User talk:Swarm

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

@This user can be reached by Wikipedia email.

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

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

Rfc closure at Here (album)

Hi. Regarding this RfC closure, can you please specify in your closing statement what you mean by “trimming”? As is noted on the votes and discussion, the RfC creator proposed removal of positive reviews from prose (which is against NPOV policy, while trimming and the trimming understanding is copy editing/pruning any long quotes or statements. Which are you referring to? Lapadite (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• The RfC clearly specified that "trimming" meant the disputed edit. Nothing more, nothing less. The respondents of the RfC knew exactly what changes they were assessing, and unfortunately the consensus view did not share your concerns.  Swarm  talk  03:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Not clear on what you're determining. The RfC itself just mentions 'trimming', not what is actually proposed which is "removing notable and positive reviews from prose". Are you specifically saying there's a consensus to remove positive reviews per RfC proposal (in violation of NPOV policy) while multiple editors disagreed with that proposal? Aside from the "concerns" there - which include depriving readers of notable content, policy-violation, tendentious editing behavior, and potential erroneous vote-counting & treating policy-violating argument as valid; as linked there, proposals/arguments are considered on merit and those in violation of policy are not supported) - I don't think the closing statement, whatever it specifically supports, is clear. It's a formal close per which pertinent editing, ie., removal of reviews, is done, and that is there for future reference. That's why I'm asking if you could be specific in the closing statement on what is the actual consensus you determined amongst multiple editors saying and agreeing on different things. E.g., if it's your belief, specifying: "RfC consensus appears to be that reviews removed by Dan56/RfC creator should be removed", or something where you note what exactly you believe is agreed upon or the meaning of "trimming" you determined is agreed upon (e.g, editors generally consider 'trimming' a copy-editing process, not a red flag-'removal of notable and positive reviews' process - I know If I were passing by an RfC like that (and didn't go through the edit history & read all the comments on Talk) I'd think it is copyediting/making summaries concise and pruning long quotes that is being proposed, not actually removing several notable and positive reviews). Surely, you must see that specifying what exactly is the perceived consensus is important, particularly with contentious discussions and particularly with vague terminology like "trimming" used in RfC. WP:CLOSE Lapadite (talk) 06:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

How is it not clear though? I'm not jumping to some conclusion on my own, the RfC literally specified what "trimming" meant. It used the word "specifically". "Should this section of the article be trimmed, specifically in the way my (undone) attempt had? That was the RfC question. So, when you tell me that the RfC mentioned "trimming" as a vague concept, you're objectively wrong. The question was specifically over a proposed change. I'll add an addendum to the close, if it will give you peace of mind, but you really need to stop implying bad faith motivations on Dan's part.  Swarm  talk  19:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not about you, it's about the RfC wording & contentious nature of discussion (in which multiple people disagreed) necessitating specifics from closing statement on what there was agreement if any. I'm saying that the closing statement's not clear on what specifically you believe there was consensus for (e.g., "exclusion of the reviews RfC creator Dan56 removed" or "making reviews summaries more concise"), given that the RfC proposal is vague. People generally don't look through article edit history or read full discussions, they typically see RfC proposal and vote. RfC creator did not state they wanted to remove a number of (positive) reviews, they phrased it as "trimming", and most, including myself, would agree trimming long sentences and quotes is good (and I'd done such trimming myself and also stated there that more should be done). See how "trimming" from RfC creator is a different, contentious, POV thing than making reviews excerpts more concise; hence the closing should specify what kind of "trimming" you think there was consensus for (you devoted a sentence to it and the rest to your view of the significance of the content dispute and conduct on RfC). Anyone, going by common sense and easily supported by WP's PAG, can go ahead and add notable reviews including the ones that were removed by the RfC creator. And regarding "concerns" you referred to earlier (which I don't think should be dismissed), RfC closure should always take WP's PAG into account when gauging RfCs/arguments, particularly with contentious debate that concern policy; see: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads...The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue." See also: "The usefulness of RfCs is strongly affected by the way the close is written. Consider your wording carefully, and think of how different explanations could be interpreted by different editors. All editors should feel like their comments have at least been carefully considered ... Closure of borderline, controversial, or complicated discussions will usually require more careful consideration and a more detailed explanation".

If you wish, see an explicit closing statement I'd made for an RfC (that was not a contentious discussion) here, specifying what exactly the agreement was on, so that editors may reference it accurately. That's ultimately the point. As I noted above, and in my experience here, "trimming" can easily and usually does refer to making prose concise, reducing the length of sentences, long quotes, etc: a copyediting task - not the blanking of notable content, and namely here, removal of a number of positive reviews from POV. As this was a contentious discussion/RfC, in which again multiple participating editors disagreed with the RfC creator (and disagreement/the concerns given were not taken into account for the closure, but that's another point), closure should really specify what editors on both sides agreed on, if anything. I recommend also referring to: Addressing objections. I don't want to belabor the point any longer, however. It's fine if you don't feel comfortable giving specifics on the closure, whether or not due to the nature of the RfC proposal & discussion; I'll just take this concern to appeal/review for evaluation when I have the time. Cheers. Lapadite (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting bizarre. You're really coming across as being unable to reason with, and you're getting into WP:IDHT, WP:DROPTHESTICK territory. You keep saying that "multiple people disagreed". Yes. It's a content dispute. People were in a disagreement. That's why it was a formal RfC that required an uninvolved assessment. That doesn't change the fact that it was clearly a consensus to "trim" the section, in a specific way, as presented via a diff in the RfC question. You repeatedly stating that "people disagreed" with a consensus can't override a consensus. You repeatedly insinuating that the word "trim" is this loaded, vague term, and people didn't know what they were weighing in on, even though there was a specific diff in the RfC question, simply doesn't make sense. It's not realistic. Your repeated accusations that "removing positive reviews" is somehow inherently out of line with policy don't make sense either. Something like assigning appropriate weight to, or appropriately balancing, reviews in an article is subjective. It can only ever be resolved via a community consensus. So, acting like a consensus to remove positive reviews is in some way illegitimate, you're simply wrong. That's not how anything works around here. Your repeated implications that the RfC creator is motivated by malice are unacceptable as well. If anything, I'm more concerned about your COI here, because this is going beyond reasonable need for clarification or polite disagreement. As an uninvolved observer, this is a minor, routine content dispute, that was resolved via a formal RfC with a fairly clear consensus. I'm sorry you didn't "win", this particular content dispute, but refusing to accept the result is really not reasonable at all. At the end of the day, you don't own the article. The community reviewed an issue and decided to endorse a proposal that you disagreed with. You are expected to have the competence to accept DR outcomes that are not to your liking. That's just part of editing here. I vaguely remembered your username just now, and I decided to look you up in the archives. I will note for the record that you brought a frivolous complaint to AN/I back in May. I observed that you had an "inability to work through a content dispute in good faith", I had to correct your misrepresentation of policy (again, over removed content that you disagreed with). I opined that you were excessively personalizing a content dispute as well. Not trying to attack you, but it looks like this is a persistent issue. You need to learn how to resolve disputes in good faith.  Swarm  talk  02:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and a request

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

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

Thank you, Swarm, that's much appreciated. In the case of the Religion and Nothingness article, it would help if you could remove the visibility of all revisions except the current one. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator:  Done  Swarm  talk  18:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of JEtt Setting Jasmin page

first of all, let me quote the guidelines on the talk page:

Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks For disputes, seek dispute resolution

You did none of these. Your language was insulting. And, in case you think I am being overly sensitive, let us be clear on what the issue is here. I submitted an article for REVIEW. It was not reviewed... it was flagged and deleted without any useful feedback being given to give me a chance to make the necessary changes. How do you expect new writers to learn from their mistakes if you don't provide useful feedback and, furthermore, become insulting as soon as you are challenged? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheChau26 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Okay, so two things. First, your article was reviewed, and it was rejected. I have restored Draft:Jet Setting Jasmine so you can see this for yourself. Second, your article was tagged for a procedural speedy deletion, which has nothing to do with the AFC review process. I'm simply an uninvolved administrator who was patrolling the speedy deletion log, I reviewed the nomination, and deleted it accordingly. There's no need to personalize this issue. I'm a reasonable person, and you can negotiate with me in good faith. The speedy deletion did not mean that there can not be an article, nor is it any sort of review or judgment call on the article that goes any deeper than the reason that it was deleted. I'm genuinely sorry that I came across as being mean or rude to you, but at the same time, I was simply being blunt here. You wrote more of an advertisement rather than an academic article, and your comment on the talk page seemed questionable at best. But, since it's just a draft, it's really not that big of a deal. If you're going to completely rewrite the article, as you suggest you will, I will leave it alone, and we can all move on. If you fail to rewrite it neutrally, it's simply going to be deleted again. Some more good faith advice for you, disputes with administrators are handled through discussions with said administrators. If you reach an impasse, you can appeal to other administrators and the community at large at WP:AN. WP:MEDCOM is for serious content disputes.  Swarm  talk  18:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Re: Draft: Jet Setting Jasmine Article Deletion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 31 October 2018.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 10:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

CEPA

Any reasoning for deleting the Center for European Policy Analysis page?

• @38.140.57.194: Yes, unfortunately it was nominated for deletion, and no one was able to demonstrate that it satisfied Wikipedia's notability policy. You can see the full rationale for deletion on the discussion page. The article may be recreated if additional reliable, independent sources that significantly cover CEPA are uncovered, but no one was able to demonstrate this during the community review.  Swarm  talk  18:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Re: Draft: Jet Setting Jasmine Article Deletion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)