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.

Evidence in arbitration case

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Enigmaman/Evidence#Inappropriate protection practices, did you mean to say something like "... where there was no disruption coming from non-extended confirmed users whatsoever"? isaacl (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Isaacl: Yeah, that's definitely a mistake on my part—I meant confirmed/autoconfirmed. Fixed. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Review Requested.

Hey Swarm,

As you probably noticed, I've come back from that month-long Wikibreak. I have since stayed away from (A) AN/I, (B) AN/RFC, and (C) clerking discussion threads. I have also not been involved with any advising, mentoring, mediating, flattering, and chatting in non-article-related discussions. Well okay.. Flattering and chatting is hard to not do, but I want to believe there was improvements made in these areas in terms of their productiveness. I have tried to keep to a minimum all exclusively unproductive discussions.

I have been trying to help with the portal clean-up since coming back and have been leaning on the advice of BHG for that task. It's obviously a contentious issue, and I would have preferred less drama surrounding it... However, the work can be boring though for most, so I therefore enjoy it. Anything even remotely related to the disruptive dispute between that now blocked editor and the aforementioned admin I have stayed away from as much as I could.

I must say that my experience on Wikipedia has been a series of ups and downs. However, I will hold up one edit I made here above all the rest. Special:Diff/882119355 is the edit I look back on as probably my best one up to now.

In that spirit, could you please take a look at my contributions? I would like some general feedback with my handling of this, this, and this. Any advice moving forward on those fronts would be appreciated.

Your ever grateful adoptee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 08:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Just following up because I don't want this to be a bother for you. I'll understand if you are too busy. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't been around much lately. I'll take a look when I get the chance. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Awesome; Thank you! I was worried for a bit there that I proven myself to be too much of a handful. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!

[1] I never understood til you explained ;-). 173.228.123.207 (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Denuvo Talk

Posting my response to your recent comment on the Denuvo Talk Page here since I think this isn't really relevant to establishing a consensus at this moment. That being said, I'm honestly baffled at that response. I don't even know where to begin.

The only thing I can think of doing right now is trying to explain my rationale in the face of your frankly astonishingly hostile tone over what is essentially a storm in a fishbowl. The thing that started the whole controversy (which is taking place mostly on Reddit and will likely blow over once the thread slips down within a day or two) is the removal of the unsourced content itself.

Users felt that leaving most of the cells in the affected column empty would somehow suggest that someone's trying to make this DRM solution look much more effective than it actually is by "misleading" readers into thinking that a lot fewer cracks are available than there actually are. My intention with removing the section was to reduce controversy by taking this factor out of the equation - and if you take a look at the source of this controversy (i.e. the Reddit thread), that's exactly what the change achieved. If anything, I improved optics that were much worse before, when everyone thought the article was intentionally misleading and edited by a Denuvo employee or whatever.

As to what to do with the column, I was under the impression that Wikipedia articles are able to evolve and be edited, so I'm not sure why you imply that sourcing issues could "NEVER" be resolved again, as if any possibility of recreating the column once a consensus has been reached has been tossed into the eternal flames of irrecoverable cleansing. There is currently no consensus regarding how to bring back a gist of the information that the column had previously provided backed by poor sourcing; there have been several suggestions by many users participating in this discussion, and good points have been made by all sides. There are proponents of leaving the column out, there are proponents of bringing the column back, there are proponents for a compromise anywhere between the two extremes (like leaving the column out but adding a new section highlighting the solution's ineffectiveness in more detail).

I'm also at a loss as to where you're finding me "authoritatively" or "condescendingly" doing anything in particular. I'd like you to point out to me one instance in which I shut down someone's point without properly explaining why I don't agree with it. If you took exception to the "gentle reminder" part, I don't know what to tell you other than that it was not intended to be hostile in any way, shape or form. We're on the internet here, presumably all adults (or at least old enough to be able to take part in constructive discourse), and hopefully able to separate the person making the point from the point being made - I know I am. I never once even implied that my opinion is any more valid than anyone else's, so the only person barging in and authoritatively claiming anything is the one I'm currently responding to.

So you may think I'm "petty" and put on a grand display with those fantastic quotation marks around the word "improvement", presumably as to tell me what you think of the fact that I selfishly decided to ruin Wikipedia by engaging in discussion after trying to somewhat placate an angry mob with an edit that may have been to hasty, but if this is how you deal with brand new inexperienced editors and point out their mistakes, then I'm not sure if I could make any more dents into the public image of Wikipedia than there already are - and that's not considering that there's at least one other, seemingly highly experienced editor who seems to agree with me, and I don't know why your opinion should be any more valid than theirs (or, in fact, vice versa).

I hope going off on me felt as good as you thought it would feel, but I'd appreciate if we could get back to the topic at hand without muddying up an ongoing discussion on a Talk Page with what essentially boils down to a frustration rant (that should probably have gone on my Talk Page instead of the article's, but I assume that wouldn't have felt quite as cathartic as posting it where "thousands of critical eyes" would likely see it). --ThePaSch (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

And, to add to that, I would also like you to point out where exactly I was "edit warring". There was a single (non-vandalism) revert that I made, and it pointed to the Talk page because their revert of my change had absolutely no justification/explanation whatsoever, and, as stated above, I was (and still am) convinced that just not having the column at all would be a much better look to outsiders than to have a table with a few "yes"s strewn in and hundreds of empty cells suggesting "no". So if you could kindly explain to me where exactly the edit war happened, I'll make sure not to let it happen again in the future.--ThePaSch (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Unreal. I hope your unwillingness or inability to process criticism without immediately victimizing yourself is merely the result of natural human defensiveness, rather than a symptom of a deeper behavioral issue, or your career here will indeed be very short. My tone reflected the fact that you did one of the most boneheaded things I've ever seen here, and frankly you deserved to be called out. I didn't make that post because I'm a sadist and it "feels good", I made that post because I'm an administrator who's invested years of my life into building up this project, something that pales in comparison to thousands of more dedicated users. So when I see some random newbie who has no stake in the reputation of the project, boneheadedly step into the middle of a sensitive situation that requires nuance and restraint, and do something so utterly stupid that it makes the project look like a joke in the face of thousands of already-concerned spectators, then I'm not going to pretend like it's no big deal and leave a friendly "correction" in a place no one will see it, I'm going to make a post right then and there so people can not only see that you do not represent the project as a whole, but you do not even seem to know what you're doing. I'm sorry if you feel that's harsh, but if you don't want to be harshly chastised, don't introduce yourself to the project by bumbling into a major controversy and acting like a bull in a china shop, to the detriment of Wikipedia's public image and act like it's no big deal. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you feel the need to continuously and repeatedly attack my person instead of engaging with any of what I said or any of the rationale that I explained. I can assure you there is no "deeper behavioral issue"; I'm just trying to understand why you feel my actions make "the project look like a joke". I will reserve the right to defend myself here as the only thing you seem to be aware of is that there is a controversy, but not what about and from where - I outlined that information to you, mentioned that the removal of the column was welcomed by many who felt even more misled by a column with a bunch of empty cells (that would naturally imply a "no" when the only other content to be found anywhere are a few cited "yes"), but you engaged with absolutely none of that and decided you have to instead call me boneheaded, utterly stupid and a bull in a china shop, on top of implying a deep-lying mental problem. Please excuse me if I feel offended by that.

Please let me know if we can have an actual discussion about this. I'll understand if you aren't keen to, since you haven't shown any willingness so far and I don't expect that to change in the future, but on the off chance that there is constructive discourse to be had here, I'd like to start off fresh, because I'm seriously starting to feel like we've got off on the wrongest of feet here.

Just an acknowledgement that you have indeed read through my rationale, and at least some attempt at rebuttal (as opposed to personal attacks), would go a long way. I realize that making you sound like a sadist wasn't the kindest of things from me either, but I'm sure you'll understand that there is indeed a natural human defensiveness that will indeed kick in after being put in the pillory with an explanation that is not entirely comprehensible from my point of view, having stated why in my previous posting. I will concede that while your tone could've been better, so could mine, and would simply like to resolve this dispute as amicably as possible. --ThePaSch (talk) 03:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrolled Permission Discussion - Spinster300 [Cont.]

Hello dearest Swarm, my sincerest apologies for never having gotten back to you in November. I was unable to participate fully on Wikipedia, as work and family kept me busy. At this point, I am still getting back on the beat of how things are run here again.

Please accept this message as my withdrawal request from being considered for Autopatrolled Permission at this time. I hope I can be up and running more actively on Wikipedia soon, and confidently resubmit my application (keeping in mind the improvements and detailing you suggested to my edits) in the months to come.

I hope you are well and have a good day! Cheers and kindest regards, Spinster300 (talk) 05:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC).

Alright. Offer still stands. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Chiropractic

There are problems with the chiropractic page including failed verification content and a MEDRS violation in the lede. If IPs or new accounts try to remove the problematic content the article should not be semi-protected because others disagree. Readers have been complaining for years about the chiropractic page. This time the readers are correct. QuackGuru (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for catching this. I'll try to keep an eye on things over there. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It is no secret my draft for the lede fixes the problems. I will likely end up at arbcom if I try to fix the problems. I am familiar with the topic and wrote a significant amount of content. The original editors who helped build the article are no longer interested in the article or have left Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Can you summarize what the issue is, so that I know what I'm looking for? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Chiropractic is a form of alternative medicine mostly concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, especially the spine.[1][2] Some proponents, especially those in the field's early history, have claimed that such disorders affect general health via the nervous system,[2] through vertebral subluxation, claims which are demonstrably false. All of this is very poor writing. The first paragraph should mainly be about the profession.
      • Its foundation is at odds with mainstream medicine, and chiropractic is sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation and "innate intelligence" that reject science.[4][5][6][7][8] Failed verification and misplaced content.
      • Chiropractors are not medical doctors.[9][unreliable medical source?] MEDRS violation.
      • The first paragraph is problematic. I proposed this. QuackGuru (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

A reader removed some of the problematic content from the lede. I went ahead and added my proposal. If the bias content and failed verification content is restored we can go to AN/I or arbcom. QuackGuru (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Failed verification content and other policy violations were restored even though others objected to the previous version. QuackGuru (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: I can impose AE page restrictions. Do you think that will help? Will also weigh in on the talk page. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The only thing that will help is to get back to this version. A RfC may be the only way. QuackGuru (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

See what the editor wrote on the talk page: The current and long-standing lede section [1] provides an accurate, well-sourced, general summary of Chiropractic. Removing sourced material such as "... through vertebral subluxation, claims which are demonstrably false" doesn't help inform the reader, it simply misleads them. You also want to remove "Its foundation is at odds with mainstream medicine, and chiropractic is sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation and "innate intelligence" that reject science."[2]

That reject science is duplication of "pseudoscientific" and the editor did not acknowledge the content failed verification and the other content was unsourced. That is grounds for a topic banned or a block. Shall we go to AN/I or Arbcom? QuackGuru (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The editor is refusing to acknowledge any content they restored failed verification and is commenting on the editor rather than the content.[3] QuackGuru (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a policy called consensus. It was originally added here.[4] There is no consensus for the content.[5][6][7]

See the latest edit.[8] through vertebral subluxation, claims which are not based on scientific evidence. is duplication of chiropractic is sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation and "innate intelligence" that reject science.[4][5][6][7][8] Click on the citations such as citation 8. It does not verify chiropractic is sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation and "innate intelligence". I can't improve the lede as long as the other editor does not acknowledge there is any problems. The lede is too long and can be trimmed. I can't trim the lede or make any improvements. It is a waste of time to argue on the talk page for weeks or months. QuackGuru (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

See "Some proponents, especially those in the field's early history, have claimed that such disorders affect general health via the nervous system,[2] through vertebral subluxation, claims which are not based on scientific evidence."

"Some proponents" fails verification "claimed" is not neutral per WP:CLAIM "through vertebral subluxation" is misleading content to state it is "through" vertebral subluxation. It would need to be rewritten to make any sense. There is a problem with each and every sentence in the first paragraph. QuackGuru (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

ANOTHER BELIEVER

I am wondering how the decision came to indefinite 1-way IBAN. The community input has been anything between 3-6 months with 3 months being the prevailing input, so the consensus push for indefinite. how did it come to consensus having decided for "indefinite"? Can you explain how it got extended out?Graywalls (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Sure! To be clear, it actually was not "extended out". "Indefinite" simply means that there is no specified duration. The IBAN was indefinite as proposed. Unfortunately, the consensus view did not endorse adding an expiry. Two users supported a 3 month duration, and one supported a 6 month, but even combined this does not represent a level of support that could be considered a "consensus". ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Could you clarify the specific restrictions and depending on those terms of restrictions, how do I request to have it modified to TWO-WAY IBAN? I am concerned that the complainant may not have been interested in resolving a conflict, but possibly exploiting the IBAN as a leverage to advance his editorial position.

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nina_West here, he tried to challenge my input on a AfD which occurred prior to ANI decision and brought up IBAN into it, trying to invalidate my input.
• Here, he came into an article he's never touched in the past to revert my contents he doesn't like unilaterally. It occurred soon after I remarked (not towards him) that comment was casted to ANI decision. diff which is the same type of edit that lead to edit war at Embers Avenue prior to the ANI. I feel like I'm getting followed by this editor and possibly baited into reverting him to get me to violate IBAN.
• Portland Loo, he pounced on my edit he didn't like as soon as ANI closed to apply his editorial discretion.
• here, he pushed forward with his proposal which I don't agree with that was outstanding prior to ANI knowing that I can't revert him. A 3PO was pending prior to ANI being started, but the 3PO reviewer got scared off after ANI.

I feel he's exploiting the ONE WAY IBAN to advance his editorial position and retaliate and I feel reversion by nobody but him on topics we've never interacted on is an indication, such as on the Oregon Bottle Bill. What can I do to get the IBAN changed to TWO WAY, or am I still ok to revert him as long as I don't interact? Graywalls (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I stand by my 2 image removals. Swarm, if you think either of those images are worth keeping (File:Removal of containers from recycling bins without permission.jpg, File:Portland Loo with Sharps drop box .jpg), by all means feel free to revert. I am not following this editor or interested in interacting with them. If working in this way (getting editor feedback on talk pages instead of making changes based on Graywalls' edits) is preferred, I'll try harder to do this. Also, pretty sure the 3PO reviewer wasn't "scared off", and I was given permission to move forward. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Graywalls: The straightforward provisions of WP:IBAN apply, broadly construed. In other words, if something feels like a "gray area", it will be considered a violation. You may propose that your one-way IBAN be converted into a two-way IBAN at AN, with convincing evidence that AB is retaliating against you. "Baiting" you, or maliciously prodding you into violating the IBAN is certainly not tolerated, and it's certainly inherently implied that AB will not abuse the sanction to retaliate. That said, let me be clear: the community intentionally made it a one-way, rather than a two-way IBAN, which is a major, major difference. This means that you are formally considered, on record, to have engaged in harassment, and that AB is considered to be an innocent victim of harassment. AB is intentionally allowed to continue interacting with you, without restriction, and you are forbidden from interacting in turn. So, something like reverting you in the content space is perfectly valid and allowed. If you disagree, you may pursue a discussion on the talk page, and subsequent dispute resolution, like normal, as long as you abide by the interaction ban. Casting normal edits as harassment is likely to be interpreted as continued harassment, and an attempt to sanction a user who is literally considered to be your victim is probably more likely to be met with a BOOMERANG, rather than patience and understanding. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Template:Z83

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Administrator changes

HickoryOughtShirt?4 • RexxS

Necrothesp

Bratsche • Kyle Barbour • Kzollman • Madman

Interface administrator changes

Pharos

Bureaucrat changes

Primefac

CheckUser changes

Reaper Eternal

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Technical news

• XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

• In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
• Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment is currently open to amend the community sanctions procedure to exclude non XfD or CSD deletions.
• A proposal to remove pre-2009 indefinite IP blocks is currently open for discussion.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Concern

Hi Swarm. Regarding your granting of rollback, I know you couldn't of seen this, but I would like to highlight my concerns that had me decline Masumrezarock100's PCR request on the 28th. I'm not objecting to the granting of rollback if your discretion thinks it's still ok, but just want to bring this to your attention at minimum. (My two cents is the bot should pull up any declined perms request in the last 90 days as they requested NPR last month on top of that). -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: Hey. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. To be honest, I just rubber-stamped the request as it was endorsed by the user's CVUA instructor. I would not have granted it had I known about such a recent declined PCR request. Girth Summit seems enthusiastic that the user can be trusted with it, and a cursory review of the user's patrol looks okay, though they aren't using Rollback. But in recognition of the concerns, I'll convert my grant to a temporary trial period, for review in a month. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Request

Hello, thanks for granting me Rollback. Do you think I am eligible for pending changes reviewer right? Actually I got rejected at PERM more than a week ago. I want to review pending changes as a part of my anti-vandalism work. Thanks again. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 14:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• Replied on your talk. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Two questions:

1. While sanctioned, do you think that it is a good idea to request additional rights (in particular, I would like rollback)?
2. Do you think I would be ready for additional rights and earned back the trust from the community?

Awesome Aasim 15:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah I see no problem with you requesting additional rights, as long as you have a straightforward need for them! Regarding question 2, what did you have in mind? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

In particular, I would like to get rollback permissions so I can revert vandalism. Awesome Aasim 04:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Finally

I requested modification of sanctions on WP:ANB. Please let me know if there is anything I am missing. Awesome Aasim 19:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Swarm. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.TheSandDoctor ^Talk 13:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Request

Hello I am a Extended confirmed user .I am requesting Rollback permission because I have been reverting Vandalism for a while now, rollback would help me to do that more efficiently.-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  11:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Impersonator

Wanted to inform you that I made this report earlier. You had an impersonator that I reported to WP:UAA. Cheers, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:Articles_for_deletion/Masked_Republic

Good morning. Sorry to bother you and apologies if this isn't the right way to resolve this, but as you relisted this discussion I thought perhaps you could help. Only a few hours after you relisted it, it seems to have been closed as Keep. That decision seemed odd as it was so quick, and there had been one of each votes since relisting, but then when I looked at the person who closed the discussion, they seem to be a new account openly claiming to be a sockpuppet. Are they allowed to close the discussion and is there anything I can do about it? Thank you for the help. --Hugsyrup (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

BLP policy enforcement

Swarm, I asked you a question here, but while I was typing it the arbitration enforcement report was closed, so you may not have seen my question. BLP policy says that editors who repeatedly violate this policy may be blocked, and it does not say that editors must be notified of the policy first, but where is the correct place to report such repeated violations? Wikipedia:BLPADMINS says to report them at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but when Randykitty reported a similar set of issues on the Linda Gottfredson article at that noticeboard, she was told that the proper venue was arbitration enforcement. [9] 2600:1004:B127:94F9:E943:3C26:A260:725A (talk) 04:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• There is no correct place, we should take BLP enforcement vary seriously regardless of the venue. However, Arbitration Enforcement is more serious because it allows us to impose a wide range of sanctions that are not easily overturned. Without it, we're pretty much just limited to blocking or warning. There's no prerequisites to the normal blocking or warning or community topic banning at AN/I. However, in order to invoke Arb Enforcement, a few strict rules need to be met. Formal notification using a standardized template is one of those things. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Stupid question

So.. Pakaran hasn't logged a single Bureaucrat action since 2015 (4 years ago). Doesn't that make them inactive? Is there a reason why no one has said anything to them? I am probably missing something here... Hence the name of the header.. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Ah, the infamous Pakaran. This is certainly not a stupid question, but the answer is quite stupid. So, let's look at the requirements, a crat becomes "inactive" if they have:

1. No edits or logged actions in over a year -- This is a basic activity requirement that applies to admins as well, and it is very lenient. Pakaran has not edited in over a year, but they did log an action in September 2018 when they deleted and restored their user page, so this activity criterion will continue to be satisfied until September.
2. No bureaucrat involvement in over 3 years --- This one is just as lenient as the first. Bureaucratic activity is not measured in logged actions, but literally anything that can be construed as exercising the role of a Bureaucrat. So, even though Pakaran has obviously not been constantly involved since early 2006 and has not been involved with the project in any meaningful way since early 2010, this single comment at BN in December 2016 quite simply satisfied the "crat involvement" criterion for the next three years.

So, for now, Pakaran retains his permissions as an "active" crat until September of this year, by virtue of his having deleted and undeleted his userpage and nothing else. Beyond that, he will likely have to make another singular comment in his Bureaucratic capacity by the end of this year, which will buy him another three years. Pakaran is what I refer to as a "relic crat"; someone who was made a crat in the early days of the project by a small handful of editors without the extremely high standards that exist today, indeed without any standards at all. He was appointed by 13 people with no discussion, he has not been involved with the project since 2006, save for a few months in 2010, and based on his edit count and inactivity alone he'd 100% WP:SNOW fail another RfA much less an RfB. He got in the door before it was hard. I can't blame him for that. He failed to stay inactive long term. I can't blame him for that either. But the simple fact of the matter is that by modern standards, he has no legitimate claim to his cratship. He's simply not qualified. He's purely grandfathered in. It's ridiculous. I'm completely unapologetic in saying that these "relic crats" (I believe there are only one or two others left) are an embarrassment to themselves and to the project, and should resign their tools. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't know he was infamous lol. I guess I am rather surprised by this sorry state of affairs. Who would reasonably argue for this set up? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Infamous to me lol. I don't think many people know about, think about or care about these crats. I believe the activity requirements we do have are a more recent development, before, grants were for life without question. There were recent efforts to strengthen them for admins, but none were successful. Wikipedia:Administrators/2019 request for comment on inactivity standards. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Sander.v.Ginkel

Hello there, it was over a year ago that a consensus was reached to block Sander.v.Ginkel. Maybe it is time to unblock this user as I’m sure it would be an appreciated action and it has been a long time since the block. If you’re wondering why I am querying, it is because this user has been involved in some areas I am interested in. Best wishes, Willbb234 (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Willbb234: I can't unblock unfortunately. This user has been banned by the community, thus needs to be unbanned by the community. This is not really a big deal, as after six months we usually unban by default, but the user would have to request it for themselves. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

User talk: Jezzy-lam

"That doesn't make you seem like a reasonable human being" - What way is that to speak to an editor here? That's a personal attack and I think you should redact it. And as for "which is precisely the reason you were blocked"? If "not being a reasonable human being" was your rationale for blocking, you should be ashamed of it and should immediately unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

No, thinking again, I've redacted it to try to minimize the damage. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

That's fine, but to be clear, I was doing nothing but being frank and honest with them. I was not trying to be mean. They're CIR blocked for a number of reasons, which, in fact, do boil down to "not being a reasonable human being", and the unblock request is clearly symptomatic of the problem. Pointing this out to them may have been blunt, but there was certainly no malice involved. Yes, if I were in a content dispute on a talk page, obviously it would be a personal attack to call someone an unreasonable human being, but when a user is blocked for bizarre, unhinged, unreasonable conduct, I don't think there's anything wrong with calling a spade a spade. I get that you're trying to "minimize damage", but I think that being direct and blunt is the only possible way we'll ever get through to this user. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, even though I disagree with your intervention here I can respect your view as a colleague. I've reworded my sentiments in a more appropriate way, focusing on the user's conduct rather than the user as a person. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. The thing is this is just a kid (who I think is well-meaning but just not very competent), and my fear was that he could be quite badly effected by being told something bad about himself as a person by someone in authority. Anyway, the new wording is good, as is the apology - and they've accepted it well. Good result, thanks again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

You know, for some reason it did not occur to me that it was a kid. That makes a lot of sense and you're right. I will be more careful with my wording. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I’ll now continue editing on Wikipedia and I’ll try to stay out of trouble . Jezzy-lam (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hi Swarm. Just notifying you of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bring back Daz Simpson: NPA and ASPERSIONS as a courtesy since I mentioned you by name in the thread. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Rollback rights

Hi Swarm,

having planned to contact you (as reaching already 4000 pages on watchlist), but I was quite busy, but here you may read my final incentive. As you are on the list of admins who may grant rollback rights, this is what I apply for. About my past, there was an issue - I understood only afterwards - a caring admin (NeilN) sanctioned me for educational purposes, on a good faith matter, after two other admins (El C & Edjohnston) joined the discussion and finally I was unblocked, because we understood each other and cleared all possible misunderstandings, that may be caused as well of not being native in English. As as summary I learned what really vandalism is what is not, and a careful evaluation is needed to decide on good faith or bad faith (being independent if the content of the edit is false or not). Having trained around two years - without any complaint, as the admins are supervising me - I think time has come, since many times I have to undo edit's one by one, and it is exhausting and less professional, with more thousand pages continously increasing. I kindly ask you to check my application and evaluate it. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC))

Swarm, would you give any feedback? Thanks(KIENGIR (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC))

Swarm, just letting you that I have declined the request at PERM. If you believe they can use the right objectively you are welcome to override my decision. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:ACC

Hey Swarm!

Someone on WP:Discord asked for volunteers to help with the ACC backlog, and I decided to take up the task. I've just identified myself to WMF by signing the Access to nonpublic personal data policy. However, I wanted to ensure I had your permission before getting started with the ACC process and long before heading over to WP:PERM/ACC.

I figured it was perfect back-end thing for me to do considering you are active in this area. I also have decent real-life experience with confidential information policies through my politics and activism. Would this be something you would approve of me doing? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, my experience with the username policy and ACC, I'd like to think, speaks for itself. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Absolutely, go for it! We could definitely use you! ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Pldx1, again

This seems like he's not listening to your first or second warnings. He posted a joke-y comment on one AFD in March, participated in one other AFD in January, and otherwise hasn't edited a single AFD in almost two years, and suddenly shows up to two separate AFDs I am involved in? That seems suspicious enough, but he was also harassing me on ANI on two separate occasions in January[10][11] (when I was not in a position to do anything about it, for reasons I'd rather not go into -- I think I emailed you about the second incident since you did respond, but you were also posting on that thread before Pldx1 showed up).

The timing of the recent AFD following is also suspicious, since it happened one hour after another editor opened an ANI thread on me (and notified me on my talk page, which I suspect Pldx1 still has watchlisted), and he probably assumed I would be in hot water and unable to respond again, as happened in January.

Sorry to bother you with this again, but would you mind taking a look?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Any club that would want me as a member

Hi Swarm, I wonder if you could help me with something that has me confused like a Tuesday morning.

Normally I just drop a "welcome for new users with possible problem editing" on confusing new users, but in this case I'm not sure whether maybe something actually needs doing.

this is the set of contributions that I am confused about. I am sure that this club in England is notable, but I'm not sure that membership of it is a defining characteristic that needs to be on so many pages. Many thanks. MPS1992 (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Dead horse, beat status unknown

Noticing the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTubers (3rd nomination), at first my attention was drawn to the assertion that all after the first Keep !vote were canvassed. As far as I remember mine wasn't canvassed. That assertion seems flawed. After at least a few more seconds of thought, why can't the canvassed editors be identified by the canvassing, and any bias quantified and countered? In the absence of that, isn't the logic also flawed - after checking the previous AfD, there were few (Keep) participants to be canvassed, so what makes the notification partisan? For the editors that were canvassed, what biases their Keep !vote? I couldn't see the ANI thread. Widefox; talk 21:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Once I found the editor I found the rest... I see about 150 notifications at [12], and the ANI is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive982#Opinion about AfD notification. By eliminating all those notified it is between a 3:1 and 3:>3 Delete/Keep. I presume the latter, making the close inaccurate. Widefox; talk 21:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your questions. You seem to be arguing that my reading of consensus was inaccurate. However, I did not read the consensus. I procedurally closed the discussion as compromised, in response to a behavioral complaint. When an editor literally goes down the article history, spamming notifications to previous editors, it can be presumed that the intent is to solicit "keep" votes. And when the result is an immediate "keep" pile-on, it quite simply makes it impossible to legitimize the consensus. I acknowledged in my close that the consensus may well have turned out the same, and that is definitely something to consider. I did not say the notified users were biased. I did not say the notified users were partisan. I did not say there was any assumption of bad faith on the part of any "keep" voter. I simply procedurally closed the discussion due to the fact that we can't assess what the consensus would have been in the absence of canvassing. It is not as simple as striking those who were notified. Consensus is not a headcount. It is not a vote. It is the result of organic discussion. It fundamentally governs this entire project. The prohibition on artificially manipulating these organic discussions is extremely serious, and must be enforced. So, it would be easy to justify a "keep" reading of consensus, sure. But it is more important to draw a line on canvassing. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf

I'd like an explanation about this. Sangdeboeuf had been edit warring against several editors about several very different content edits, none of which are obvious vandalism. This level of indefinite page protection isn't justified by the types of edits the other editors made, and seems to only function to endorse Sangdeboeuf's edit war while not addressing his behavior. -- Netoholic @ 08:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• Replied to your initial message at AN3. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

Administrator changes

Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
• An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
• An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

• The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
• Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

• The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
• The 2019 talk pages consultation produced a report for Phase 1 and has entered Phase 2.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Fram banned for 1 year by WMF office

• WP:BN#User:Fram banned for 1 year by WMF office

Documenting this for posterity. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Yo Swarm

So like all the admins are kind of busy at the moment because of the Fram-drama, but I would appreciate your assistance in this run-of-the-mill AN/I thread. Kindest regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

[13] Pretty, please don't leave. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Don’t worry, I wouldn’t leave this project. I’m just stepping away from the admin backlog for now, which is really my only role here. I will not disappear, as that would only embolden that which I wish to oppose. Best, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh gotcha. BTW, I'm still waiting to get the ACC tools. In the meantime, I've applied to WP:AFCP. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2019 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the June newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since March 2019. You can unsubscribe from our mailings at any time; see below. Election time: Nomination of candidates in our mid-year Election of Coordinators opened on 1 June, and voting will take place from 16 June. 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. June Blitz: Our June blitz will soon be upon us; it will begin at 00:01 on 16 June (UTC) and will close at 23:59 on 22 June (UTC). The themes are "nature and the environment" and all requests. March Drive: Thanks to everyone for their work in March's Backlog Elimination Drive. We removed copyedit tags from 182 of the articles tagged in our original target months October and November 2018, and the month finished with 64 target articles remaining from November and 811 in the backlog. GOCE copyeditors also completed 22 requests for copyedit in March; the month ended with 34 requests pending. Of the 32 people who signed up for this drive, 24 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. April Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the April Blitz; the blitz ran from 14 to 20 April (UTC) inclusive and the themes were Sports and Entertainment. Of the 15 people who signed up, 13 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed 60 copyedits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: As of 04:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 267 requests since 1 January. The backlog of tagged articles stands at 605 articles. May Drive: During the May Backlog Elimination Drive, Guild copy-editors removed copyedit tags from 191 of the 192 articles tagged in our original target months of November and December 2018, and January 2019 was added on 22 May. We finished the month with 81 target articles remaining and a record low of 598 articles in the backlog. GOCE copyeditors also completed 24 requests for copyedit during the May drive, and the month ended with 35 requests pending. Of the 26 people who signed up for this drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Reidgreg and Tdslk. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Phrasing

There was nothing casual in deploying that invective, the easter-egg link to a definition of quisling. I have asked that one statement be struck, and request that you further modify those other responses and reactions. It cannot be helpful, no matter the circumstances, it is honestly the most chilling statement I have seen appear in this discussion. cygnis insignis 12:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing casual about calling out a traitor; a backstabber; a quisling. I grant you that it is inherently severe and unpleasant. But it's not unhinged rhetoric. If I were to say, "I understand and respect your [[Fascism|opinion]]", that's obviously an incendiary easter egg that's not okay. That's a supposedly-civil statement, which contains an unexpected attack or criticism. That's what an easter egg is, something hidden that needs to be uncovered. But my comment said, "Defending an all-powerful corporate entity against us horrible, bloodthirsty ''volunteers'' with our pesky moral objections. What a [[wikt:quisling|martyr]] you shall go down as." That's not an easter egg. That's a very direct criticism. My sarcasm was obvious, and there should be no misconception that I am openly accusing DJ of being a traitor to the community. Just because I used sarcasm and a piped link doesn't mean that I am concealing my meaning. There are many negative labels that have excessively dramatic rhetorical implications, but quisling is not one of them. Quisling is a straightforward common noun. It simply means "one who betrays their allies and sides with the enemy". I'm not calling or remotely implying that they are a fascist, or a nazi, or a genocidal megalomaniac. Political or historical implications are meaningless. The actual person who was Quisling obviously invokes such thoughts, but "quisling" has become a word with a specific meaning by now. It is not the same as calling someone "Hitler", where the meaning is subjective. It's a word that means something specific. And while you would be in the right if I called someone "Hitler" or "Saddam" or "Stalin", that's not what I did or intended to do. "Quisling" is a non-rhetorical common noun, with non-literal implications.

That said, if you have a way for me to restate my sentiments in a less personal or hurtful way, I will absolutely do so. However, I can't think of any superior or more sensitive word that contains the same sentiments about betrayal and siding with the enemy, and the sentiments themselves I can't retract. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Swarm. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 12:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

TheSandDoctor ^Talk 12:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Basic principles about bullying

...start with "don't be a bully". I ask to reconsider your statements about TheDJ, which are so far over the top they may possibly have reached the "We The North" signage on the CN Tower at this point. They are bullying and they are inappropriate. I fully understand how distressing this situation is to many people in this community, whatever position they may hold; that's not an excuse for so personalizing what is really an argument about policy and its application. TheDJ has never done anything bad for this community, he has done many good things (including things that have entirely happened in the background), and he's not done anything to create the dispute that is happening now. Please cool off, reconsider your posts, and think about whether you'd want to be an admin on a project where your contributions are ignored, even derided, because you held a position different from some other people. Your bullying of a person who's well respected by almost everyone they have worked with on this project is precisely the kind of action that can, and probably will, be used to show that English Wikipedia can't manage itself or its problematic users. Please take the time to consider that you, as an administrator, do have a disproportionate impact on this project and its reputation. Risker (talk) 06:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• I have always been fully transparent, accountable, and responsible for below-par actions. Any scenario where the community has disagreed with my approach, I have learned from, taken seriously, and apologized for. I'm not some asshole who just says whatever he wants or feels. But I have not seen that my defense of Fram was out of line. I have not seen that my condemnation of DJ was in the wrong. IRL, I am quite literally a serious student of history, and a serious student of medicine. I humbly consider myself a professional in both fields. So the implication that I'm just some bully with no regard for the consequences of precedent, or the consequences of permitting harm within a society, well I just can't take that seriously. I was very harsh with TheDJ, but my concerns were very serious, and I very seriously want them to run a reconfirmation RfA, with the assumption that the community will indeed stand against them. If you would call such a request from a user who directly attacks the integrity of the community "bullying", then I'm sorry to have to be on the different side of an RfA from you. If such an RfA were to reject my view as "bullying", then I would be completely humiliated. However I honestly don't think that the community would do such a thing. The community would agree with me. If I'm in the wrong for calling out an admin who denigrates the community, then explain to me how. Explain to me why. Explain to me why an admin rejecting the community is not significant and deserving of adamant and public rejection. Explain to my why such rejection should be tolerated, and dissent of community rejection is bullying. If you have any logic-based arguments, I will treat them as the word of God. But don't expect me to defend such behavior for the sake of an admin's reputation. You have to give me logical motivations to side with you. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm on my way to bed. I'll simply point out to you that you're also being called out for your edits on BN by two other editors. You're personalizing this issue way too much, targeting someone you disagree with instead of the problem that you want to have addressed. I really recommend that you walk away from the computer for 12 hours, then come back and decide what response you'd want an admin to take if someone had written about you what you've written about TheDJ. Risker (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Risker: All I can say is that I'm sorry for the conflict between us. I've always respected you. However, I don't think I'm personalizing this. I do not interpret any user I am in disagreement with as having a personal problem with me, nor vise versa. I do want a problem addressed, but I don't think that the act of merely speaking against someone who's defending the problematic institution constitutes inappropriate personalization of the issue at hand. I don't know DJ, and I'm not making the dispute personal. They're simply arguing in support of a morally indefensible position. Attacking the community is grounds for desysopping. That's not a nuanced, subjective, personalized argument, that's just common sense. I said: "If you would call ... a user who directly attacks the integrity of the community "bullying", then I'm sorry to have to be on the different side of an RfA from you. If such an RfA were to reject my view as "bullying", then I would be completely humiliated. However I honestly don't think that the community would do such a thing. The community would agree with me. If I'm in the wrong for calling out an admin who denigrates the community, then explain to me how. Explain to me why. Explain to me why an admin rejecting the community is not significant and deserving of adamant and public rejection. Explain to my why such rejection should be tolerated, and dissent of community rejection is bullying. If you have any logic-based arguments, I will treat them as the word of God. Rather than respond, you only said, "I'll simply point out to you that you're also being called out for your edits on BN by two other editors. You're personalizing this issue way too much, targeting someone you disagree with instead of the problem that you want to have addressed. I really recommend that you walk away from the computer for 12 hours ..." Not only did you address my concerns with a rational counterargument like I asked, but you suggested that I was just worked up and needed to step away for 12 hours. I just did step away for more than 12 hours. I will be the first to admit that I get too heated sometimes. But I genuinely do not think that I'm being irrational. If I am, I will accept such an impression as presented by the community, in whatever form that may be. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• I do think you can (should) dial it back a few notches. Not least because your message might be lost in the delivery, but also because reasonable minds can differ on what has happened the last few days. I don’t want to speak for TheDJ but I am not surprised that some of our more technically-minded users are showing deference to the TOU and OA pages and the rules within, even if or as these rules have are being deployed in a manner unpalatable to a significant segment of the community. Programmers and the like generally find comfort in following rules to the letter. –xeno^talk 10:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Going a bit beyond dialling it back might be the thing to do. None would ever question your rationality Swarm, your logical skills are first rate. The thing with rationality is, "if you start from unreliable assumptions, perfect logic can easily lead to bedlam" (Lord Keynes). So lets look at what these unreliable assumptions might be.

1) That the DJ really meant it when he said "I have ZERO trust in this community". ---- It's much more likely those words can be best understood as an expression of emotion. Not an objective expression of how the DJ really feels. As you well know, even the best will sometimes utter heated words in emotional situations.

2) That the overwhelming likelihood that you'd succeed in thwarting an RfA proves your position is correct. --- Long have I been aware of your skill at RfAs. On several occasions your badgering has turned a tanking RfA into a successful one. It's much easier to attack than defend. It's obvious how you could make a brief & compelling oppose. Given the law of numbers and the literal minded nature of many RfA participants, it's a near certainty you'd prevail. But RfA is not a reliable way to determine right or wrong. It's not easy to briefly explain why that is so, but you've always seemed to have a good understanding of RfA, so hopefully it's not needed?

3) That the DJ's motivation in siding with the WMF was to curry favour with the dominant power, regardless of that power's lack of morality. (i.e. a Quissling). --- It seems more likely that the pro WMF editors genuinely believe there are problems with the communities ability to handle harassment. Per harassment being a very serious thing, they welcome the WMF's bold actions. I don't agree with it, but it's a valid perspective. The reason Xeno suggests sounds feasible too. How realistic is it that that the DJ is genuinely corrupt, and just wanted to curry favour? How likely is it that WMF is going to have the backs of their supporters in any future on wiki disputes? If you think about, it should be pretty obvious that over 99% of the time, they're not going to get involved. All those who have took the unpopular side of the WMF are putting their necks on the line for what they believe in. They've took the risk of earning the lasting animosity of the admin crowd. From this perspective, they've been every bit as courageous as yourself, WMScribe, Flo & Bish.

As a history expert, hopefully you agree that it's almost always a red flag when someone polarises the two sides of a dispute on moral grounds, giving one side such extreme labels as "traitor" & "toxic, corrupt and invalid". Normally both sides have sound reason to think they have sound ethical reasons for their actions. This is what AGF is all about.

When one escalates to the max on moral grounds, it makes it extremly hard to have a collegial outcome. You clearly have a feel for this as you suggest you'll be "thoroughly humiliated" if you back down (or at least if your'e proved wrong.) You won't be humiliated at all. Exceptional circumstances like this demand exceptional actions, and it's most admirable you took such a strong position in support of your friends. But sometimes backing down is the very best thing you can do for the community. Yngvadottir was just told me she finds "win at all costs" type argumentation one of the most damaging things about our community. I totally agree with her, and my contribs these past few months have several examples where I've admitted that I was wrong, or at least backed down gracefully from an argument. So if you think I've not heard your concerns, pls lay them out, and if convinced happily admit Im the one who is wrong (as I'm sure would Risker, providing they have time to give this their attention.)

On the other hand, if you see any sense in the above argument, maybe you could make a brief apology to the DJ - something like "Please accept my apologies for ABF with your motivations. While I still strongly disagree with anyone who sides with the WMF, I now see you had good faith reasons, and I support your resysop whenever you want the tools back." IMO, doing this quickly before we learn the outcome of the board meeting, would not only be the best way to heal some of the hurt here, it would also (though only very slightly) increase the odds of the WMF reversing their action against Fram. (If their supporters are quislings, then the WMF are the Nazis, and how can they possibly back down in the face of that?)

Hope you don't mind me butting in here. Only taking the time to write this all out as you've long been one of the admins I admire the most.FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

(sorry for butting in here) Second the above. Swarm is one of my favourite admins (gave me one of my first tools), and I often find myself looking for their views in long sections as it usually a "rock of sense", and also given fearlessly, regardless of prevailing view or emotion. However, I do think things have gone too-far too-fast now, and BN is starting to look like a "suicide-wall", with some really talented and valable bodies at the bottom of it. It is time for such gestures as FH suggests on all sides. Britishfinance (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

As someone who shares your anger about all this, I hope you'll take on board what the folks above are saying. Consider channeling some (most?) of that righteous anger into a plan of action to get some changes made. Invective can be incredibly cathartic but it's unlikely to actually improve anything and much more likely to burn bridges that don't need to be burnt. 28bytes (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm just gobsmacked you called Megalibrarygirl "brainless" and a "pro-WMF shilling". She doesn't work for the WMF and never has done, and seems to me to be merely suggesting the WMF probably had a reason for banning Fram (even if you and I don't agree with it) and we should assume good faith. As everyone has said, you need to take a deep breath; as you can also see I have given my opinion on the thread which doesn't differ too much from yours, but personally attacking the WMF, no matter how justifiable you might think it is, isn't the answer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, niceness is often taken for weakness. Nazi analogies are a third rail, but I'm sure they've occurred to many of us; Eastern European analogies have been flying. There is a distinction between being a decent person and tiptoing around the feefees of people who are bullying us. I don't get the bennies to justify being deferential to WMF staffers; it's important they realize that there's a difference between being civilized and tugging our forelocks. And this community does count for something, and yes it is distressing to see people assuming bad faith of us. This is the second time someone has accused me of being a Gamergater, and it is contemptible and makes me legitimately angry. And there I'll stop. But please don't tell me or anyone else to calm down. That's one of the oldest signs of disrespect. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: What you were accused of, for the second time, was a contemptible accusation. Many people are finding it distressing to see these labels thrown around, you are not alone, maybe supply a diff. cygnis insignis 21:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• Alright folks. Thanks for offering your calm and reasonable perspective here. I apologize to anyone who feels that I crossed the line. I will dial it back. I agree that unbridled anger is not constructive, however justified. Creating a sideshow at BN was not my intent either. Yes, I was assuming that TheDJ was actually declaring their contempt for the community, and anyone who resents the community shouldn't be an admin. If it was rhetorical, the underlying meaning was lost on me, and he didn't clarify any sort of misunderstanding. If DJ retracts or clarifies his statement, then I will of course have no problem with him asking for the mop back. But I squarely agree with Yngvadottir—being accused of being a Gamergater is contemptible and makes me legitimately angry. My anger at the WMF is genuine and I would say that it is well-earned. My anger at those defending the WMF is genuine as well. This is not because they disagree with me, but because they're backing the malicious narrative that everyone who questions the WMF is supporting sexist harassment. That's actual bullying, and it's coming from the top. However it's been fairly pointed out that these people may be supporting the WMF for their own reasons beyond "brainless pro-WMF shilling". So I apologize to Megalibrarygirl for personally attacking her. I do not think she's brainless or a shill. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Swarm. Here's the thing. I'm a very lucky person. I'm a middle aged woman who's had minimal harassment in her life. I'm very lucky, since so many women and LGBT people face what I've never truly experienced. However, I understand the Dynamics of harassment. I have studied this over time and seen it happen to people I love. I've been the victim of emotional abuse, but it's not as bad as what I've heard from others. Sexism is everywhere whether or not we wish otherwise. Harassment is a tool not just of men, but of all people in power. Women can be just as awful. However, the status quo often supports the powerful. It supports those who do good work, even if they are toxic. I want us to look at who we turn away when we support the powerful at the expense of victims. I promise I'll always work to be a good admin, but my skills as an admin are surely not solely determined by me agreeing with you or anyone else. Please do strike any personal comments you apologized for above. Thank you. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Already done. And, to be clear, I'm with you. I'm not indifferent to harassment. I'm not just reflexively defending Fram in spite of suspected harassment. I don't suspect harassment. Losing Fram would be a small price to pay if it meant taking a victim of harassment seriously. You think that's what's happening here. I'm not convinced, because Fram has spun a story about how he's been banned for petty incivility, and that he was not even interacting with the complainant, that the complainant's ties to the WMF are what is actually behind this. If you're right, the whole backlash has been fabricated by Fram. Why would they allow a harasser to spin a narrative about how the Foundation is corrupt and the complainant is the bad guy, not a victim? That's where I'm coming from. Privacy is important, but the Foundation's inability to deny the story about this being a "hit" by a known user is probably going to damage anti-harassment efforts, regardless of the truth of his claims. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Swarm. I really do hope that WMF can explain better what happened. I'm serious that I was gobsmacked that they got involved at all. And like I said before, that highlights the seriousness to me. I know how damaging not keeping something private can be to victims. I get where people are coming from who want more transparency. But what if transparency hurts those who report? I'm not sure how to balance these things. I'm not. However, given a choice of sides, I'm usually going to back the victim. They, like whistleblowers, are often at the receiving end of mistrust, scrutiny & disbelief. We always wish their allegations were untrue. I know I wish that. So I'm here batting for the whistleblowers. I don't know them, but I've met enough to empathize. Thanks for your time and please do ping me in the future! Megalibrarygirl (talk)£

@Megalibrarygirl: I've reflected on your words here, and... wow, you humble me. I sincerely mean that. We can't actually know for certain that there's an actual victim behind all this, because the WMF won't say anything, and the only other explanation is the one offered by Fram: pure malice and corruption. There has actually been an attempt to argue the latter, but not the former, leading many of us to believe that that is the only explanation. We only have one side of the story, and the lack of the other side of the story is explained by that opposing side. But you would still err on the side of that victim by default. You understand that when there is an abuser and a victim who needs protecting, this is exactly how things go. If someone was harassed and denigrated, this exact scenario would still be happening. Malice, corruption, the complainant being unreasonable or evil, the popular sentiments being swayed against the victim; that's always the narrative that gets spun. You're not so quick to take it at face value, even in the absence of evidence to directly disprove it. You're more inclined to support the victim. And that's important, because the institution (in this case the community) will side with the powerful by default, even if in the wrong. That's just the way things work, as demonstrated by endless real-world parallels. Yes, there are situations where the accuser is the corrupt one, but these are far outweighed by situations where the accuser is honest and yet they're buried by the person in power's corrupt narrative. So, it's not that unreasonable to take the accuser's side. I apologized to you because it was the right thing to do. Personal attacks are not acceptable from an admin. There is no solution other than to retract them. But I didn't understand or respect your position. I do now. You've very rightfully reminded me that I may be wrong, and that my actions do cause real harm if I am wrong. Your defense of a victim does not cause such harm. You are the honorable one. I am so, so sorry for dismissing you the way that I did. I will continue to call for greater transparency and accountability to the community. I do think that the Chair erred in invoking Gamergate. If you won't explain the problem, don't try to explain the consequences. I will continue to advocate for greater WMF transparency and accountability. But you're right. It's not easy to know where to draw the line between balancing the privacy of the complainant and being transparent to the community. The WMF may have been imperfect in this, but that doesn't automatically mean they're corrupt and in the wrong. I will keep your perspective in mind going forward. I am so, so sorry for what I said about you. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 09:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Swarm, I am both sorry and glad that we have been involved in this discussion. Sorry, because of course it's been a difficult time for many of us on Wikipedia. But I'm also glad because it's not too often you meet people like you. Thanks for your kind words. I consider us to have a clean slate! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm very happy to hear that. And likewise. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Response via email. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

WiR Twitter posts

You asked about the WiR Twitter posts. You can read them in my statement to ArbCom. starship.paint (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

RomanReignsHEEL

Hi, I've been tracking down a whole bunch of socks of Pewdiepie and blocking them with talk page access revoked. I know you correctly blocked this one, but I'm not sure if it's yet another sock, in which case I'd revoke talk page access too. Happy to leave it with you, just a heads-up to make you aware of the problem. Cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Jimfbleak: I probably don't know something that you don't, but there is no registered account named Pewdiepie? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 13:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Did you mean PewDiePie? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 13:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

MJL, what I posted was unhelpful, there were numerous accounts created this morning all promoting the PewDiePie site, see my block log. Although they are all socks with a single mission, you are right that the account I named doesn't actually exist, apologies for the confusion Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: [Thank you for the ping] Okay, gotcha! I'll look into the edits of these account and see if I can test out an edit filter for you. That seems like it might be fun to try a hand at! Cheers, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

mentioned

hi there, in case you want to respond I mentioned you on my talkpage, the comment is in the header, please don;t reply there but open a new section if you want to respond, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

You missed a spot at User:Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated/UP

I think he had sneakily included two mentions of the admin line. I removed the second. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. I was a bit confused at first, by the time I figured it out you had already caught it. Thanks! ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:AFCP

Hey Swarm,

Seeing as you are online right now, would you be so kind as to review my request at WT:AFCP?

Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Done! ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you so much!! So excited! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

RfA

Hi. Recommend you rephrase your comment to TonyBallioni and remove "an insult to those who deserve it more…" IMHO, this part may elicit more of an emotional response than a logical one. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

If he'll listen to you…

If MJL still listens to you, you might want to discreetly point out that at any time, but particularly in the current climate, unless this is a particularly elaborate attempt at Wikicide it is not a good idea. ‑ Iridescent 22:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)