User talk:Swarm

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!

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

Thanks, and a request

Hello, Swarm. Thank you for deleting several articles that I tagged with G7. I've been looking for an administrator to help me clean up my copyright violations, but so far I haven't found anyone who is both willing to help and on speaking terms with me. Can you help, or suggest another administrator I might contact about this? It would require selective purging of the revision histories of articles, for example Religion and Nothingness, where I removed a couple of paragraphs of copyvio here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• @FreeKnowledgeCreator: hey, no problem. I’d be more than happy to help you! Anything you need, just let me know.  Swarm  talk  04:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Handled requests

Thank you, Swarm, that's much appreciated. In the case of the Religion and Nothingness article, it would help if you could remove the visibility of all revisions except the current one. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC) @FreeKnowledgeCreator:  Done  Swarm  talk  18:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC) Thank you, Swarm. There are other cases where I might make similar requests. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC) Specifically: it would be helpful if you could remove the visibility of all revisions of The Foundations of Psychoanalysis prior to the edit I made here and all revisions of The Memory Wars prior to the edit I made here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)  Done.  Swarm  talk  02:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC) Thank you very much, Swarm. The next request: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of An Inquiry into the Good prior to the edit I made here? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)  Done as well!  Swarm  talk  04:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC) Thank you again, Swarm. The next request: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of The Structure of Science prior to the edit I made here? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)  Done  Swarm  talk  03:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC) Thank you, Swarm. The next request: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of Homosexuality: A Philosophical Inquiry made between the automated edit here and the edit I made here? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC) @FreeKnowledgeCreator: Sorry for the delay,  Done.  Swarm  talk  21:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC) Thank you, Swarm. The next request: could you please remove the visibility all revisions of Knowledge and Human Interests made between the edit I made here and the most recent edit, which I made here? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)  Done  Swarm  talk  23:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC) Thank you, Swarm. The next request: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of Homosexual Behaviour: Therapy and Assessment prior to this one? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)  Done.  Swarm  talk  19:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC) Thank you, Swarm. The next request: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of Philosophical Problems of Space and Time prior to the edit I made here? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC) @FreeKnowledgeCreator:  Done  Swarm  talk  09:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Thank you, Swarm. The next request: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of A Critique of Pure Tolerance made between this edit I made as an IP and the edit I made as FreeKnowledgeCreator here? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)  Done  Swarm  talk  09:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Thank you very much, Swarm. Looking again, I'm going to have to refine that last request. I think the revision made here also needs to be hidden. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Good catch,  Done.  Swarm  talk  10:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Thank you again, Swarm. The next request: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of The Theory of Good and Evil prior to the edit I made here? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC) @FreeKnowledgeCreator: Sorry for the delay,  Done  Swarm  talk  21:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC) Thank you again, Swarm. I'm happy to be patient. The next requests: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of Freud, Biologist of the Mind prior to this edit and all revisions of Ethics (Watsuji) prior to this edit? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)  Done  Swarm  talk  08:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Thank you very much, Swarm. I appreciate your help. In the case of Freud, Biologist of the Mind, however, you have hidden only some of the relevant revisions. Those that need hiding currently extend from this revision of 28 September 2013 to this revision of 15 March 2018. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC) @FreeKnowledgeCreator: Oops,  Done  Swarm  talk  21:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC) Thank you again, Swarm. In the case of The Structure of Science, there is still a need to hide all revisions beginning with this one of 24 October 2012 and up to and including this one of 25 January 2018. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)  Done  Swarm  talk  21:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC) Thank you, Swarm. In the case of The Theory of Good and Evil, there is still a need to hide some early revisions. They begin when the article was started here on 5 November 2012‎, and they include all revisions up to and including this one. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC) Jeez, I don't know what's going on with these incomplete deletions. Sorry about that.  Done  Swarm  talk  21:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC) Thank you, Swarm. In the case of The Memory Wars, there is a need to hide all revisions beginning with this one of 22 December 2012 and up to and including this one of 5 September 2017. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)  Done  Swarm  talk  22:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Swarm. The next request: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of Freud and Philosophy beginning with the edit I made here as Polisher of Cobwebs on 17 June 2012 and up to and including the edit I made here as FreeKnowledgeCreator on 29 November 2018? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator:  Done  Swarm  talk  07:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Swarm. The next request: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of Freud: The Mind of the Moralist beginning with the edit I made here as Polisher of Cobwebs on 11 July 2012 and up to and including the edit I made as FreeKnowledgeCreator here on 1 December 2018? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done  Swarm  talk  08:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Swarm. The next request: could you please remove the visibility of all revisions of A Separate Creation beginning with the edit I made here as an IP on 6 August 2013 and up to and including the edit I made here as FreeKnowledgeCreator on 20 October 2018? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Pldx1

Pldx1 (talk · contribs)

Huh. After saving this edit I saw this, remembered you were involved in the incident last week that also involved Pldx1, and figured you were referring to his showing up the Tornheim canvassing discussion just to hound me. Then I saw the date and it turns out you issued that warning for something completely unrelated. Weird coincidence. Anyway, could you take a look at this and this, especially in light of the fact that I'm the one who opened a string of ANI threads about this editor back in 2016 (the last of which linked to the others in the lead), which was the last time he was this active? He seems to be hounding me as revenge -- for something that happened more than two years ago!

He doesn't appear to have ever actually contributed anything to the encyclopedia, and seems to be here only to harass and troll. I don't think anyone would fault you for just indeffing, but if you wanna run it by someone else that'd be cool too. I was gonna just wait to see if it continued after my IRL troubles cooled down, at which point I'd report him on ANI, but I didn't realize he'd been in trouble recently for something that didn't even have anything to do with me.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Note also that the wording of his recent comment clearly indicates he was following me, not happening across a discussion on ANI. He specifically mentioned the water roux article (something I mentioned twice but was rather pointedly ignored by everyone else but Pldx1) and was talking about "atrocious" articles, a word only I had used up to that point. This is a really blatant case of hounding. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I'll look into it.  Swarm  talk  10:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I've left them a message reinforcing the request that they steer clear of you. Let's see what happens from here.  Swarm  talk  20:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

More nonsense RFAR comments not dissimilar to the one you cautioned them for last month?

[1]

"transformation of a Wonderland's conflict"? "The Wikipedia Company"? "Being at risk when you are rich is not what you want to live with"?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For the excellent closing summary at AN/I regarding Fred Bauder and the 2018 Arbcom elections kerfuffle. The detailed, sober and comprehensive summary combined with sensible recommendations for all concerned is a model for others to follow. Thryduulf (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Wow, thanks Thryduulf. It's been added to treasury with great pride. I'm humbled by the high praise coming from you. Best regards!  Swarm  talk  06:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I was gonna post this on MPants' page, but ... now I'm just depressed. He was a great editor.

Rather than let this rot in my sandbox page history like other such comments (which I decided not to post because I figured their contents might be detrimental to the project, unlike this which I decided against posting in the original location for other reasons) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Tornheim still at it?

[2]

This is pretty hilarious. I'm not sure what to make of it beyond that, though: mentioning pejorative labels of other editors such as climate-change-denier, anti-vaxxer, flat-earther, etc. is not a TBAN-violation in itself, but looks damn close especially given the "etc." If the RFC was still open I'd ask User:Swarm to block him for canvassing again, but now that it's closed I ... guess it's okay?

Anyway, I was also wondering if you knew of an easy way to verify/falsify the claim that it had "hundreds" of respondents. It was quite a lot and I'd rather not count them up manually, but I don't think it reached 100...

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: He was likely referring to EEng's comments reporting, specifically, that there were hundreds of "posts" in the thread. How he counted that, I don't even want to know. But, by my count, the number of individual !voters was in the lower 100's, so, it's likely he's exaggerating, but, no, I have no idea how to actually come up with a number, short of counting individual usernames.  Swarm  talk  07:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I counted edits in the page history. EEng 07:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Edits, not editors? The former is easy enough, but I have to imagine that if we have tools to tell us who has edited a page how many times in the page's history, and to tell us how many page watchers have visited recent edits (or something...?), then it must be possible to figure out how many unique editors have edited a specific page in a specific time period, no? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure there are tools for that, but I was interested in highlighting how much editor time had been spent on the discussion. # of distinct edits is a good quick measure of that. EEng 07:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Autopatrolled Permission Discussion - Spinster300

Hello dear Swarm, I hope you're keeping well. I'm sorry it has taken me this long to get back to you, I was on holiday. I am back to my routine now, so please allow me to get back straight to the point: you'd asked me to specify those articles that I have created that had no issues flagged by other editors.

Usually, when I create new articles (translations on biographies of people are my favorite project to do), I add a generic stub tag and the immediate categories that occur to me when I write those articles. As Wikipedia is a volunteer project, I contribute in my spare time, and thus prefer to keep new articles I create as stubs so that experienced editors within the subjects' careers/places of origin/time periods in history, can expand those articles more thoroughly and with better authority.

Earlier, my edits were usually improved in aspects of style, suggested improved references and circumstances of questionable notability (most usually when I made articles from the Requested Articles project). But for a while now, most of my articles are reviewed without many issues; most of those I've identified, are betterment of categories, a more specific stub tag, and notices to expand from the subjects' corresponding articles in foreign languages (Eg. Vicki Berlin and Boson II of Arles).

To provide you better clarity, from my 70+ article creations, here are few that I believe did well through the review process (please note that most all of them have been expanded on since my original creation, as is expected):

1. Paloma Duarte
2. Siddharth Menon (actor)
3. Zita Pataki
4. Marie-Claire Zimmermann
5. Kiante Anderson
6. Roger Fauroux
7. Ludwig Haberkorn
8. Lu Grimaldi
9. Loïg Chesnais-Girard
10. Dora Beets
11. Angelo Viva
12. François Louis Auguste Goiran
13. Isabella Krassnitzer
14. Helmut Zborowski
15. Nick Drnaso

If you require, I can mention more articles that I have created, and I apologize if my response is not thorough enough. I sincerely hope this brief explanation makes me eligible to join the Auto-patrolled list. Do let me know if you require any further clarification or have any other questions to help me improve my case.

Sincerely yours, Spinster300 (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC).

• Hi Spinster, hope you had a good holiday. Not trying to give you a hard time, but it looks like you may have forgotten what you were supposed to do. In your request, we went over the little things that the reviewers were doing, and I made it pretty clear that you would need to go back and look at your articles, learn what tasks were being improved by reviewers, and take over these improvements yourself. It seems like you have a good understanding of what the reviewers are doing, so you just need to show that you have taken over all possible reviewer improvements in your own creations. Your articles are good, and there's nothing wrong with your articles being stubs, this is just a matter of pre-emptively doing any basic, routine tasks that we see the reviewers doing, so that they do not see any minor adjustments that need to be made. That is the point at which you will be exempted from the review process.  Swarm  talk  21:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see! My apologies, I was a bit confused. I’ll go do that right away and report those pages back on this discussion for you to go through. Thank you for bearing with me! Kindest regards, Spinster300 (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC).

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Swarm. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

User:The Dweeb.30

Hi Swarm, Can you have a look at this users 'tribs, Many unsourced additions, gene warring and it's not because of the lack of warnings. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 21:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indef.  Swarm  talk  21:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for this edit. You might be the only admin editing in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:CA00:159:2BB9:62C4:274A:9A8B:CCFC (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Request

Hello Swarm, I hope all is and has been well for you, and that wellness remains. I enjoy seeing you around and today, have a request worthy of my esteem for you. I recently effected a {{nac}} of a discussion[3] which is not my norm and on many levels, a first. Because I can hardly think of another more qualified, and because I've been blessed to know this first hand, I would really appreciate your candid insight and thoughtful critique so that I may reap of your wisdom in this regard. I keenly await your reply.--John Cline (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• @John Cline: Hey John, good to see you! I'm humbled by your high praise. Always enjoy seeing you around as well. I think the close you performed was excellent. You clearly carefully analyzed the main themes in the discussion and thoroughly explained why you saw the consensus you did. If this is something you actually like doing, you would be a very welcome addition at WP:AN/C! Thoughtful closers are in short supply!  Swarm  talk  02:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you Swarm, I appreciate your feedback and will benefit by it each and every time I may ever again close a discussion by its merits and the consensus sought. The main litmus for my participation in an area of focus like NACs is whether my involvement serves the goals favorably or not. Your encouragement has alleviated that concern and likely ensured that I will be seen reprising the role. Wishing you well, until far beyond, I remain.--John Cline (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson 1RR Sanctions

Please note the following report, thanks. 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:E58D:ADD5:309A:7E24 (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Has been handled.  Swarm  talk  07:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Mexico

Howdy, Mexico has a new president. Would you update the article's infobox, seeing as it's protected? GoodDay (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For all the time and effort you put in editing Wikipedia. Thank you @Boothsift 00:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Adamstom.97

I honestly don't know whether this is more WP:OWN behaviour (which you placed him on notice about ... the last time I interacted with him, if I recall) or a complete inability to read sources and summarize what they actually say, but either way I think it might require your attention. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Also (and I hate having to state this), I should note that I was on an "avoid conflict, only editing articles to which I am essentially the sole contributor, and especially avoid hot-button topic areas like Israel/Palestine and superhero movies (!?)" kick and only stopped by the article because a video-essayist I follow made a joke about the show being cancelled (relevant clip from 1:07 to 1:17) today. I've been avoiding Marvel/Netflix stuff for the last few months, since I got too busy half-way through season 2 of Luke Cage, forgot what happened in the first half, and haven't got the nerve to restart it. Just saying this because my showing up to the article at such a seemingly random timing might seem like I'm "looking for a fight", but honestly if it wasn't for real life keeping me away from the show itself this probably would have happened back in September. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

This whole thing is just absurd, and I'm sorry that it has been made your problem again Swarm. If you look at the page histories, you will see that Hijiri made two bold edits that multiple editors have objected to, but instead of discussing them at the talk page they have gone around accusing myself, Favre1fan93, and AlexTheWhovian of everything from simple edit-warring to WP:TAGTEAMING and harassment. I do believe that Hijiri has the best interest of the article at heart, so if they are willing to drop the nonsense and have a simple, civil discussion over at Talk:Iron Fist (season 2) while leaving all the other silly discussions behind us then I think that would be best. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

If I make a "bold edit" (tagging one sentence that misrepesented its source and removing one other that was out of place) and two other users revert me with "just 'cause" rationales, I open a talk page discussion and am subsequently ignored on said talk page... ugh, there's so much misrepresentation in the above post. As for "harassment": Alex didn't revert or otherwise indicate that he opposed it on its "content"; he made the same harassing "You called me and my friends a cabal!" comment he's made every other time he and I have interacted -- including the first time he and I interacted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Dismissing our arguments is not going to get you anywhere, and I was going to respond to your talk page discussion (and tell you that I did not appreciate your tone and that I would wait for you to actually raise your concerns, which you still have not done on any talk page) but then you went ahead and started all of this personal mess so I thought I'd better deal to this first, and ended up saying what I was going to say anyway. As for your concerns with Alex, I'm not going to fight that battle for you two but there is a reason why he keeps bringing that quote up and I can't say I blame him for it. Now, if you are done with this "woe be me!" show here and are ready to discuss the issue that you apparently cared so much about that you started all of this mess over, then why don't you go back to the appropriate talk page and tell us what the problem is (hint: telling us that information is not in the cited source is not going to work, because we can see that it is). - adamstom97 (talk) 08:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

why don't you go back to the appropriate talk page and tell us what the problem is I'm still waiting...

(hint: telling us that information is not in the cited source is not going to work, because we can see that it is) See, Swarm, this is why dealing with this editor is so difficult: a source can say, essentially, "Yeah, it's a cute name-drop, but it's probably not a serious tie-in", and he will summarize its contents as ===Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-ins=== The fictional country of Sokovia that was introduced in the MCU film Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) is referenced in the season as part of Walker's past as an operative in the country., then argue endlessly that "That's not what the source says" is not a valid reason for tagging (let alone removing) the content. The same thing happened at Agent Carter (season 2) in March 2016, the questionable content is still in that article today, and an attempt to address it about a year ago was met with this. Such personalizing of content disputes would be disruptive enough if the interpretation of content policy and reading of sources wasn't so poor to begin with.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

As I have already said several times, I am waiting for you to present your argument. It is not up to me to defend my actions when I have already provided justification with my revert while you are the one insisting that this bold change should be made. Also, this is just silly and immature. If you were really concerned with having a civil, productive conversation about an issue then you would not have wasted all this time trying to come up with the perfect passive-aggressive section heading while accusing others of treating you poorly at their talk pages. And the fact that you keep saying things like "this article's owners are blankly reverting anything they don't like" is not helping either. We don't own anything, and we have not blankly reverted anything. If you cannot accept that your work will be reverted when others disagree with it, and that you might actually have to discuss such an issue in a civil manner, then I don't think Wikipedia is the place for you. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, I haven't really had a lot of time to devote here lately and I don't think I'm going to be able to investigate the merits of this content dispute the way I've investigated previous ones. Honestly though, both of your comments suggest to me that there is too much bad blood for bilateral discussion to be constructive. I suggest you focus on simplifying specific points of contention and then appealing them to uninvolved editors, via noticeboard, or RfC if necessary.  Swarm  talk  07:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Concern

Hi,

I would draw your attention to this "Talk:Origin_of_the_Romanians#Bludgeoning",read it please. As I see on and on new sections and bludgeonings are going on the talk pages rendered by the two newbie user (Cealicuca, Iovaniorgovan). An exprerienced user as well pinpointed how useless is to cirlce around something they did not understand a few months ago, as well now [4], [5]. Things are complicated, already there are special editing rules & DS sanctions imposed by admins, things in the main page seems under control (after few blocks it had effect). But everyday I enter WP I see tons of "new" (but boring and already discussed) material with a huge amount in the talk pages, with the lack of/unwilling understanding how WP is working, and how not...(KIENGIR (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC))

Hi

I see someone is trying to use some posts in a totally different section to justify another debate on the Talk page. The links that KIENGIR provided are from this debate and have nothing whatsoever with the section he is talking about. I would not insist on you wasting time to read through that, but if you were to go through it (not so exciting read, unfortunately) you'd see how there's reasons for that "bludgeoning". Just as relevant as the comments the same editor has, based on what he added. Now KIENGIR calls it bludgeoning, but those newbies have so far noticed the same things that other editors have mentioned too. And they are summarized here. Should that be relevant to you or not, I don't know. But reading some of the "argumentation" on the talk pages one could get a good idea about who's getting the end of the "bludgeoning" bat. Oh, and just for the sake of it, I can't say I admire any admin, really. But others do (I would be a shame it wouldn't go unnoticed...). Especially after me linking that on Delta's page.

Thank you.Cealicuca (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Cealicuca, you should not distract from the subject. In the article's talk page, there is a section about bludgeoning, not I was the one who opened it a referred the same thing Swarm already noticed and cared once. Your last sentence is again a distraction, there is not any problem if I notify other editors, especially if there are such a mess going on that it is hardly to see clear or interpret some things, etc. If you would know, WP is a transparent platform, so every edit should be done that it can be noticed by anyone any time, I have no problem with that and I have nothing to be ashamed of, on the contrary I am proudly take responsibility for every of my words (and yes, I reinforce, I admire every admin whom actions I've never noticed and error, and it will be like so in the future as well).

One more thing: "Especially after me linking that on Delta's page" -> Nope, I made my notification of the user page earlier you performed anything there (14:46).(KIENGIR (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC))

I'll see what I can do.  Swarm  talk  07:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).

Administrator changes

Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz

Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

Deryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
• A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
• A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

• Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
• To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
• Since deployment of Partial blocks on Test Wikipedia, several bugs were identified. Most of them are now fixed. Administrators are encouraged to test the new deployment and report new bugs on Phabricator or leave feedback on the Project's talk page. You can request administrator access on the Test Wiki here.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 3 December 2018. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
• Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

• Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors December 2018 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the December 2018 GOCE newsletter. Here is what's been happening since the August edition. Thanks to everyone who participated in the August blitz (results), which focused on Requests and the oldest backlog month. Of the twenty editors who signed up, eleven editors recorded 37 copy edits. For the September drive (results), of the twenty-three people who signed up, nineteen editors completed 294 copy edits. Our October blitz (results) focused on Requests, geography, and food and drink articles. Of the fourteen people who signed up, eleven recorded a total of 57 copy edits. For the November drive (results), twenty-two people signed up, and eighteen editors recorded 273 copy edits. This helped to bring the backlog to a six-month low of 825 articles. The December blitz will run for one week, from 16 to 22 December. Sign up now! Elections: Nominations for the Guild's coordinators for the first half of 2019 will be open from 1 to 15 December. Voting will then take place and the election will close on 31 December at 23:59 UTC. Positions for Guild coordinators, who perform the important behind-the-scenes tasks that keep our project running smoothly, are open to all Wikipedians in good standing. We welcome self-nominations, so please consider nominating yourself if you've ever thought about helping out; it's your Guild and it doesn't run itself! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators; Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Tdslk. >>> Sign up for the December blitz! <<< >>> Participate in the Coordinator elections! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of The Students' Union at UWE

Hi,

I would agree that the article as it stands does not meet wiki standards for balance etc, but it seems to me that there would be a lack of consistency to remove that article and keep https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Bristol_Students%27_Union which has less 3rd party sources. I propose the article is downgraded to start class and all non notable content, such as the list of minor offices which is not encyclopedia content be removed PompeyTheGreat (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Philippine National Police

Wot merited the 30/500 ? I mean, why not throw a semi? ∯WBG^converse 10:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• It was the target of an LTA socker, and I figured that it would be too easy for that type of user to get around a semi.  Swarm  {talk}  10:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  I don't agree with the notion that any article targeted by a LTA ought be ECP-ed and I see no immediate recent evidence of this LTA exploiting auto-confirmed-socks to target a particular article; he just moves on to a new target.

  At any case, not much bothered, as to the current protection:-) ∯WBG^converse 13:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Echojoe1944

Hi – you blocked the above editor for vandalism because they were altering articles on a WP:IKNOWIT basis. They are now appealing the block on their talk page – I don't know if you would be the admin reviewing the block, but I tried to leave a clear and polite explanation on their talk page as to why they were wrong, complete with links that proved they were wrong... they simply removed my comment (which they are quite entitled to do, of course) and keep insisting that they are right, overlooking the evidence against them. Whoever the block reviewing admin is, I'd ask them to take a look at my deleted explanation in their talk page history, which hopefully should explain the problem to those unfamiliar with the subject. Thank you. Richard3120 (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Help please

Hello. You recently approved Rollback permissions for me so I can use Huggle. (thank you!) I installed and logged in. The "queue" that I was getting was mostly filled with low-quality, but good faith edits. I was wondering if there was some configuration I am missing, to make it show more vandalism? The recent changes page does a better job at filtering out good faith edits. (although it does occasionally show good faith edits) I looked over the manual, and all I could find was that I can change my source, which I did, and unfortunately that didn't help very much. I would really appreciate it if you could help me out, or point me in the right direction to get help. Thanks. CarelessWombat^{Let's Talk!} 08:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but also I noticed Huggle has options to undo Good Faith edits in it as well. I was wondering if it treats those as vandalism, and uses the rollback function? Or does it simply "Undo"? Thank you. For now, I am going to be safe and open it in the web browser and click undo. CarelessWombat^{Let's Talk!} 08:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The level of vandalism varies. Sometimes you’ll patrol with Huggle and you won’t come across any. If there’s vandalism happening, you’ll see it. And, yes, you can do many things with Huggle besides Rollback vandalism. Huggle does not actually use Rollback, it just imitates it when you revert vandalism. You can revert good faith edits which will have a relevant edit summary, and you can revert with manual edit summaries as well.  Swarm  {talk}  15:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Your answer is correct, and I have had a lot more luck changing my words from XMLRCS to Wiki. Happy editing. CarelessWombat^{Let's Talk!} 08:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Sara Ali Khan

Hi Swarm, I saw you had semi protected the redirect today as repeatedly re-created. I have now started article with copy editing unnecessary content from article history, the last consensus was 2 weeks old, hence stale and a lot has happened in the past fortnight, her film has now been released and the subject passes GNG by a wide margin now. I am posting here for letting you know this and also to make sure that my revert of the redirect is not in conflict with any rules. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The previous consensus was that the subject was not yet notable, so if it’s significant coverage in sources has emerged within two weeks, you can recreate it. However, if it’s still arguably a TOOSOON situation, I would recommend you discuss it first, because it’s just going to continue the existing dispute.  Swarm  {talk}  14:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes looking at the page views and the recent coverage (independent of the film and her family) I believe the subject passes the GNG bar, apart from informing you here I also posted this thread on the article talk page, so far, the editors have mostly agreed with the new article, lets see how the discussion goes. Thanks a lot for the kind reply. regards --DBigXrayᗙ 15:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Tiepolo POTD

@Alanscottwalker: and @Swarm: Last night you two sarcastically urged on me the explanation that the mismatch between the title of this painting and its imagery is immaterial because it’s an allegory. That’s wrong.

Fundamental to allegory (and symbolism) is that it has to work within the relevant frame of reference. Simply designating something an allegory doesn’t mean that anything goes in terms of the imagery used, it still has to have the internal consistency required to convey the intended message.

If the Tiepolo painting in question is really intended as an allegory of the Immaculate Conception, it doesn’t work, given that the iconography is that of the Annunciation. However many sources say that there are Immaculate Conceptions that include the dove, the lily, the prayerful attitude, and so on, doesn’t alter the fact that two different things are being confused.

Whoever designated this painting an Immaculate Conception, whether that was Tiepolo, his school, or later critics, was confused. Calling the painting an allegory doesn’t alter that fact.

Don't bother telling me that the POTD isn't going anywhere because "sources say". I know. I'm merely enlightening you as to the real meaning of allegory and symbolism, as well as protesting the tone of the way you addressed me.

Awien (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• As was already explained to you, Mary crushing the serpent with an apple is an allegorical representation of the Immaculate Conception. The serpent with the apple quite straightforwardly represents original sin, and Mary is depicted crushing it, which quite straightforwardly represents the freedom from original sin which, specifically, is what made her conception "immaculate". This is fairly standard imagery for depicting the Immaculate Conception, and you can easily find a multitude of other examples in art: Here, here, here, here, here. This is not even particularly nuanced symbolism, it's all really basic, and it was reasonably explained to you multiple times, yet you're refusing to listen to anything other than your own incorrect interpretation. So, sorry if you felt like I was harsh, but if you did any due diligence whatsoever, you could have easily figured this out for yourself.  Swarm  {talk}  14:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

And as I already explained to you, the dove representing the Holy Ghost belongs to the iconography of the Annunciation not the Immaculate Conception, as you would have found out if you had done any due diligence whatsoever. So Tiepolo has actually blended two different stories into one, and the allegory is in fact mixed up. I also conceded right away that designating the picture an Immaculate Conception wasn't Wikipedia's mistake, that it's Catholics themselves who confuse the two stories, a fact covered in WP's own article on the Immaculate Conception which, it notes, "is commonly confused with the Virgin Birth of Jesus".

This is when you and Alanscottwalker butted in as if I didn't know what an allegory is, and (obtusely?) interpreted my comment on the different stories not being kept straight as meaning I wanted the representation to be literal, and sarcastically illustrated your point with an image of sperm and ovum meeting. As admins I imagine the pair of you were careful to refrain from overtly overstepping Wikipedia's bounds regarding civility, but you were definitely in breach of the spirit of civility we would like to prevail here.

That being said, I appreciate the fact that you at least responded to my post above. Awien (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Self-block

Can you please block my account for 6 months to 1 year? I already requested from Bishonen, but I am not sure when he will be on. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

One easily changed page move = PERM revoked. Multiple abuses of Rollback, nearly 1000 good faith edits reversed, misleading statements about it and obvious lack of a WP:CLUE = no worries. Why should anyone listen to the Admins who only protect their own? No disrespect to you as you have a clue, but your action here perfectly illustrates the double standard Swarm. Legacypac (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I really don't know the whole long story, but the Suleiman move and edit-war was particularly, unbelievably egregious, and any admin would have been within their rights to immediately withdraw the very exclusive page-mover right. And the fact that Seraphim System consequently CSDed all of their own articles out of sheer spite, not caring that they might be useful to readers, is further evidence that the user has a major attitude problem. I think Swarm did exactly the right thing. Softlavender (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Legacypac: I respect you and it brings me no joy to do something you disapprove of, nor did it bring me any joy whatsoever to do something that I knew would upset SS on a personal level. However, as far as I'm concerned, SS brought about the result herself by refusing to be accountable for a pretty significant "mistake". As I said, if she gave me any good reason to cut her some slack, I would have. Instead, she came across as being unwilling to be accountable, rather aggressively and unabashedly, I might add. Mistakes can be overlooked, absolutely, but this was a series of mistakes associated with the misuse of a higher-level permission. That sort of thing is serious, and while it's forgivable, it's not automatically forgivable. It can't be overlooked if the user won't take accountability and improvement seriously in this sort of situation. It's not about punishing a mistake, but her attitude towards what was a pretty serious mistake caused a loss of confidence in her trustworthiness. Regarding the double standard you point out, I agree, the degree of abuse and lack of accountability in that case is astounding, way worse in general, and because it's coming from a sysop, and I think that admin should be brought to Arbcom and desysopped, and I would recommend that if it goes there. It's insane that users are defending such brazen misconduct. In context, the SS situation makes the GS situation seem all the more unreasonable, but I don't think holding SS accountable in this way was in itself unreasonable.  Swarm  {talk}  02:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not terribly worried about the SS Perm, though I would not have removed it. The double standard is more stark. Legacypac (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Compared to Floquenbeam, I think you handled this very badly. He solved the problem, you just got a bunch of people to dump on someone who was already angry. Maybe think about solving problems instead of exacerbating them next time. 206.248.156.150 (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

What?  Swarm  {talk}  02:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

This is much better than this. The former wastes less of people's time and is, frankly, less dick-ish. Aren't admins supposed to try to resolve issues themselves before going to ANI and writing about an editor's "rage quit" and "lack of malice per se"? 206.248.156.150 (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Abusive accounts

While searching the page move logs at the time I filed the AN request, I found the following disgusting abusive accounts: (Redacted) Please block them...and hopefully someone will suppress this edit so there is no trace of this disgrace afterwards. RGloucester — ☎ 02:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) RGloucester, these accounts have all been blocked for over an year (I was confused why you reported them at first and then I realized that the block log is redacted); and you should use email in these cases so as to not spread these usernames. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Understood. It is very unsettling, however, that such names persist in the logs in the manner they do, with no indication of blocking... RGloucester — ☎ 08:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I've emailed oversight about it since I believe they can fix that issue about searching logs. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

RGloucester, the name is now suppressed and shouldn't show up when searching in logs. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of that...I tested it, and it has worked. RGloucester — ☎ 17:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)