Jump to content

User talk:Swarm: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Rollback rights: new section
Line 369: Line 369:


having planned to contact you (as reaching already 4000 pages on watchlist), but I was quite busy, but here you may read my final [[User_talk:KIENGIR#Twinkle|incentive]]. As you are on the list of admins who may grant rollback rights, this is what I apply for. About my [[User_talk:KIENGIR#April_2017|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([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 20:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC))
having planned to contact you (as reaching already 4000 pages on watchlist), but I was quite busy, but here you may read my final [[User_talk:KIENGIR#Twinkle|incentive]]. As you are on the list of admins who may grant rollback rights, this is what I apply for. About my [[User_talk:KIENGIR#April_2017|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([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 20:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC))

Hello,
KIENGIR is doing lies, he should BANNED.

Revision as of 22:17, 3 June 2019


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.


Regarding Article:Colors Kannada

Hello Swarm, Would you plz unprotect article:Colors Kannada as its 'create-protected'. I am requesting as because of this draft at AfC. Thank you. --Gpkp (u • t • c) 18:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Swarm. --Gpkp (u • t • c) 17:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

your signature changes

I've been meaning to thank you for moving away from a particular signature you used to use (quite some time ago now). It appeared to be embedded in a swarm of bees, and to me (and probably to anyone else with really poor vision) the resultant low contrast made it virtually illegible. Thanks again. Meters (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Banned User:PAKHIGHWAY

I don't want to be accused of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, but User:DdBbCc22 seems very similar to banned User:PAKHIGHWAY. The editor makes the same type of long edits as PAKHIGHWAY on History of Pakistan, and very similar styles, like copy/pasting large content/formatting from history of India to history of Pakistan as seen here by PAKHIGHWAY and here where a lot of the lead was copied, and most importantly, the obsession to change content to Indus valley as seen here by PAKHIGHWAY's sock (reverted by Capitals00) and same tinkering here with "Indus valley". @Lorstaking, Yamla, NeilN, and Kautilya3: I saw you guys worked with the PAKHIGHWAY in the past, I mainly faced the users multiple IP/socks in the past 12-24 months. But, these are the edit styles I found of PAKHIGHWAY. But, I want to sincerely apologize in advance if I am wrong. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]

User talk:Highpeaks35, I also not want to be accused of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and I hope I will give my opinion respectfully. In my first case, I not copied the content same to same from History of India as in case of PAKHIGHWAY and I did a large number of modifications, infact the "self-created" or "modified content" that I added is much large than the copied one. As you said "a lot of content", I think it's wrong. The content which seems "a lot" is citations or references, I copied these citations because they are absolutely applicable there and also I observed many times on Wikipedia that the citations of common topics on two or more articles are same. In second case, I changed content to Indus Valley civilization from Ancient India because at there, the others parts of Fertile Crescent (Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia and Ancient India) have their orginal links such as article of Ancient Egypt is for the Egyptian civilization but article of Ancient India (redirect of History of India) is about whole history of not only India but whole Indian subcontinent till the partition of British India. So in this way the article of Indus Valley civilization (purely for history of civilization) gives us more information about ancient Indian civilization than redirect-article of Ancient India. I hope you will understand my point.DdBbCc22 (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019

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

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Want to Know How to Build a Better Democracy? Ask Wikipedia

You're quoted in it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please unprotect

Hi, I see you are listed as the admin who moved Lamar S. Smith to Lamar Smith. Would you mind unprotecting the page? 117.229.68.203 (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 117, the page in question is indefinitely semi-protected due to persistent vandalism. If you wish to contribute, I would recommend either suggesting edits on the talk page of the article or creating an account (it's free). If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them here and myself, Swarm, or another person will respond when we can --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. x2 TheSandDoctor Talk 15:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfA comment

Hi Swarm. You've always struck me as one of the good ones and, which is not the same, wise. I was, therefore, quite surprised to read, "The only possible reading of your doing so is that you're caving to the shameful people who are trying to sway the result of the RfA ex post facto." I get that the RfA is contentious, that many people feel strongly in both directions; but d'you think you may have over-spoken here, and might be able to reconsider the strength of those words and how they come across? Happy days, LindsayHello 17:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How's my name?

Hello there, I am writing to you to see your opinion on my idea of a name. It's Auld Lang Syne. It matches all my criteria for a name: Piano (it's a song), vinyl records (it's on a lot of records, the earliest dating back to 1908!), and Literature (It's a poem.) And most of all, it's available globally! I think it's a good, serious name. I'm wondering on your opinion. Your help will be the upmost appreciated. Thank you. The Duke 22:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems fine to me, but the most important question is whether you think you'll be satisfied with it in the long-run. ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've had a think over these two days, and yes. I will be happy to stick with the name stated above in the long-run. It's nice, and serious, and reflects my interests, and hobbies. My other idea, Greensleeves, is taken. And I cannot think of any other names, that aren't taken. Thus, I will be happy with the name. Thank you. The Duke 15:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • However with that being said. I'm not one hundred percent ready for a rename. As I am thought of a new name just about an hour ago. It's The Kerry Dance. I will now take some time to decide on either/or, and then, when I'm ready (and when I'm able), make the request. Thank you. The Duke 06:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. TheSandDoctor Talk 15:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to avoid AEscalation?

Hi Swarm, and Guy Macon -- re [1][2], what would it take to address your concerns? --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 22:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering what is going with my rename?

Hello there Swarm, I've taken this week to think over the two names, and I've came to a decision. I'm happy with The Kerry Dance, it's a nice, serious name. And when I asked at WP:AN, I was given two proposals, one by you, and User:Cyberpower678, Cyber told me to come back in six months, and you said "The rename should be actioned when they're ready.". So, since I am ready for my last rename, one where I am happy to stick with this name long-term, what is going to happen? Will Cyber's proposal kick into effect, and my rename will come in six months, or will yours kick in, with it happening now? Thank you. The Duke 14:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If Swarm wants to rename you now, they are free to. I'm still sticking by my waiting period here. You should continue using this time to muddle over your name. You may have something better in mind when the time comes. I'm doing this, because I am effectively going against the wide majority of my fellow renamers stances on denying you one last rename. Consider yourself a big exception here as I won't be doing that again.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyberpower678: Thank you so much for the exception! If Swarm decides to rename me, I will take another week to finalise my thinking. That's if he is even a renamer, I don't think he is. Again, thank you Cyber. The Duke 15:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that Swarm is not a global renamer. * Pppery * has returned 19:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Thanks!

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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

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)[reply]

  • Thanks for catching this. I'll try to keep an eye on things over there. ~Swarm~ {sting} 19:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • Can you summarize what the issue is, so that I know what I'm looking for? ~Swarm~ {sting} 20:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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."[4]

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)[reply]

The editor is refusing to acknowledge any content they restored failed verification and is commenting on the editor rather than the content.[5] QuackGuru (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a policy called consensus. It was originally added here.[6] There is no consensus for the content.[7][8][9]

See the latest edit.[10] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • @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)[reply]

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[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

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

Guideline and policy news

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

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. TheSandDoctor Talk 13:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [11] 2600:1004:B127:94F9:E943:3C26:A260:725A (talk) 04:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • @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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

Hello, KIENGIR is doing lies, he should BANNED.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Swarm&oldid=900172219"