User talk:Swatjester

Φ

Greetings from NYC

Glad to see your work with Wikipedia:Wikimedia DC. You can see our page at meta:Wikimedia New York City, and our meetings are cataloged at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC and our archive pages (we started organizing as a chapter in November). Our first real outreach project was Wikipedia Takes Manhattan. My advice on meetups is here. I'd also suggest you contact other local groups such as Free Culture Georgetown, Free Culture Virginia Tech (if that's not too far), Internet Society of Greater Washington DC (if anyone still answers their e-mail), and the DC office of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Good luck!--Pharos (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Thanks for the message I have taken on board what you have said. Christopher140691 (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

2 wrong edits is hardly enough to remove the rollback access is it? Christopher140691 (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that the above is stated correctly and that his rollback access should be given back. He should be taught how to use it not have it taken off him. Like every new user they need to be introduced the method not have it taken off them That normally leads to personal attacks or vandalism. Chubbennaitor 17:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not how rollback works. It's easily given and easily taken away. He can learn how to revert properly using the manual tools, rather than the rollback button. I should mention there are not just "2 wrong edits", but that's 2 within the last 50 today. I'm sure if I took the time to dig, I could find others, but that's not the point. The point is the use he is doing of it is disruptive. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you took it in the wrong way- I was simply saying that he should have a second chance to learn more about the tool. The Guettrada thing I had discovered she/he was under fire from other editors and give him/her support because the one thing I hate is when someone retires because of the hassle. Don't take this badly but you need to think more about what you say and actually take things in before expressing your views because then you might have a more nuetral view about things. As I believe part of the Bible tells us. Forgive people but let them know how you made them feel by a small note and get on with it. Please, take this in a calm view and not a strong and over the top one like some people do not aimed at you. Nothing I have said was to insult you. Chubbennaitor 18:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The Bible does not tell me anything. Much of what you are saying applies to yourself as well. In two years of editing here, I've learned my areas of deficiency. I hope that you will do so as well. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I request the rollback again and if I mess it up again then you can revoke it for ever. Is that a deal or not? Christopher140691 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You can request rollback anytime you want, at the request page. Considering two other admins decided to deny it there, I'd suggest that you just keep editing for a while and then request it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If he abides the use of it well I can't see the problem with giving it back and taking the deal. Oh and it depends on beliefs but the Bible thing comes into everyones daily lives. I'm not a vicar. Chubbennaitor 19:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Actions

Honestly, I was shocked by what you did. I still don't understand it. My gut says that you aren't that kind of person. Your actions said otherwise. I was very disappointed and deeply saddened by what you did. I'm not at all invested in most people around here - I have no sense of them as people. But there are a lot of people that you feel you know and that you have some respect for. And while I have disagreed with you on occasion, up until that point I had some respect for you and thought I knew you. I'm still puzzled, I still don't know what to make of what you were doing. I do know that Richard was stalked and threatened. So I know that your allegation that he was a liar when he said so was false. Irrelevant, of course, since we let people delete their user page for no reason. But also false.

I find your actions that do to be inconsistent with your actions in general here. But lacking any other explanation, I can only assume that that's also who you are. Guettarda (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think my block was fair on its merits, but I was the wrong person to make the block (although, at the time, it didn't occur to me - I didn't realise I was undoing your deletion, since I got there via an email from SB, asking me to delete his page and explaining why). It wasn't on my mind until I saw your very personally focussed comments on ANI. My reaction shows that I have neither forgiven nor forgotten. But past is past - we all make mistakes (I believe you made one, you believe I made one, but hey, we're in agreement that someone made a mistake. The rest is commentary.) Anyway, KC likes you, so who am I to differ? I know your heart is in the right place. Guettarda (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

PetraSchelm

Hi, Swatjester. Could you please consider laying off Petra for a while - she's been the only editor on the ground so far that's been dealing with the recent spate of disruptive TOR IPs and throwaway accounts registered from and editing on TOR. Dmcdevit and I have both been very busy trying to root out all of this guy's accounts - personally, I think it might be ArbCom-banned editor Voice of Britain, who returned at the same time this nasty new TOR sockmaster ramped up his efforts. east.718 at 06:09, May 6, 2008

And that privileges her to push her POV in what way? I could care less about her working to stop the TOR IP, that's fine, but she needs to stop being disruptive on pedophilia articles, something that she's done from the very start of her most recent tenure here (excluding any prior accounts she more than likely had before starting). Your efforts might be better spent suggesting to Petra to stop editing pedophilia articles to fit her point of view. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

She isn't entitled to push any sort of POV, just like any other editor isn't; however I'd be pleased if we provided a little more support to lone editors who are dealing with waves of sockpuppets from banned users coordinating offsite. If you've got any evidence that PetraSchelm isn't this user's first account, please email either myself, Dmcdevit, or Ryan Postlethwaite with anything you've got. Thanks, east.718 at 06:24, May 6, 2008

The evidence is clear from the very first days of her editing, when she instantly dove into deletion debates and pro-pedophile activism articles, citing esoteric policies, and knowledge of our admin procedures. Her decision to deal with waves of sockpuppets, while admirable, does not excuse the severity of her other behavior, and as such, I cannot support it. There are always other editors to help deal with sockpuppet waves, either at AN/I, on AIV, IRC, etc. You can always protect the relevant articles etc. There are other options, rather than choosing to overlook her behavior simply because she simultaneously makes good edits. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but 1) I was cleared by the checkuser you asked for 2) I haven't just made good edits, I massively upgraded the child pornography article and added considerable references to it (with Jack-A-Roe) 3) the PAW mentors are dealing with the socks so we can minimize drama 'n' disruption by keeping the reports off AN/I 4) we did semi-protect The Child Protection Act of 1978, but semi-protection is always less than ideal solution, I'm told, so haven't requested semi for child pornography, etc. 5) I'm not sure what your problem with me is, but it does seem rather venomous and personal. Like, for example, don't you owe me an apology for accusing me of defacing my own userpage with a Nazi flag when it was obviously done by a sock?...-PetraSchelm (talk) 08:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You were not cleared by the checkuser. The result was "no obvious sockmaster found", however that does not at all mean you were cleared. Your misrepresentations are telling: I never accused you of defacing your own userpage. I noted that the userpage was defaced. Your "quotation marks" are quoting something that I did not say. Stay on the straight and narrow, and you'll have no problems. Keep being disruptive and manipulative, and you'll be blocked. It's that simple.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

They're italics for emphasis, not "quotation marks." And it did seem to me that you were strongly implying I did that myself. Let's also be clear that you accused me in your checkuser request of "being familiar with the desysop policy," but that I never said anything about de-sysoping you, and in fact did not pursue any dispute resolution whatsoever; I just stayed away from you/worked on the encyclopedia. I understand that you may have some strong feelings about an organization called "perverted justice," but I'm a graduate student, not a "vigliante," and I have nothing whatsoever to do with that organization.-PetraSchelm (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not claimed you ever did. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Petra's disruption hasn't been limited to the paedophilia articles. She stalked me to Hystero-epilepsy, where I had restored a valid external link (to Skeptic's Dictionary), and reverted 4 times.[1] She admitted on my complaint at the fringe theory noticeboard that her motivation for this wasn't that she actually cared, but that she hoped doing so would wear me down so I would quit "wikistalking Jack." (My edits by no means fit the definition of wikistalking. Hers certainly did.)

She's also continued to make thinly-veiled accusations of child abuser sympathy against established contributors,[2] in this case eleland.

Behaviour like this shows why Petra shouldn't be "laid off." A large portion of her edits are disruptive and noncontributory. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't even merit a response; but anyone who reads through the two dicussions on the fringe theories noticeboard can see that consensus is against AnotherSolipsist in both (and he's not happy about it).-PetraSchelm (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I remove content on my talk page when people are arguing back and forth with each other without addressing things to me. So keep that in mind. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: USMC

No problem. Mistakes like that happen on occasion, especially when you've been at it for a while without a break. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: WP:TOV

Swat, you're not exactly a neutral party. You note to me was a personal one, not in your role of administrator. I view WP:TOV as a policy and will suggest to others that they do the same. Bstone (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:TOV is not a policy, nor guideline, it is an essay. For you to suggest that it is policy is disruptive. I'd suggest you stop. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You will block me as I suggest people take threats serious? This is one for WP:LAME. Again, you are not a neutral party. Bstone (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I would block you for pretending an essay is policy, and trying to enforce it as such. And I am a neutral party here. It's not the case that someone who opposes you is not a neutral party. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

SWAT, you certainly not a neutral party here and I think you're losing whatever objectivity you have left. Please stop. Bstone (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

[3] Tiptoety ^talk 22:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy note

Your actions are reviewed on ANI here. Best regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries, its already over. I didn't even bother to comment. However, I will comment on something else - Swat, you have been spending WAYYYYYYYYYYYYY too much time at lolcats. Seriously. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there really such thing as too much time spent with lolcats? DigitalC (talk) 06:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of any.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

File:ANI lolcat.jpg

Lolcatting people's complaints

I won't edit war over this again - please, though, stop adding lolcats. They are insulting to good faith users who are upset and bring a complaint to AN or ANI. They want something constructive being done, not mockery. Neıl ☎ 09:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

And we'll agree to disagree here. I don't think they are insulting, and neither do quite a few others. Incidentally, if you'd like to further discuss the backstory behind the FBI cat image, Bstone, and the like, I'm on IRC right now. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 09:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be good if you could refrain from using them when someone is complaining about death threats. I think that's the worst one (Threat Cat) - could you dial that one down, at least? When it comes to receiving death threats, you might think the complainant has simply been trolled, they may well have been trolled, but it's not a pleasant thing to receive for many people. Yes, some of them might need to not take things so seriously, but immediately responding with a lolcat isn't the best way to calm the situation down. I don't use IRC. You can discuss it here, if you like, or email me. Neıl ☎ 10:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The point of IRC was to speed things up, but it's sort of a non-issue. I'll take your comments under consideration. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 10:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a start - thank you. Neıl ☎ 10:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Swatjester/lolcats

Epic. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Psst

The secret no-watermark version of rolfbot is at http://wigflip.com/roflbot/no-watermark. Neıl ☎ 10:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Thanks for protecting Club Penguin. The vandalism is just too much to handle PepsiPlunge13™ 13:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)