular evidence that they were not editing in good faith in regards to that particular article. Do you? They just created the article&mdash; perhaps they planned on expanding it? I'm not really involved in related disputes, either (to my knowledge), and, with respect, I'm not particularly interested in becoming "involved". Don't get me wrong, if you need advice or assistance with anything specific, I'm happy to help, but otherwise I have no desire to jump into a dispute.  Swarm   X 12:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * They can create articles but with relevant content. If they haven't started with right content then how they will expand in a right manner.


 * Please see the following which is nothing to do with the article which they have created.


 * "Jaffna, along with the rest of the Jaffna peninsula was part of the Kingdom of Tambapanni in 543 BC. Ancient Sinhala chronicles including Mahavamsa describes Jaffna as a vital part of the island nation . It Briefly come under the rule of South Indian Kingdoms, after several incursions it has been recaptured by Sinhalese Kings thereafter, last of which was Parakramabahu VI.  "


 * I couldn't see anything above are something to do with the article. The above are only to make the impression or expand later on in the lines that Sinhala ethnic group is the one practiced the Buddhism all over the island including Jaffna and not Tamils. Your advise would be helpful.Sudar123 (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Help
In the following article Genetic studies on Sri Lankan Tamils a Vandalism only editor is removing potential connections between Sinhala people and Tamil people of Sri Lanka, can you help there?

I saw your user name in another editors talk page and hence came here for help. i have contributed before as an IP from Sri lanka but now have an account.

I checked the history of the Vandalism only account and found a similar Single purpose account was removing the same referenced content from Sri Lankan Tamil people article as well. So looks like the same person is behind both the accounts. DishanMudalige (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * following are user names that are doing the same sort of reference removing single purpose attack on the genetic section, they are User:Pandyan123, User:Kanatonian1, User:Kanatonian12, User:Kanopandyan, User:Arun1paladin. Thanks for your help. DishanMudalige (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigation has been submitted.  Swarm   X 06:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, another single purpose account User:Parisloganathan seem to be on it today along with reverting even a link to the above mentioned article to the parent Sri Lankan Tamil people article. Can you kindly look into soft protecting these articles so that brand new accounts cant vandalize them. Parisloganathan may belong to the same cluster of accounts as above or a sympathetic editor. DishanMudalige (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Article semi-protected pending the completion of the investigation. One thing, though, do you have any evidence linking Arun1paladin to the other accounts? The clerk doesn't see any and neither do I, but you obviously have some concern.  Swarm   X 03:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Because of this, but it could be a sympathetic edit. I hope your strong actions has sent a message and who ever is the sock master would cease and desist. Thanks DishanMudalige (talk) 04:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 11:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Cheers
Thank you very much. Regards IJA (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

help me understand
Hi Swarm,

as you offer help to new users, I would like to ask you to help me understand.

Please AGF for me, even if my username is not so wisely chosen. See also my discussion with my "informal mentor" here

I solemnly swear that I am not a sock puppet, I have only been editing cold fusion related articles with this single purpose account since I created it this year.

I have great difficulty to accept that so huge differences exist between the severity of sanctions that I have seen in the last few days.

I am refering to the cases of AnnaBennett and AndyTheGrump.

AndyTheGrump has made, at least lately, several gross personal attacks. For one of those he was blocked, after 10 hours he was unblocked. AFAIK without showing remorse.

AnnaBennett has made 1 reference (AFAIK) that can be explained as a conspiracy theory and was blocked indefinitely.

This is what happended:

In the article Patterson Power Cell I put in a line stating that the company "CETI is no longer active nor promoting the device". That was an unsourced line and I added to it.

Anna deleted the line because there was no evidence that the company (under a new name) is not active anymore. I should highlight that Anna had found some documents on the company.  Anna did the right thing in deleting my unsourced line !

She even left a nice edit comment "See edit explanation on talk page; Is MSI Ventures "Active"?) " In that talk page section she explained that there is no evidence that MSI is no longer active. "However, MSI Ventures (also known as Molecular Separations Incorporated) is a Texas corporation and its current status is hidden behind a paywall; unlike Florida, the Texas Secretary of State's corporation records are not freely available to the public. The article should not assert that CETI is no longer active when in fact it may be listed as "active" by the Texas Secretary of State."

So far so good. She then offered an example to illustrate a possible scenario.

Andy misread that possible scenario and replied: "And what has your crackpot conspiracy theory got to do with the article? We don't give a rat's arse what you think 'may' be happening. Please don't spam this page with delusional junk. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The possible scenario was a highly unlikely one, it could indeed be described as conspiracy theory. But I do not think it was Anna's intention to purposefully push a conspiracy theory. She just wanted to offer an example to illustrate that there is no evidence that the company is out of business. Her final statement underlines that "I am deleting from the article the reference to CETI being "no longer active""

The reason for deleting the line was not the "conspiracy theory" the reason for deletion was simple "no evidence". She attached a example that was maybe not wisely chosen.

Maybe the rudeness of Andy's reply prompted Anna to continue with the theory: "Dear Mr. Grumpy: Simon has described the (CETI) Patterson Power Cell as "A Technoscientific Ghost Story" and I concur with that description. Why has a company that holds the rights to a patent worth billions of dollars just disappeared from public view, and why has this article been nominated for deletion? The disappearance of CETI/MSI makes sense if its silence is being bought with regular payments (on a secret government contract). One of the principals of investigative journalism is, "When a story does not make sense, follow the money". That is why I would really like to see MSI's tax returns, and your tax returns too. AnnaBennett (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)"

("Simon" refers to the book "undead science by Bart Simon" who indeed uses the words "Technoscientific Ghost Story")

There is a harmless explanation to Anna's conduct. Anna has done good editing work on other topics, she is always very polite even when attacked. She writes good edit summaries. She finds verifications before she edits. She does everything correct. She was put in a completely wrong daylight for one arguable misstep.

I just want to set the record straight, because there is wrongdoing here. Wikipedia should not be blocking editors like Anna.

The case didn't get due process. J'accuse.

I will not comment on Andy's motives.

--POVbrigand (talk) 10:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hm. I just closed the ANI thread because it looked like it was degenerating into pot shots, but you may well be right that the indef block was not necessary or excessive. What I don't understand is why she didn't retract the accusation, or clarify that it was a joke.  Swarm   X 03:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * My feeling is that she just had it with Wikipedia. She has lost all trust in being treated fairly. She had been attacked numerous times. Why would she spend extra effort to explain how she was treated unfairly, when all the previous experience would lead her to believe that she would be laughed out of court. I have also lost my trust in fairness while editing fringe topics. There is complete loss of ability to differentiate between honest wp-editors trying to work on a fringe topic and over-enthusiastic "pov pushers". And actually, so far, I have only seen one or two of those, but many normal wp-editors getting disgruntled by the tendentious editing of the anti fringe tag team. Many thanks for noticing and replying. If you're interested to know more, just ask me, I have a lot to tell. But foremost I want to set the record straight for Anna, even if she might never return to wikipedia. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there a way I can have this block reassessed ? --POVbrigand (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, start a thread at WP:AN. I can't say how successful it will be without the blocked user's input.  Swarm   X 10:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)