Jump to content

User talk:Swarm: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Emails: new section
Line 101: Line 101:


Hi Swarm. I hear from Bgwhite that you've been receiving some unpleasant emails recently. Could you please forward them to me or to Arbcom? [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>'''''Worm'''''</span>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<font color='#060'>talk</font>]]) 07:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Swarm. I hear from Bgwhite that you've been receiving some unpleasant emails recently. Could you please forward them to me or to Arbcom? [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>'''''Worm'''''</span>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<font color='#060'>talk</font>]]) 07:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
:Hey Worm. Unfortunately it went to my spam folder which appears to have emptied itself since then. OZ may be willing to share it if he has a copy, as it's not exactly incriminating. He emailed me once asking me to revdelete his block log. I didn't respond and he didn't send me any more emails. It was ''inappropriate'' as he had been told in no unclear terms by Bgwhite to drop the accusations of misconduct and move on, but that being said, it wasn't uncivil and he didn't harass me over it. Individually it was no cause for alarm. More concerning though is that according to Bgwhite, he was privately talking about "making me pay" for the block, and now this is something he continues to do with Bg. If true, that's nothing short of disturbing. As you can see, while I defended the block, I wasn't too upset that it was overturned as I hoped the point may have been made regardless. However OZ's vitriolic and IDHT response to his last two blocks are more concerning than the edit warring issues, all of which I've very strongly warned him about. If he's really continuing to go about off wiki and directly or indirectly personally attack an administrator, that's nothing short of unacceptable. [[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.0em 0.0em 0.9em black'><big>'''S'''</big><small>'''''warm'''''</small></span>]] [[User talk:Swarm|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em red'><sup>'''''we ♥ our hive'''''</sup></span>]] 17:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:20, 1 April 2015

Template:Archive box collapsible

This user replies where s/he likes, and is inconsistent in that respect.
This user is fallible and encourages other admins to be bold in reverting their admin actions.
~~~~Swarm signs their posts and thinks you should too!

Swarm
Home —— Talk —— Email —— Contribs —— Awards —— Dash

Spumuq

Spumuq continues his stalking, edit warring behaviour:

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


(talk page stalker)The block notice can be removed, declined unblock request's however can't. I'll go have a look at the others and get back to you.
Zozs has been stalking me, why is this allowed? Zozs first Neoliberalism edit is reverting mine [1] and the edit summary is false, I discussed this problem on the talkpage, [2] months ago, and it is a WP:TAGTEAM with C.J.Griffin who had 3RR, but zozs does not report C.J.Griffin's edit war.
Zozs also edits [3] [4] with IPs to revert me, it is not the first, last year zozs had an edit war on Hugo Chavez and used this IP to fake a quotation [5], and also in zozs edit war with User:4Idaho on United Left [6]. Zozs had an argument with Zfigueroa on Talk:2014–15_Venezuelan_protests so zozs used IP 37.15.231.233 to vote, same on Talk:Marxism-Leninism using 37.15.206.156, and IP 37.15.182.40 on Talk:Communism, and IP 37.15.194.141 to revert on Media of Venezuela, and IP 37.15.179.133 to add a false graph that zozs made on wikicommons, and 37.15.179.133 on Venezuelan_recall_referendum,_2004, and IP 37.15.172.81 to stalk 4idaho, there are so many more I cannot find them all.
A lot of other editors think zoz's edits are bad, many people revert zozs, it is not just me [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] for example, does zozs think many editors are in a conspiracy against him? For example, in the history of Dictatorship of the proletariat, zozs edit wars against Volunteer Marek, Kravietz, Bobrayner, Trust Is All You Need, and me, why call me the edit warrior but not zozs, where do I report this? Spumuq (talq) 08:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will reply to the last point only about the edit war on DOTP article because I cannot see the relevance of the rest of your accusations (most of which do not even make sense). One key characteristic of Volunteer Marek, Trust Is All You Need and Bobrayner: all three got to that article by edit stalking me (as they did to other articles where I was participating) and reverted without reason. They did not understand the argument taking place in the edits between me and Kravietz and they did not participate in the talk page at all. Their only mission was of destruction, of permanently reverting me accross several articles as they do. E.g. bobrayner has even reverted edits of me several times and consistently through time with the edit summary: "post-Zozs revert", thus directly stating that he is only reverting because it is me, as well as many other reverts without any summary and without talk page discussion. I was argumenting with Kravietz about how should the article be, with me referencing reliable sources which he was intent on deleting (this was on user talk page not talk page) and in the end he just gave up - yet kept reverting and securing his revert, albeit probably unintentionally, with a spontaneously formed tag team of people who edit stalk me. I hardly see how this behaviour should be tolerated. Zozs (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a conspiracy against me? Probably not. Is there undeniable evidence that my edits are stalked and reverted on sight without talk page discussion and sometimes by deleting reliable sources by the same 3-4 edit stalkers, some of which are sometimes busy stalking and sometimes taking a break, with the exception of you who are permanent and start again right after being blocked for half a month. Why they do this? I can guess why. I often edit political articles, and though I am calm when editing them, it seems any disagreement there angers people, who proceed to behave in irrational fashion. Zozs (talk) 11:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now there's an interesting point: Over the last year there have been many edits by IPs in the 37.15.0.1/16 range and a proportion (not all) of those are obviously Zozs logged out, most of which are either avoiding scrutiny, making extra reverts, or making it appear that more than one person supports Zozs' point. Digging a bit deeper, it's become obvious that the Zozs account is controlled by the same person as Communist-USSR, too. Do we need an SPI (which will probably attract extra drama), or is it sufficiently obvious without an SPI? (Sorry for this outbreak on your talkpage, Swarm).
Zozs' pov-pushing, editwarring, and misuse of sources has been a long-term problem. This is pretty damning but there are several other articles with similar histories. There are some articles that I've given up trying to improve because of Zozs' ownership. bobrayner (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good for the economy

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

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

Ping

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

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

Closure of ANI

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

Hey. I'm surprised to hear you say this. I read the discussion several times and the consensus was pretty straightforward. You made your case very well, and pretty much everyone in the discussion agreed with you. Jytdog, while attributing his behavior to frustration and a loss of self-control, acknowledged that he was behaving badly, and apologized. He promised to cut out the behavior in question and accepted a warning. This is pretty much everything you could've wanted from the discussion. A clear consensus, an acknowledgment, and a warning. I guess you may have been hoping for this to result in a block, but given his response and the lack of consensus for it it simply wasn't going to happen. Rest assured that if he goes against his word in the future, it will be a different story, but until then, we should AGF and I would advise you to drop it and move on. That being said, you can see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE for the relevant information page on this. Swarm X 16:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Swarm. Thanks for your advice. I have requested a review of the closure. I felt it only respectful to inform you of this.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent request

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

Edit warning ruling

Swarm, I trust you are the person whom I need to ask. I was accused of a 3RR violation by another member. I'm guessing that I've made my case as there has been no ruling at the case is about to fall to the archive page. That said, I wanted to know if there was a way to have the case closed. I would hope to have this closed up so I don't have to worry about it. Here is the link [[17]] - Thanks--Getoverpops (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Biography Page

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

Hm. As this is a sensitive BLP it's very important that references are provided; if not, contentious content can be removed. So I don't really see anything too disruptive with Alakzi's removal of that content (a lot of it was unsourced). The appropriate response if you don't think the content should be removed would be to re-add it with reliable sources, or to discuss it with the user and explain the reasons why it shouldn't be removed. Let me know if you reach an impasse with them and I can help direct you to dispute resolution. Swarm we ♥ our hive 18:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Too" disruptive? Both sections I've removed contained material that was either unsourced or plain uncyclopaedic ("To save face, the prosecution states ... ", etc.) and clearly slanted in favour of Benev. Alakzi (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I'm agreeing with you, calm down dude. Just trying to explain it gently to a new user, no need to get pedantic. Swarm we ♥ our hive 19:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise. Alakzi (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, and I apologize too for the tone of my last reply. It came off as a bit condescending. I'd be seriously annoyed if someone told me to "calm down dude". :P Swarm we ♥ our hive 19:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
;-) Alakzi (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the both of you for the constructive comments - I did add some citations, while there are a few others still needed. I softened some of the verbiage to be more neutral, as well. Cheers! DiscSquare (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for input

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

Emails

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

Hey Worm. Unfortunately it went to my spam folder which appears to have emptied itself since then. OZ may be willing to share it if he has a copy, as it's not exactly incriminating. He emailed me once asking me to revdelete his block log. I didn't respond and he didn't send me any more emails. It was inappropriate as he had been told in no unclear terms by Bgwhite to drop the accusations of misconduct and move on, but that being said, it wasn't uncivil and he didn't harass me over it. Individually it was no cause for alarm. More concerning though is that according to Bgwhite, he was privately talking about "making me pay" for the block, and now this is something he continues to do with Bg. If true, that's nothing short of disturbing. As you can see, while I defended the block, I wasn't too upset that it was overturned as I hoped the point may have been made regardless. However OZ's vitriolic and IDHT response to his last two blocks are more concerning than the edit warring issues, all of which I've very strongly warned him about. If he's really continuing to go about off wiki and directly or indirectly personally attack an administrator, that's nothing short of unacceptable. Swarm we ♥ our hive 17:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Swarm&oldid=654518887"