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.

WP:CEN is now open!

To all interested parties: Now that it has a proper shortcut, the current events noticeboard has now officially opened for discussion!

WP:CEN came about as an idea I explored through a request for comment that closed last March. Recent research has re-opened the debate on Wikipedia's role in a changing faster-paced internet. Questions of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism are still floating around. That being said, there are still plenty of articles to write and hopefully this noticeboard can positively contribute to that critical process.

Thank you for your participation in the RFC, and I hope to see you at WP:CEN soon! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 19:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk)

Hi my name is Jack I am looking to be Adopted on Wikipedia

Hello Swarm I am Looking to be Adopted on Wikipedia I left a little bio on user page about why I am askingJack90s15 (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Swarm, perhaps you remember me... I wonder if you think I might be suited to participating in this "adoption" thing and helping Jack? I do strongly share their interest in World War II historical topics. And I have made more than ten thousand edits over more than three years, including more than seven thousand edits to articles. And I have, just barely, never been blocked. Despite being rather boneheaded at times :)

On the other hand, I seem to get into arguments with other editors quite a lot, resulting sometimes in angry people on my talkpage. I would definitely not encourage that kind of thing, but, perhaps it just indicates that I am not suitable for this kind of role yet? I would be interested in what you think. MPS1992 (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@MPS1992: Honestly, as one of the users who once posted those angry talk page messages (which I actually regretted enough to put on my Wall of Shame), I would say MPS certainly has both the temperament and experience to mentor this user. That's just my limited perspective on the matter, though. (talk page stalker) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Jack90s15: Hey! Sorry I never got back to you! It looks like you've found an adopter, so great! That said, if you ever need anything, MPS1992 has also offered to help you if needed, and you are free to come to me as well for any reason. All the best! ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Swarm Life happens its all good Thanks!!!Jack90s15 (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

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

Administrator changes

28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam¹ • Flyguy649 • Fram² • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe

¹Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

²Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Bureaucrat changes

28bytes • WJBscribe • Wizardman

Interface administrator changes

MSGJ • TheDJ

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox • BU Rob13 • DoRD

Oversight changes

Beeblebrox • BU Rob13 • DoRD • GB fan

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment seeking to alleviate pressures on the request an account (ACC) process proposes either raising the account creation limit for extended confirmed editors or granting the account creator permission on request to new ACC tool users.

• In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

• The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
• The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
• A request for comment seeks to determine whether Wikipedia:Office actions should be a policy page or an information page.

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

• In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

Someone has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. Thanks for clearing out the NPP permissions request backlog signed, Rosguill talk 05:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC) To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Follow up

I didn't want to take the AN/I thread too far off topic, but if you have 5 minutes here's an essay I wrote comparing the BRD rule we're discussing with the "Consensus required" rule that I think you were alluding to when you suggested that nobody should have been able to reinstate Wumbolo's edit after BMK reverted it. In framing the BRD rule I spent a lot of time exploring possible scenarios and trying to identify loopholes. The conclusion I came to is that while the rule does have problems, those problems are less bad and easier to remedy through ordinary admin intervention than the problems created by alternative rules. But I can't claim to have thought of every scenario and I am definitely interested in feedback and suggestions for improvement. ~Awilley (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Déjà vu! El_C 21:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. It seems like "consensus required" is the real BRD-enforced, and no one should have a problem with it. It's a bit bizarre that you claim to be averse to loopholes and yet have made it a personal project to implement a pseudo-BRD-enforced that goes by the name of "BRD-enforced", which applies only to the "B" in "BRD" and no one else, and you didn't foresee this type of edit war play out. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually this is exactly the type of edit war I foresaw. (See the entry for "Tag-team edit war (many editors)" in the chart at the bottom of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive243#Rethinking_consensus-required) And it's not that I think that type of edit war is a good thing, it's that I have accepted that occasional tag-team edit wars (where multiple editors each use one revert) are a normal part of life at Wikipedia and that completely criminalizing them with "consensus required" creates more problems than it solves. As for how WP:BRD is supposed to work, you need only to look at the actual title of the page: BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. It's supposed to be BRD-BRD-BRD-BRD. "Consensus required" prohibits all reinstatement of material similar to the original BOLD edit, effectively mandating BRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD. That's not how BRD is supposed to work. ~Awilley (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

[1] Tell me how you really feel. If you think the name "Enforced BRD" is too misleading I can call it something else ("BRD cycle"?) Also I think "full-blown edit war" might be a bit of an exaggeration...at a glance I see 3 users making maybe 6 reverts between them over 2 days, mostly involving categories and tags, with nobody reverting the same material more than once (ignoring BMK's revert-self-revert). In my experience these minor scuffles are quite common on Wikipedia, and they're one of the quicker ways to resolve disputes among multiple editors (seeing who supports what, and communicating objections via edit summary). It's more efficient than slamming on the brakes and doing a straw poll every time somebody makes a revert. At least that's my opinion based on my experience...you're entitled to your own view. ~Awilley (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if I came across as too harsh. Not trying to insult you personally. But I do feel the system you invented is broken. BRD is the overarching, guiding principle for content disputes. Anything less is unacceptable. Your strenuous attempts to make an exception in favor of allowing tag-team edit warring are simply not constructive. I can't believe that you would make it a personal crusade to subvert such a straightforward countermeasure against edit warring. Seriously. I can't believe this is the hill you've chosen to fight for. It's bizarre to me. I've never seen anything like it. And, rationally, it literally makes no sense. So, sorry, but I just don't get it. I dare say, the community would see it as a substantial cause for concern in regards to your judgment if you were to put yourself to a new RfA. "Consensus required" is quite simply enforcing BRD. The fact that you so severely find this notion offensive, and in need of countermeasures, is highly concerning. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

It's fine.

Re: "Anything less [than BRD] is unacceptable" Actually there are several viable alternatives to BRD and our WP:BRD page even goes to the trouble of listing a few at Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#Alternatives. (Just a point of information...a bit off topic)

Re: "Consensus required" is quite simply enforcing BRD I understand why you say that and why you think that my BRD sanction breaks BRD by allowing a third party to jump in and reinstate a BOLD edit that has been reverted.

My question for you is: Do you understand why I think "Consensus required" breaks a core part of the BRD cycle? (If not, read the last paragraph of the introduction and the paragraph lower down titled However, don't get stuck on the discussion.) ~Awilley (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

This ain't rocket science. BRD is a simple concept. BRD is the definitive editorial/DR/consensus-building standard. "Consensus required" enforces BRD. I simply cannot understand that, of all the things you could do here, you'd make it a personal crusade to subvert BRD. All your fabricated sanction is is BRD with the caveat that tag teaming is allowed. The notion that that's some reasonable alternative is silly. I'm sorry, but it's silly. And, the fact that you've attempted to implement this on a systematic scale is disruptive. I'm honestly not sure what your motivation is, but I can't see how enforcing the Arbcom ruling factors in. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Indef Semi-Protect Request

Could you Indef Semi-Protect this page in my userspace, please? I protect all my userspace pages after some trouble I had awhile back, especially talk pages. Thanks, I do appreciate it. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:00 on July 15, 2019 (UTC)

• @Neutralhomer: Sorry, I seem to have skipped over this.  Done. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No worries! Thanks! :) Have an Awesome Day! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:42 on July 23, 2019 (UTC)

Request

Hi, is it possible for you to remove Amirmehdi joule from my article creation log? I don't recall creating or even looking at the page at all. I don't even have an idea what Amirmehdi joule even is. Thank you--BoothSiftTalks 05:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Boothsift: It took me awhile to figure this out. I'm honestly not sure what happened, but somehow you were logged as the creator of that article. It looks like the user screwed up all sorts of things moving their talk page into the article space multiple times, so that probably had something to do with it. Anyway, it's been deleted from your logs. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Swarm: Thank you so much! Just curious, who was the user in question? --BoothSiftTalks 00:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

It was Amirbannd (now blocked). You actually edited the article by declining it as a blank AfC submission, and he subsequently moved it to the main space, but I'm not sure how the log registered you as a creator.

Thank you

Your words at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement were a breath of fresh air. Thank you! Buffs (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Request clarification on your remarks (it can just be here if you wish; it doesn't need to be on the WP:AN page unless you feel it's necessary:

You stated "Obviously there are issues with Buffs' behavior". Can you specify? I can't improve or address them unless I know what you're referring to. What would the IBAN entail? Buffs (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

My little vandalism on the Five Pillars page

Hi Swarm. I take it you are a devoted and powerful Wikipedian, which I support. Wikipedia rocks, so protect it. I knew I shouldn't do it, but couldn't resist.

I guess what I was thinking was that Wikipedia, like all of life, needs touches of humor. Of course, humor is not knowledge, but it can convey nuance that dead-serious narration cannot. [[2]] Perhaps crowd-sourced humor, which a large majority of editors agree illuminates the topic, might qualify.

Now, I agree my little joke was not that. But it did intend to make a point amplifying the guideline on personal attacks, rather than vitiating it: that we are all a little ridiculous, and should forgive as we wish to be forgiven.

Can you point me to some discussion on these topics? Magyar25 (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Magyar25: Hey, if you're gonna tell me that it was just a bit of lighthearted fun, it's all good. Don't worry about my warning. Obviously don't make a habit of vandalism, but I'm concerned about people with bad faith motivations and a potential for future disruption. That was my concern with the warning, and I'm glad to see that isn't the case here. I fully agree with you on the importance of humor. I'm not sure what discussions you're looking for, however, can you clarify? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

What more is needed?

Hi. You had a message to me elsewhere stating "The user has not edited in six months, so you damn well better have an explanation for requesting an unblock on their behalf. I do not see such an explanation. Please come clean with what this is about, ASAP." I am just wondering what else you expected in my first message. I worked hard (anyway, as hard as I like to work on Wikipedia) to state my reason in a neutral way: That she contacted me, that I had admired some of her work, that I tried to reach the blocking admin, that I couldn't do it, and that I was seeking advice from other admins. Perhaps I should have mentioned that she had contacted me by e-mail. What do you think? Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• My apologies! Somehow I totally missed the part where you said they requested your assistance. Obviously it's implied that they emailed you, I just somehow skipped over the part where you said they contacted you, and thought it was extremely bizarre to request an unblock for an inactive user. I apologize again, that was a misunderstanding on my part. :( ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • That's OK. Have [3] one of these. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible Adoption?

Hi Swarm. I was curious to see if you were interested in the possibility of adopting me on Wikipedia. I've been on here for about 7 years, but I've never really taken it extremely serious, but I'd like to start the process of becoming a better member of this community. Hope to hear back from you soon, thanks! Jay Starz (talk) 12:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Help me understand Rollback, Revert, Undo and RC Patrol

Dear @Swarm:,

Thank you for reviewing my application for rollback permission. I understanding the denial reason was "didn't warn user as required in Recent Change Patrol". Could you help me understand that

1. when I Rollback an edit (which I don't currently have right to do so), do I need to warn user?
2. is the experience of RC Patrol be required for applying for rollback right? (I notice WP:Rollback did not mention warning user, but RC Patrol does.)
3. and another question is, what's actually different between Rollback vs Revert vs Undo. They sound very similar to me other than rollback imply the ability to undo/revert multiple revisions?

Thank you!

1. Yes. Our entire anti-vandalism system is based on the system of Revert → Warn → Report → Block. When you revert, issue a warning. You can easily do so with Twinkle. There are four levels of warnings, which should typically be issued in order for four consecutive offenses. The fourth is a "final warning", after which you can report the user to WP:AIV and we will block them. AIV reports often get declined if the warning process has not been properly followed. On the other hand, reverting a user without warning them prolongs the process and allows them to continue vandalizing longer without being blocked. Sometimes it's reasonable to skip the first warning if the vandalism is clearly very malicious, and in extremely severe cases, you can jump straight to an alternate level 4 "only warning".
2. Yes, because RC patrol is literally how we patrol for vandalism. You are not expected to get dragged into content disputes, but to focus on vandalism and obvious disruption. Recent changes patrol is what we review when screening candidates. We are looking for evidence that you are correctly differentiating between vandalism and other disruptive edits, employing the appropriate edit summaries, issuing the appropriate warnings, not calling good faith edits vandalism.
3. Rollback and Undo are both reverts. A revert is simply overturning an edit. Rollback is a special tool for performing instant vandalism reverts that need no edit summary. Undo is simply Wikipedia's default revert button. It treats the revert like a regular edit. Also of note is Twinkle's Rollback feature, which is a more advanced version of Undo, but can be used by anyone and is not the same as Rollback (despite the same name). ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For taking a substantial amount of time out of your day to reply to my post on ANI, and for treating me with politeness and kindness while answering my questions and explaining what I did wrong. Rockstonetalk to me! 23:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• No problem. Let me know if you need anything. And thanks for the barnstar! ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • You're welcome! You deserve it. As I said, once I get some free time I'll respond to your message on ANI in more detail, probably on your talk page. Best, -- Rockstonetalk to me! 23:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

A long response to your post on ANI (and another thank you!)

This is going to be an essay, most likely, but there's a bunch of things I wanted to say. First of all, the funny thing is that when rereading what you said, I noticed that you said many of the same things other people said, but in a much nicer manner. Politeness really does go far. But you also clarified things for me and didn't make me feel like I was being attacked. Again, thank you so much, you completely changed my perspective on the situation.

Upon reflection I think there's a couple of issues. One of the issues is that four things happened earlier at around the same time which got conflated in a lot of people's mind.

1. I closed the CBAN discussion, which apparently is frowned upon for non-administrators (something I didn't realize and that WP:NAC still doesn't explain).
2. I added the CBAN template to the user page, which I self-reverted and then, after the user was marked as banned by an adminstrator, I restored.
3. I switched the sockmaster tags from "blocked" to "banned" a while back, thinking I was helping by marking users who fell under WP:3X as being banned.
4. I edited the WP:NAC page to reflect my understanding about NAC closures of banned users.

These things unfortunately kind of coalesced into a perfect storm, as Bbb23 reverted my change to the NAC page, then went and reverted my changes to the sockpuppeteers pages, which looked to me as if he was stalking my edits and reverting them. It also didn't help that I misread "normally" as conferring to non-administrators the right to mark users as WP:3X. However, what was particularly upsetting was Bbb23 undoing my changes tagging the banned user as a ban, especially their claim that, as a non-admin, it isn't my place to tag banned users like that. However, since I had also initially closed the ban discussion as a non-admin, I guess tagging the user as banned and harping on it looked bad and as if I were paying attention to the wrong thing.

Undoing the banned user tag and the reverting of my changes to WP:NAC were why I brought his conduct to ANI in the first place (I did understand why he reverted my changes to the sockmasters, even if I didn't express that). Unfortunately, being told that I was close to a block and that I was an CIR case made me pretty upset, and because of that, it looked as if I was complaining about him reverting my edits and being uncivil, when that really was not my primary concern. In retrospect, I shouldn't have brought it to WP:ANI, it could have been worked out at the talkpage.

As far as nitpicking, I really was just concerned because it looked as if Bbb23 was saying I am not allowed to touch banned user tags or add/remove them. I'm not sure whether or not non-admins can tag users as banned or modify the template. Your clarification on ANI helps and I hope you're correct, but since Bbb23 said otherwise, I'm not 100% sure who is right. If I could get further clarification that would be helpful. In the meantime I intend to avoid touching banned user tags.

One more thing; Bbb23 is not a bad person. Though they may have been rude, you're correct that their decision was correct and I was wrong. That being said, being polite and courteous, like you were, really goes a long way, and I hope that administrators remember this when interacting with other users. Being civil is important. (and it's why, despite the fact that I've made plenty of controversial edits and was a real idiot in middle school when I first started on Wikipedia, I've never been blocked in my 11+ years here)

I'm sorry for this wall of text, and I hope this was coherent enough. Let me know if I'm off the mark.

All the best

-- Rockstonetalk to me! 05:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rockstone35: I added closing discussions which require imposing a block or a ban to WP:BADNAC. That will hopefully help future editors understand that it isn't allowed. (talk page stalker) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

That really helps, thank you so much! I do wonder if that's in the correct place since its under the "Deletion discussions" section (my original edit to the page placed it there, before I put it in the lead. But I'm not sure where else it should go. You basically did the same thing I did, so I hope your edit doesn't get reverted like mine. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 05:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Why do you think I should bow out of the subject matter for the indefinite future? I don't understand. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 05:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Jfc, Rockstone, when you're literally on your absolute last legs before being indefinitely blocked, you should be moving away from generic blocking discussions. The fact that you are attempting to get more, not less, involved with blocking policy, is an obvious CIR issue. Please take my advice before you commit wikisuicide. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

If I seem oblivious, I'm sorry. I don't get the impression I was at risk of being indefinitely blocked (although I was at a risk of being at least temporarily blocked) but rather that my behavior was disruptive and that was the problem. But aside from that, my post on that talk page was on the recommendation of Bbb23. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 05:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

An extra thank you for showing that you were at least paying attention to what I said; I was beginning to despair. Whatever the end result of this situation, that gives me more hope for the project.

Nat Gertler (talk) 03:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for what you do! :) Giooo95 (talk) 01:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Viztor's PCR rights restored

Hi, I know this is really none of my business, but Viztor was stripped of PCR as of 1 July because, frankly, they were found not to be very good at it. Not entirely their fault, as English is not their first language (I notice that whole set of exchanges and complaints has been archived from their talk page. I only know this because we had a few exchanges when they nominated one of my articles for deletion--one of several such failed deletion nominations, among a lot of procedural errors made by this editor which bode very ill for their being granted any such privileges. Again, not my business and you can tell me to shove it if you want.) I get that people deserve second chances, but this editor needs a lot more experience on en.wiki (I know I'm far from alone in this opinion).ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@ZarhanFastfire: Did you read the request? Viztor laid all that out rather well, so none of it was a secret when Swarm restored PCR. (talk page stalker) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

If you say so. And yes, I have. What I see are non-stop grammatical errors indicating the editor doesn't have adequate English to proofread their own writing, which does not inspire confidence (in me, anyway): we're talking about basic subject verb agreement, singular vs. plural, and so on; moreover, the editor (as I read them) still has not really taken on board the reasons why for the non-confidence in their abilities to perform PCR tasks. It's barely been three weeks since the "expiry" and I seem to recall the admin who made that decision recommending they get three months of substantive editing under their belt before attempting it again, of course we may all agree to disagree, and yes, I am, of course, biased. When you say they "laid all that out rather well", you appear to disregard all the other issues beyond PCR itself which suggest a more general competence deficit on Viztor's part (all of those complaints, etc., since archived (yes, I know that's their right)). I mean no disrespect to anyone concerned; I normally don't involve myself in such matters, but this editor's disruptive behaviour (for lack of a better word) in general makes me question the wisdom of this. But I'm sure the checks and balances will sort it out one way or the other, and I'll be happy to be wrong if that's what happens.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• @ZarhanFastfire: I wouldn't tell you to shove it. Viztor is not actually wrong in his rebuttal that he shouldn't be expected to investigate pending edits in depth. PC review is just a cursory check to make sure an edit isn't vandalism, a BLP vio, or otherwise-obvious disruption. Their requesting statement is absolutely in the right. But it they can't be bothered to check something like this, then it does become a CIR issue. The ability to spot subtle vandalism when there is a verifiable source right there is indeed a CIR issue, and I did not catch that. I'll have to review their edits to make sure this isn't still happening. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

A "fair and balanced" answer. Not being an admin of any kind myself, I'm not familiar with things like PCR - I'd not even heard of it till I read about it on V's talkpage in June. I guess it's useful to have for pages whose original creators are no longer active and which are not on anyone else's watchlist. To the point, I'll just leave you with this to consider: During my conflict with V, their arguments were vague and unpointed, and their tactics extremely misguided: nominating article for the subject, a short film, being "not well known" and "impossible to find", for one (worrying in more than one way, these assertions); then attacking it because they thought one of its awards was from a festival they considered fraudulent "afer doing some digging" (their words), and to make that point stick (even though it's irrelevant since it's an argument by association), proceeded to nominate the festival's article for deletion too (the festival has been around since the 60s). Obviously, both nominations failed, but these were the last in a series of similar over-the-top deletion nom's, which only stopped when they were told to stop by an admin. Before the decision to keep the article in question was actually made, V actually had the temerity to come to my talk page and point me toward WP:NFILM, so that I could learn "how to write article that lasts", so confident were they of the result. I think they meant well, but the point is they lack not only sound judgement but patience to see things through (noted when they also attempted closing or re-opening lists, etc.). Right, I got all that off my chest. Sorry to bother you with all of this.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, ZarhanFastfire, thank you for bringing it to my attention. I will look into this when I get the chance. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. This discussion over the first nominated article and the second nominated article will help get you started. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Re Special:Diff/907918195

"There's no reason to be a condescending asshole to the responding administrators at AIV, and in fact, I'd rather you simply not file reports here if you're going to give us an attitude." What the fuck? First, you weirdly interpret I think it's better if you left it to another admin, if you're unfamiliar with these as [L]eave it to an admin who knows better—that's probably because you were so concerned with clearing the non-existent backlog at AIV. Then, you call me a condescending asshole giving "attitude"? These are common spambots and almost every admin I've seen at WP:AIV is familiar with these, so it surely wouldn't have hurt if you'd let that report stay for like 20 minutes before attacking me. That was the worst response I've ever got on Wikipedia from someone that isn't a long-term vandal, and that's saying something. Hope you have as pleasant day as you are. —Rutilant (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)