User talk:Swarm

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

This user replies where s/he likes, and is inconsistent in that respect.

@This user can be reached by Wikipedia email.

~~~~Swarm signs their posts and thinks you should too!

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

TalkThis user used to think having too many talk page messages was a bad thing and now doesn't mind them.

This user does not understand mean people. Please be nice.

FYI about Aroniel2

Hey! You dealt with Aroniel2 a little while ago back in 2018. They were unblocked, but seem to be off at it all again. Just wanted to give you a heads up that I've just brought it back up on the ANI after they're back here POV pushing. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 04:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

REQUEST FOR ADOPTION

Hi Swam,

I bumped into your profile at the adopt-user page, I sure like the good works you've been doing hence my choice of making myself your adoptee...

I actively became a user about last week ago, It dawned on me that choosing to be self-taught in this space will be a nightmare, hence my request to have you adopt me as your adoptee...

I intend to learn how to create notable and publication- worthy articles through your tutelage. I'm open to learn whatever pleases you to teach .

I hope and will be glad if my request is considered...

Thank you...

• Felixeshiet (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Administrator changes

John M Wolfson

Bduke • Nilfanion • Philosopher • Rspeer • Yunshui

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

TonyBallioni

CheckUser changes

EdJohnston • Oshwah • Yamla

Yunshui

Oversight changes

Anarchyte

Yunshui

Guideline and policy news

• Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.

Technical news

• Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
• Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
• Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.

Arbitration

• The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
• The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.

Miscellaneous

• A reminder that standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. (American Politics 2 Arbitration case).

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Swarm for your honest comment. -Darouet (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Guidance for improving chances as to being granted template editor rights

Hello Swarm (talk), I just thought I would take you up on your offer to ask questions on your talk page about my recent application to be granted template editor rights. I read through what you had posted in denying my request. You make a lot of salient points. I get it now. Specifically, my right to WP:TPE was revoked because what I did wrong was that I failed to engage other editors in a discussion about the Denver Broncos color scheme over at WT:NFL (that discussion is here). I get it. I know now that what I should have done differently is that I should have engaged other editors in that discussion and should not have unilaterally made changes at Module:Gridiron color/data without first engaging in a discussion that should have resulted in a WP:CONSENSUS all interested editors could live with. If I were to submit another request to be granted WP:TPE rights, what I would & should do differently is to not unilaterally edit protected templates that go against the WP:CONSENSUS. I also know better that I definitely should not constantly revert myself repeatedly over protected templates. OK, on to your next point. Let me specifically explain my current understanding of the rules. I understand that the template editor right is a right reserved for highly technically competent editors. It's reserved for editors who are experienced in dispute resolution and for editors who are highly competent with coding. As you said, it is a high stakes user right. I understand that changes to protected modules (unless they are fixes of obvious markup errors, for example) should only be made after substantial discussion, and should conform to the agreed upon WP:CONSENSUS, per WP:TPECON. I also understand that I need to know WP:TPECON front and back. That part I get. The last thing I want to say is this: I need guidance as to how to improve and become more competent in the Template space, and to understand the rules and conditions of the Template editor user right. Could you please help? Also, have I addressed some of your concerns? If not, how can I address them better? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Another twist

Following up from AE, it looks like nobody has objected to the topic ban, but I noticed something else when I went to log my removal of the Consensus Required sanction: the Consensus Required sanction had never been logged in the first place. JzG only logged a 1RR restriction. (Not sure if it was a one-off mistake or their real intent, but the next month they correctly logged this one as Consensus Required.) In any case I'm not sure what to do with this now. I'd feel weird enforcing the sanction down to the "letter of the law" while ignoring the other "letter of the law" stating that for a sanction to be valid it must be properly logged. ~Awilley (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind. After closely reading the page at AC/CS I didn't find anything that explicitly says that the mis-logging makes the sanction invalid. And Thucydides411's latest comment (showing SPECIFICO correctly explaining the sanction to other users when it was to their advantage) convinced me that this is a clear case of gaming. ~Awilley (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Is there some reason why you would not have this discussion in view of the participants at AE? If you'll take a close look at the AE and my many other comments on the subject of "longstanding" and "consensus" on talk pages and Admin talk page threads, you'll note I said "longstanding consensus", not "longstanding text." I have emphasized that in my view, age alone is not implicit consensus and that any text that actually has consensus will have been discussed on talk or can easily be confirmed to have current consensus. That is not the case here, as shown in the talk page thread. Anyway, I think it's clear from the AE thread that at least @JzG: does not appear to think a sanction is in order and that others, who enabled Awilley to deprecate the Consenus Required sanction, cannot implicitly be taken to favor a restriction that was removed for cause. Main point is just that I don't think side discussions on an open matter are the best approach. I just happened to see this by chance, and others may not have. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy adminship day!

Wishing Swarm a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! History DMZ (talk)+(ping) 01:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Happy adminship anniversary!!!! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Adoption

Kia ora I'm hoping you will adopt me to get my page up and running. I'm a complete novice who has been given the job of creating a page for The PumpHouse Theatre Takapuna in NZ. I will possibly need a lot of hand holding :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by PumpHouse1 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I really appreciate your hard works and efforts! Keep it up! ArriehM (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• @ArriehM: Not sure what I did, but thanks! ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Autopatroll for Thepharoah17

I have seen that you gave User:Thepharoah17 an autopatrolled tag. I would like to question this decision, as I sometimes actually copy edit his pages like the Amanda Figueraswhich he created on the 7 October, just 10 days before you granted him autopatrolled rights. This article was mainly a copy paste of a biography of hers which I also wrote in the edit summary of the edit. I guess ThePharoah17 could wait a bit for being granted this rights.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

FYI, this is coming from somebody who accused me here of being an "ISIS sympathizer" just because I said there is no difference between them and the PKK here. And by the way America does not even support the YPG. They just used them to defeat ISIS and once ISIS was defeated, America abandoned them as it did last year when Turkey invaded northeastern Syria since they are in fact no different from the PKK. Thepharoah17 (talk) 13:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Swarm, I am here again because I have found other articles of Thepharoah17 where they just copy pasted. Mohamed Anwar Esmat Sadat,Amal Kassir also had issues. It is not really helpful for Wikipedia to grant them autopatrolled rights if they just copy paste whole phrases and sections from articles into Wikipedia articles. Their articles are noteworthy, but they might better read WP:CV before they are given autopatrolled rights.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: I've run these articles through the duplication detector and this is a bit borderline.[1][2][3] While there are some matches, it seems obvious that Thepharoah is attempting to paraphrase sources and is not straight copy-pasting them. Most of the matches are brief phrases in sentences that have been paraphrased. I see only one significant match in 2/3 articles, and while Thepharoah17 needs to be more careful about paraphrasing, it doesn't corroborate the allegation that their articles are "mostly copied and pasted". Also I'm concerned about this complaint coming from someone who is not a neutral New Page Patroller, but someone who's accused the user of being an ISIS sympathizer. It just doesn't strike me as a good faith complaint, more along the lines of WP:HOUNDING. Still, Pharoah, we take copyright violations so seriously, that all that might not matter. I see that you are trying to paraphrase sources, but you cannot be lazy and let even single copied sentences slip through the cracks. I will have no choice but to revoke your Autopatrolled if violations continue, even if they are minor and isolated. Please be more careful. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. And we are hounding each other all the time, if it is called this way. We do mostly constructive edits in each others pages. And the first page was mostly copy pasted, the other ones were a bit better, but still included copy pasted and very closely paraphrased phrases. Thepharoah17 could have addressed the issue, but they didn't, so I insisted. The ISIS part is that he compared the Kurds who are defending Kobane from ISIS, are similarly as terrorist as ISIS. The Kurds were are not! from the PKK and adhere to gender equality, women's rights and direct democracy while ISIS fought for the opposite of this. If I was wrong to point this out, I apologize.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: Understood. Well, let's just keep the status quo for now and if you catch any more copy/pasting issues (or other major issues) feel free to drop by again and I'll re-consider revoking Autopatrolled if necessary. Hopefully the warning will get through and we won't be seeing those issues anymore. I reviewed their articles prior to granting and they do generally seem decent enough for Autopatrolled, but it seems like you're keeping an eye on them enough to where we don't have to be worried about anything flying under the radar for now. As for the ISIS/PKK issue, I didn't understand the context and I can see it's not black and white. You should obviously not be calling anyone a terrorist sympathizer, that's a personal attack. However I do acknowledge that the issue is complex; the PKK is considered to be a terrorist organization by some and heroes by others. I see how emotions can get heated to have someone equate them to ISIS, which is inappropriate on its own, per WP:SOAPBOX. Wikipedia is not the place to preach controversial opinions and it is a serious concern. So, don't say things like that in the future, but I understand where you're coming from. Let me know if you need anything else. Best, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

Administrator changes

Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

Izno

Guideline and policy news

• There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.

Technical news

• Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Hulk has pretty weird humour. In my view, that was a bad joke of his, not meant to insult. He has said he isn't mad at you. I hope that you will be able to let this go, Swarm. starship.paint (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Starship.paint: Fair enough, like I have said repeatedly, I literally have no problem with InedibleHulk, in fact I had to go back and look up our interaction because I didn't even remember him. Whether he was trolling me or simply making a joke that he didn't want to make behind my back, I'm not concerned with what he said as much as I am with the perception that he has some sort of grudge against me for a legitimate block I issued a year ago. It was not my intention to escalate things beyond simply noting that sentiment. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you for the response, Swarm. Indeed, you didn't escalate things. Shit happened, but no fault of yours. I suppose that's life, we just have to keep swimming on. starship.paint (talk) 08:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Palmer Report protection and the use of rollback

Palmer Report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi,

In April, you extended-protected Palmer Report for six months, using discretionary sanctions. The protection expired in October, but the talk page header (which you added[4]) still says that one "must be extended-confirmed to edit this article". I think per DS you are technically the only one who is allowed to edit the header. Recently there have been some problems in the article, but they are not exclusively a result of edits by unregistered or autoconfirmed users.

Short description of recent problems

On November 28, Airplaneman fully protected Palmer Report. After the protection expired, Eraserhead1 made an edit, similar to their November 28 edit that, in part, led to full protection. Few days later, they made a series of controversial edits, introducing more improper synthesis and using palmerreport.com to make controversial claims about third parties. I partly undid those edits and Eraserhead1 almost immediately restored their version, apparently using rollback. I have started a discussion at Biographies of living persons noticeboard – my focus there is on this edit and the rest of discussion should probably be kept on the article talk page or moved to other fora.

Right now I have a question about the use of rollback by Eraserhead1. They seem to have used rollback in a content dispute and the rollback also involved undoing my copy edits, which were uncontroversial, I think. I would argue that they were restoring BLP violations. Is this a proper use of rollback privilege? Politrukki (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Politrukki why don’t we have a sensible conversation? I won’t use rollback like that again. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Politrukki: For future reference, no, that's incorrect. Removing a notice of an expired restriction is not prohibited, it's an uncontentious technical edit. We're not a bureaucracy, you're free to use common sense in situations like this. As for the rollback, it's improper, but as long as the user's admitting it was a mistake which they will not be repeating, I don't see it as a big deal. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

While I think Wikipedia should not be a bureaucracy, AC/DS proves that some areas are treated as one. By "technically" I was referring to discretionary sanctions appeal instructions criterion 4, and implied that I was being hypersensitive.

I didn't think you would oppose removing the header unless you wanted to re-evaluate the situation and extend the extended-protection. To be clear, I didn't ask you to re-evaluate nor am I asking it now. I actually didn't notice the talk page header until yesterday, but in a different situation – for example if there were no edits since the expiration date – I would have removed the talk page header myself with a mention in the edit summary.

With regards to the use of rollback, I concur and add that Eraserhead1 has, at least partly, self-reverted.

Thank you for removing the header and thank you for your opinions. Politrukki (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020 Guild of Copy Editors Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors December 2020 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the December GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since September 2020.                  Current and upcoming events Election time: our end-of-year Election of Coordinators opened for nominations on 1 December and will close on 15 December at 23:59 (UTC). Voting opens at 00:01 the following day and will continue until 31 December at 23:59, just before Auld Lang Syne. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. December Blitz: This will run from 13 to 19 December, and will target all Requests. Sign up now. Drive and Blitz reports September Drive: 67 fewer articles had copy-edit templates by this month's close. Of the 27 editors who signed up, 15 copy-edited at least one article, and 124 articles were claimed for the drive. October Blitz: this ran from 18 to 24 October, and focused on articles tagged for copy-edit in July and August 2020, and all Requests. Of the 13 who signed up, 11 editors copy-edited at least one article. 21 articles were claimed for the blitz. November Drive: Of the 18 editors who signed up, 15 copy-edited at least one article, and together claimed 134 articles. At the close of the drive, 67 fewer articles were in the backlog and we had dealt with 39 requests. Other news Progress report: As of 09:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors had processed 663 requests (18 from 2019) since 1 January and there were 52 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 494 (see monthly progress graph above). Annual Report for 2020: this roundup of the year's activity at the Guild is planned for publication in late January or early February. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Seasonal tidings and cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Puddleglum2.0, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Potential adoption!

Hello! I have been advised to be adopted and mentored to improve my editing here on Wikipedia and I feel like you are the best fit for me! Let me know if you are willing to do this and we can start on the first of January! Regards, Heart ^(talk) 17:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC).