|
User talk:Swarm/Archive 13
Block notices should not be removed, should they? Might reverting and then locking talk page access while their block is in effect be appropriate? Thank you for your consideration. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Border Town ‖ 01:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Talk page accessHi! Coming to you as the blocking admin, I think 199.101.62.36 might need their talk page access revoked. Marianna251TALK 11:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
My candidature for "Pending changes reviewer"Hello Swarm! Sorry for disturbing you but I wanted to clear out some misconceptions about me. First of all, I totally take the responsibility of what I have done in my edits history. Well, you can notice that I created my account on 8 April, 2017 but actually started editing several months later as I was totally unaware of the roles of an editor on Wikipedia. That's why while creating one of my articles, I added the tag of "good articles" to that and tried to protect it from a single vandalism case. But for those reasons I have been multiple times advised by few administrators and they showed me the right way to do the edits. Also, I have created few articles which were eventually deleted (Maybe they were not that worthy but my motive was always to add an information to this encyclopedia). Truly, I have learnt from my mistakes and that's why I have written in my application that I have steadily learnt as a editor over the period. I also promise to continue to improve myself in coming times. So, please do provide me this responsibility. Thank you Rishu Shukla (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Can you teach me how to became an administrator and how to protect pages?I love Wikipedia, but I don't know how to contribute it.(I do know how to edit ,that's the thing everyone know how to do that) Linear D (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Linear D
Can you compare this version, for example, with the version you have just protected right now?I think you need to give this topic a bit more attention. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quim_Torra&oldid=841736384 Regards,Miska5DT (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Kartik aaryan(Personal attack removed) Joven salvaje (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Kartik aaryanKartik aaryan is 29 years old according to articles In mumbai mirror so his birthdate is 1988 not 1990 Tranquiled (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
ANIhi. I took your point but just wanted to stress I acted in good faith, clearly I know about procedures and hated ANI. I don't know why I'm coming to ANI these days where in 17 months of editing I didn't have to come. To set the record straight, I did posed 6 times here. the report about relist of Afd cannot be seen as disruptive, that user did disruption to 20 plus afd. that checkuser report is also fine as it's urgent and no removal of warning. I agree the afd/csd request can be done elsewhere. As I said, I never wanted to be at ANI. Just to inform you, I knew where to go and I did report username at UAA, and the rest, I don't come to ANI for no reason, I also tried to avoid this place. This histmetge should be at talkpage, I apologise as I will like to add my viewpoints to this and check if I did the right thing. However, just sharing your language seems a little harsh. I am an editor from 2007 and clearly I know where to go if needed. it made me a little discouraged as any regulars who got templated. I will heed your good advice though. Quek157 (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Event CoordinatorHi Thank you for granting me the right to use the tool for events. Please I need more clarification on " You should not grant this for more than 10 days." Stated in your comment ..Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC) @Olaniyan Olushola: So, as you may know, there is now a rule that new accounts can't create articles anymore. They have to be confirmed. This is usually done automatically after four days and 10 edits. Obviously, this will prevent new accounts created during editing events from making new articles, so that's a problem. That is why event coordinators are allowed to manually confirm accounts. It will allow the new editors participating in the event to create new articles and edit semi-protected pages. When you add the "confirmed" user right to a new account, you will have the option to set it to expire after a certain amount of time. The maximum you're allowed to set it for is 10 days. This gives the users plenty of time to become autoconfirmed permanently, and if they do not make the required 10 edits in that period of time, they will be deconfirmed until they do. You can see what I'm talking about if you practice on User:ThisIsaTest. Swarm ♠ 16:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC) Why did you protect ANI?WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO SILENCE ME? 31.73.184.49 (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Dispute ResolutionHi Swarm, First of all - I apologize in advance for wasting your time in case this does not concern you or it is not you whom I should actually contact - but I'm in need of help. So - on one of the debates regarding the content of the article Origins of Romanians you have said to "[...] so please propose any changes via formal dispute resolution.". While I have read the Dispute resolution page it is a bit overwhelming. Considering my experience so far (many times shut down with reference to WP:RULES) - I have grown weary of taking action with (only) logic in mind. I need to follow follow the WP:RULES. I admit I am a "noob" and I do not at this time master the procedures and policies of Wikipedia. I believe that it would be best to have one (or preferably multiple) persons mediating this dispute. Reading all the types of dispute resolution it seems to me that the either Formal mediation or the Moderated discussion (I would tend to favor the first) would fit best but I am at a loss about the differences between them as well as how to actually initiate such a course of action (or, in case such an action has already been started by the other editors, how to find it and present my arguments). Thank you - and again, If this is not something you can or are not allowed to help me with I would be grateful if you could at least point me in the right direction (whom should I contact to get help on the matter of initiating a dispute resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 14:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
RollbackMy rollback request was denied by you. The reason I want the "rollback" feature is to revert vandalism that I see in the recent changes page. It is VERY tedious to do so with WP:TWINKLE and the rollback ability would help me TREMONDOUSLEY. The reason I was denied before was because of my edit count. I have seen many people get their rollback requests approved and they have less than 200 mainspace edits. Your reasoning for declining my request was unfounded. Do I really want to enroll in the CVA? No! The things they teach in that academy are just repeating things that I learned in the Teahouse, and the Wikipedia Adventure about 3 months ago. You also stated that I didn't have ANY anti-vandalism reverts. The main reason for this is time. In the time that I can revert 1 disruptive edit with Twinkle, I can revert 3 edits with the rollback feature. I do realize that the rollback feature is abused by many editors, and that you and the people you work with want to limit the amount of unexperienced editors with rollback permissions. I am relatively experienced with Wikipedia and its guidelines, but can be more active on Wikipedia. This rollback feature would increase my edits and time spent on here, which in turn would benefit Wikipedia. Now I understand your reasoning with the decline, and I would understand if you don't even respond to this rant. But I would be ecstatic if you read this with an open mind and reconsider your decision. Best regards, TheRealWeatherMan (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
ANI againI did, and I went through all avenues in the list but nothing seems suitable. Therefore I did such a thing. Really should had waited it out but such an Afd that have a background of edit conflict may not be proper. Especially just went through drv. If you think need any sanctions, I don't mind but hope can be impartial. Quek157 (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC) A barnstar for you!
User Alliance for SmilesHello, I was wondering if when you unblocked Allianceforsmiles you felt that the promotional nature of the block was addressed as well, in addition to the shared aspect of the account(they use "we" several times). Thanks 331dot (talk) 07:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
QueryWhat is the process for requesting file moves? Will they respond fast? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 17:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Stable versionJust wanted to thank you for creating this page, now I have something to point to :) - FlightTime (open channel) 00:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
ANI closeHi. Thought I'd mention in re this close that Livioandronico2013 was blocked for a week here, not indefinitely (as at Commons). I may be insufficiently caffeinated and reading it wrong. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Queen of time - histmerge requested - Interwiki copy right violationHi Swarm, Greetings to you. I reviewed Queen of time via NPP today which the page was created on 05:54, May 15, 2018 by s Magnumchaos. I came across the same article on Draft:Queen of Time via AfC which was created on 07:04, April 11, 2018 by Karhunkynsi244. Upon checking the history page of the Draft copy and the history page of the main space copy, it appears user Magnumchaoes copied and pasted the text from that of Karhunkynsiw44's draft copy and created the article and claimed their without proper attribution provided which seems violate the licensing terms under which it has been provided, which in turn violates the reusers' rights and obligations clause of Wikipedia's copyrights policy. I have yet to write to the mentioned users. Should my assessment is correct, thus, would like seek guidance on where to report this incident and how to proceed from here. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk)
Threatening to block meYou can’t block me when I didn’t violate any rules if you do block me I’ll make a report right is that your abusing powers by leaving threatening message on my talk page if we can discuss this in a good behavioral manor then that’s fine but don’t ever threaten me for a violation I never committed I left a message so don’t assume I’m violating rules when I left Jeff Hardy alone TheKinkdomMan talk 00:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC) TheKinkdomMan talk 00:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC) I’d like to retract my previous message and I’m sorry for my frustration and anger towards you TheKinkdomMan talk 01:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC) I will change the way I edit so please don’t block me on Wikipedia TheKinkdomMan talk 02:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC) ApologyI owe you an apology for blowing up on the ANI, You don’t deserve that and I should own up to my mistakes I appreciate that your helping me with the message you left on my talk page, I am sorry for the way I acted I’m grateful that you or any other administrator didn’t block me for my behavior, I hope I can learn from my mistakes when editing TheKinkdomMan talk 04:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
its Ok you don’t owe me an apology, it’s human nature like you said TheKinkdomMan talk 04:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC) SilveriteKeyWould you mind checking out SilveriteKey (talk · contribs) edits? I don't know what is up with them, is it likely they are trying to become autoconfirmed? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Could you please explain...You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marlene A. Eilers Koenig (2nd nomination) as delete. Two of the participants in that discussion suggested Marlene A. Eilers Koenig be salted. And you did salt it. May I ask why? Participants were all agreed that Koenig didn't measure up to our inclusion criteria at GNG. But they seem to have all based their opinions on the references already included in the article. Policy used to be pretty clear on this. The decision as to whether to keep or deletion is supposed to be based on whether the topic itself measures up to our inclusion criteria. If the topic is notable, a weak article should be kept, but flagged for improvement. So, is Koenig notable? I haven't read the deleted article, but I just performed my own web search, and I have concluded that Koenig is notable, after all. I checked Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marlene A. Eilers Koenig. King of Hearts cited WP:DELPRO, but WP:Deletion process#Deletion requested by subject says "Deletion discussions concerning biographies of living persons who are relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus to keep, may be closed as 'delete' per the deletion policy and BLP policy (request for deletion). Closers should review these policies to confirm the criteria are met, and then use their discretion." Well Koenig has given press interviews -- which I suggest is inconsistent with being a non-public figure. With the recent Royal wedding columnists working the Royal beat quoted Koenig, deffered to her opinions, over and over again. I suggest that being one of the World's leading experts in a field is inconsistent with being "relatively unknown". So, can you help me out, by explaining why you went the extra step of salting? Geo Swan (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
You deleted it per G4 but the first AFD[2] was a no consensus. Was there another AFD besides those two? I'm just curious....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
ThanksI just wanted to thank you for your thoughtful and well-considered comment on my talk page about 8 days ago. I won't discuss it further, other than to say, admins like you are what keep the project functioning properly. Andrevan@ 20:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – June 2018News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018). 
Quim Torra is not Spanish.he's Catalan. he was born in Catalonia. STOP CALLING CATALANS SPANIARDS!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymoususer65783 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC) Advice about Economy of ChinaHello, I noticed there seems to be an edit war going on between DoubleChine and DOR HK.
"My conclusion was that the real retail market at that time was half the value of the official government figure," he says. (BBC Matthew Crabbe) "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the growth in old China for the past year or so has been somewhere around zero — it's nothing like 6.8 percent," Straszheim said. The business leaders I speak to invariably say 'I don't know whether China is growing at 4 percent, or 5 percent, or 6 percent. I really don't know despite having extensive business there,'" he told CNBC (Straszheim CNBC) Scissors puts the GDP figure at less than 4 percent: Much lower than China says, but higher than the no-growth implications from external indicators like import demand or money flight. (CNBC) Billionaire distressed asset investor Wilbur Ross, meanwhile, told CNBC that he sees China's actual growth at about 4 percent on a similar basket of metrics. (CNBC) Our estimate is growth probably about 3.5 percent versus roughly 7," said Gary Shilling, president of economic research firm A. Gary Shilling and Co. (CNBC) I am not sure whether DOR HK is simply nationalistic -- but he insists on his version being correct (which is rather misleading and may suggest to the reader that the GDP growth is in fact 14%). The sourced content which he references to within CNBC does not say that. It says the exact opposite (that the total GDP growth was 3.5% and that the figures which comprise of it are off).
June 2018 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC) Unfortunately, I think the random acts of vandalism will continue on this every time the subject releases a new video/podcast/etc as they have a rather large and mischievous fan base that seems to like wrecking online systems. Not really sure what can be done about that, but thought I would let you know if you didn't already. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you no longer wish to receive notifications for this case please remove your name from the listing here For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 19:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC) Portal wars, W versus WSee this recent closure at AN3. You had encouraged these two editors to observe a voluntary mutual 1RR back in March but I wasn't sure if you thought they could be blocked for not observing it. Anyway nothing more to do for now. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC) Re: Wikipedia:Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfCHi Swarm -- I emailed you a copy of my draft of the closing statement for this RfC a week ago, & haven't heard back from you about it. Did you receive it? -- llywrch (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
The Troubles ARCA - new motionHi Swarm, You are listed as a party to The Troubles ARCA request, and this is a message to let you know that a motion has now been posted. For the Arbitration Committee, Mdann52 (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Misclick?Not a big deal, but I think you might've clicked the wrong option in responseHelper here: request is not pre-emptive so much as the page is already protected. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Adopt meHi Buddy, I am new here and wants someone who can give his knowledge to me and help me to expand wikipedia. I have seen you are currently accepting adoptees. Can you please mentor me.Kaushikdjay (talk) 07:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC) mentoringHi.
Contact an admin who is familiar with the caseSpecial:Contributions/MayonaiseInstrument. DuncanHill (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
WP:RPP archiveThank you for helping archive, but note that bot usually archive threads after 2 hours (for accepted response)/6 hours (for denied response), don't archive too early. Hhkohh (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Colors (TV channel)Hi, can you help by redirecting Colors (TV channel) to Colors (Indian TV channel) or by redirecting both to Viacom 18? The redirect page was protected by you. Thanks! Vivek Ray (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Questions from an adopteehi Swarm! Recently I've been making small edits to pages' grammar and syntax, but I've run into users reverting my changes. Am I doing something wrong? Should I only re-write sections that are marked for copy-editing? Also, I was wondering if you could shed some light on how much detail I should provide. I have done pretty extensive research on herbivory's impact on grassland diversity, and I have the sources to cite, but I wonder if the Grasslands page really needs this information. Are there more appropriate places to put the results of this research or is this sort information too detailed for wikipedia? Thanks so much! I hope you're doing well. Squashbby (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC) Re: IP editor on EpsteinMeh. I don't object to any of your actions here. My reverts at ANI may have been slightly premature, though I am fairly confident no sanctions will result from Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's comments, and there's no other reason for this to be at ANI. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser
Talkback Message added 19:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Swarm ♠ 19:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Second opinion requestedHi Swarm. I would like to get your opinion about using my rollback privileges to rollback a large number of misguided edits by Fronticla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If you refer to any of their edits with an edit summmary containing "WP:PEA", I think you will see that they are removing adjectives and descriptions that would otherwise not be removed under any of our content guidelines. The editor has refused to engage in any discussion and has edit warred extensively. I'm almost certain that Fronticla is headed for a block, but there is also the matter of cleaning up their mess. What do you think? - MrX 🖋 14:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Deletion review for Colors (Hindi TV channel)User:Christina74124 has asked for a deletion review of Colors (Hindi TV channel). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 18:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC) Talk page maniaRecently I've been getting into a lot of deep shit with some editors that are accusing me of vandalism, just because I don't agree with them. And when I try to prevent it, someone always starts it back up. I've tried WP:ANI and everything, I need this shit to stop so I can get back to normal editing and not having to deal with this. I have made some mistakes, but User:Bankster and User:YborCityJohn think I'm doing it on purpose. I need somebody to put an end to this. Thank you. Bang 🌑 21:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – July 2018News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).
Looking for an adopterDear Swarm, I am looking for an adopter. Call me Sloth. I am a freelance copy editor, writer, and teacher. I have done a few edits here and there on Wikipedia (mostly simple copy edits, as I'm still "feeling my way" around the UI and the community guidelines) but I would appreciate a single voice for guidance in learning how Wikipedia works -- functionally more than organizationally for now -- and how to avoid misunderstandings and pitfalls common to the new arrival. I have only one actual question at the moment: What is this adoption course that I see referred to? Is this a standard thing? It is mandatory? What does it consist of? The problem I am wrestling with most often is a plethora of options for help, which tend to lead me to different understandings, or different answers, every time I look, combined with difficulty finding today what I thought I saw yesterday. A more disciplined search would probably help, but that often seems like it would take far longer, and lead farther afield, than I can afford. I can find information, but guideposts would be welcomed. If you are able and willing to help, O Swarm, I would be very grateful. Thank you for your time. GGSloth (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC) 166.182.80.0/21Can you identify what user you were trying to block here? I may have found some accounts that match a very narrow useragent that indicates they are the same as the target of your block. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC) ANI thread "Block review please"
|
Guild of Copy Editors August 2018 Newsletter
 Hello and welcome to the August 2018 GOCE newsletter. Thanks to everyone who participated in the Guild's June election; your new and returning coordinators are listed below. The next election will occur in December 2018; all Wikipedia editors in good standing may take part.  Our June blitz focused on Requests and articles tagged for copy edit in October 2017. Of the eleven people who signed up, eight editors recorded a total of 28 copy edits, including 3 articles of more than 10,000 words. Complete results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Thanks to everyone who participated in the July drive. Of the seventeen people who signed up, thirteen editors completed 194 copy edits, successfully removing all articles tagged in the last three months of 2017. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are here. The August blitz will run for one week, from 19 to 25 August. Sign up now! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Tdslk. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Clockback community block or ban?
Regarding this tag , are you sure it is correct? It appears to be a community block as I see it at AN. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- See WP:CBAN. “Community block”=community ban. Swarm ♠ 16:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying and educating me, I didn't know. This is going in The Signpost by the way. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- You’re very welcome! And interesting! I look forward to reading the article! Swarm ♠ 16:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying and educating me, I didn't know. This is going in The Signpost by the way. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
A complain about an anonymous user
Hi. Can you please take a look at this] the IP user who editted this is adding and removing contents in different articles. If possible, can rhis IP be blocked? Thanks Knightrises10 (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Blocked for edit warring. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
SarekOfVulcan thanks Knightrises10 (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- @SarekOfVulcan: Thanks! Swarm ♠ 19:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Block
Please block me. Colonestarrice (talk) 05:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Pssst...
I think you forgot to push the button.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Swarm ♠ 19:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
August 2018
Hello. You may remember earlier this year you blocked Divergence5. They have returned to the Magnus Carlsen article, creating a new discussion about the same issue they edit warred over previously and making similar remarks as before ("this is not an intelligent comment"). They have also continued the ALLCAPS in edit summaries, and edit warred while telling another editor to read the associated talk page, despite not having made any edits to the talk page. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, I’ll look into this as soon as I get the chance! Swarm ♠ 06:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Hrodvarsson: Sorry about the delay here, this is too stale to block over but I will issue a warning. Swarm ♠ 19:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- No problem. It did not escalate further and the issue appears to have been settled with the input of others anyway, but I'll let you know if something else happens (or I could file a new ANI report instead if that is preferable to you). Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Hrodvarsson: Feel free to let me know! Swarm ♠ 00:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- No problem. It did not escalate further and the issue appears to have been settled with the input of others anyway, but I'll let you know if something else happens (or I could file a new ANI report instead if that is preferable to you). Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Your comments at WP:GS
I know you feel strongly that a classification template is unnecessary, but could you please watch your tone? Comments such as This is ridiculous, go contribute something meaningful to the project, anything
and This is a fairly sad attempt at bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy, and it's a little, well, stupid
are not conducive to civil discussion. Thanks –dlthewave ☎ 20:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- You’re right, I apologize for being uncivil, and I appreciate the reminder. Although I would be lying if I said that wasn’t truly how I feel, I will keep the perjoratives to myself going forward. Swarm ♠ 20:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Deletion of message
Hi,
I saw your deletion of a message by a user named Jezzy-lam on my talk page (I hadn't responded to the message yet). Is there something I should know about this user or why you deleted the message?
Ira Leviton (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Ira Leviton: The message was part of a larger spree of disruption that the user was going on. I went through their edits and reverted as much as I could after blocking them indefinitely. In theory you can restore the message if you want, but I reverted it as nonsense/disruption. Swarm ♠ 19:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- Ahh, OK thanks.
- Ira
Extended confirmed protection on KSI vs Logan Paul
I see you have added Extended confirmed protection to the KSI vs Logan Paul article which now means I cannot edit or make additions as I only have auto confirmed access. I am a major contributor to the page and was wondering if there was a way to allow me to bypass the Extended protection and continue expanding the page. TheMasterGuru (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- @TheMasterGuru: Sorry about that! I've made your account Extended Confirmed so you can continue to edit the article. Regards, Swarm ♠ 19:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you @Swarm: for putting my article creations up for auto-patrolling. I consider it an honour to be treated as such. Much appreciated, Jamesmcardle(talk) 07:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Message added 00:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
TheSandDoctor Talk 00:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
3rrnb
Just curious, but what about the 4RR vio? This gets a free pass? - wolf 09:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- I chose to protect instead in the hopes that the user would discuss. A one-sided block did not seem productive, and from what I can tell the user had not ever been warned, so I gave them a one-time break. Swarm ♠ 10:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- Take a look at his talk page, especially before the mass-blankings. There are numerous warnings for edit-warring, disruptive behavior, "revenge reverts" leaving a page in a mess, hostile edit summaries with personal attacks, and on and on. This was a clear 4RR vio, from an unrepentant, uncommunicative user will continue with this problematic behaviour. This calls for a block, (something I learned from you, so the contradiction is baffling). The next time he does this, there will be no record of this, and it'll be treated as a first time offence, likely with the same kind of enabling type of leniency you are showing here, as opposed to users with blocks who are immediately given more, longer blocks. Just be consistent. Just enforce the rules like you are supposed to and were expected to when given the tools. I know you were involved with his indef request and exchanged friendly notes, but you are one the very few to see that side. Please do some research and take the appropriate action. Thank you. - wolf 12:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- To be clear, I’m not involved, and you’re apparently misinterpreting common courtesy for sympathy for that user. I reviewed the user’s talk page and they have never been warned for edit warring. To me, page protection is preferred above blocking, particularly one-sided blocking. It takes two sides to edit war, and I would have blocked both sides had I decided to go that route. Swarm ♠|
- To be clear, "involved" as in very recently interacted with in a friendly and sympathetic manner (very sympathetic as it turns out), not WP:INVOLVED, happy? I've seen you make bad blocks, now you refuse to make a good block, as in, an obvious, straight forward and certainly called for block, not only based on the obvious 4RR vio, but past, current and very likely to be on-going, behaviour. I'm not sure how hard you looked at their talk page, but they have been warned about edit-warring before. Then there were the three different editors that all encouraged this user to stop reverting this time and discuss on the talk page, which he repeatedly ignored while arguing via revert edit summaries. And, who else would you block? No one one else violated 3RR... another thing you got wrong. (Did you even look at the report? Are you sure you have the right one?) Oh, and by the way... as of this post, he still has not come to the talk page to discuss anything. At all. So, yeah... he's definitely a great candidate to hand out a free pass to. Geez, heaven forbid you say "I got it wrong", then do the right thing. - wolf 22:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- Alright, well I'm sorry you very strongly disagree with my approach here. I understand what the term "involved" means, it means you're implying that I have some sort of sympathetic view of this user based on my comment "hope all is well", but frankly that's ridiculous. My only interaction with the user was a routine self-requested block that I performed in response to a request here, and I can only assume I was randomly selected from the 21 administrators who do SELFBLOCKs. Trying to tie that into some sort of frivolous accusation of admin abuse is really pretty desperate. I'd assume given your history you'd be familiar with the old cliché "it takes two sides to edit war" by now. Just because it's a 2 or 3-on-1 edit war does not change that concept, and just because you don't breach 3RR does not mean you can not get blocked for participation in a tag-team edit war. As I've said, between the possible options of page protection, a two-sided block, and a one-sided block, the one-sided block was my least preferred resolution, given that it was a very minor content dispute and a fairly new user who has never received a warning (I thought issuing a warning and then reporting them to be blocked before they violated the warning was poor form; ironically, the most recent "bad block" I've actually been called out on was for choosing to block in that situation). Furthermore, giving a user a break in a blockable situation isn't "giving them a free pass", it's still an aggravating factor that will result in a more serious block should there be evidence of future problematic behavior, as would their refusal to participate in talk page discussion during a period of full protection. Given that, this degree of anger over what is a perfectly routine preventative measure in response to an edit war is highly unusual. It comes across as a disproportionate degree of malice for what was a minor content dispute in an article. I suspect you may feel like you were deserving of such a break when I blocked you for a week for a 3RR vio, so why would this user be more deserving of such? It probably feels like an arbitrary double standard that is unfair to you. However, there are differences, mainly that you had a recent history of blocks for edit warring at the time, whereas this is a new user who has never been formally warned, nor ever reported to administrators for misconduct before this point. Anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree on this, as there is currently no preventative need to block the user, and blocking them after I have already chosen to protect the page would be an egregious abuse of the tools. Rest assured, this is a one-time break given the reasons I've outlined, and this user will not be getting away with continuing to edit war or refusing to discuss, now that they've been formally warned and given a motive to discuss. You don't have to agree with my methods, but asking me to block them now is inappropriate. Swarm ♠ 03:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Right, because blocking someone, so long after the fact, and after other admin interventions have occurred would be just "egregious" and "inappropriate". Glad we can agree on that. There is nothing "thinly veiled" here, (or at RfA, btw). I'm saying it straight up, you've made bad choices before, you've made another one here. Anything else you think that is insinuated, unspoken, percieved, intuited, or coming thru via a sixth sense is wrong. I've been very clear with my opinion here. I'm not claiming "admin abuse", I'm saying you got this wrong. And this is neither "frivolous" nor "desperate", it's sincere and, if anything, borne of frustration. There has been some disturbing inconsistencies at 3rrnb and this is just another example. You have editors trying to help the project by filling out these reports and admins wasting these editors time and effort with bad decisions. "
Anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
" ...is about the only thing we can agree on here. I think were done now, I know I am, unless you have anything else to add? -
wolf 19:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- It’s fine if you think I made a bad judgment call, but from the beginning you clearly implied that I did so because I was sympathetic to the user based on prior interactions, and used the term “involved”. That’s hard to interpret as anything other than an implication of admin abuse, and that’s what I characterized as “frivolous” and “desperate”. If you instead just want me to accept your feedback that you strongly disagree and that the user should have been blocked, feedback accepted. I’m genuinely sorry you’re upset by my response. Normally page protection is completely uncontroversial, and I had no way of knowing you’d be so outraged. As I’ve attempted to explain, it’s not the same as a free pass, and it’s not a courtesy that would be extended beyond a first report/first warning, and it will reflect very negatively on them should they demonstrate that it served no positive purpose. If the user is as disruptive as you claim, then they’re going to end up blocked sooner rather than later anyway. Sorry to disappoint you. I’ll avoid actioning administrative requests from you going forward since you clearly have a problem with me. Swarm ♠ 21:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Right, because blocking someone, so long after the fact, and after other admin interventions have occurred would be just "egregious" and "inappropriate". Glad we can agree on that. There is nothing "thinly veiled" here, (or at RfA, btw). I'm saying it straight up, you've made bad choices before, you've made another one here. Anything else you think that is insinuated, unspoken, percieved, intuited, or coming thru via a sixth sense is wrong. I've been very clear with my opinion here. I'm not claiming "admin abuse", I'm saying you got this wrong. And this is neither "frivolous" nor "desperate", it's sincere and, if anything, borne of frustration. There has been some disturbing inconsistencies at 3rrnb and this is just another example. You have editors trying to help the project by filling out these reports and admins wasting these editors time and effort with bad decisions. "
- Alright, well I'm sorry you very strongly disagree with my approach here. I understand what the term "involved" means, it means you're implying that I have some sort of sympathetic view of this user based on my comment "hope all is well", but frankly that's ridiculous. My only interaction with the user was a routine self-requested block that I performed in response to a request here, and I can only assume I was randomly selected from the 21 administrators who do SELFBLOCKs. Trying to tie that into some sort of frivolous accusation of admin abuse is really pretty desperate. I'd assume given your history you'd be familiar with the old cliché "it takes two sides to edit war" by now. Just because it's a 2 or 3-on-1 edit war does not change that concept, and just because you don't breach 3RR does not mean you can not get blocked for participation in a tag-team edit war. As I've said, between the possible options of page protection, a two-sided block, and a one-sided block, the one-sided block was my least preferred resolution, given that it was a very minor content dispute and a fairly new user who has never received a warning (I thought issuing a warning and then reporting them to be blocked before they violated the warning was poor form; ironically, the most recent "bad block" I've actually been called out on was for choosing to block in that situation). Furthermore, giving a user a break in a blockable situation isn't "giving them a free pass", it's still an aggravating factor that will result in a more serious block should there be evidence of future problematic behavior, as would their refusal to participate in talk page discussion during a period of full protection. Given that, this degree of anger over what is a perfectly routine preventative measure in response to an edit war is highly unusual. It comes across as a disproportionate degree of malice for what was a minor content dispute in an article. I suspect you may feel like you were deserving of such a break when I blocked you for a week for a 3RR vio, so why would this user be more deserving of such? It probably feels like an arbitrary double standard that is unfair to you. However, there are differences, mainly that you had a recent history of blocks for edit warring at the time, whereas this is a new user who has never been formally warned, nor ever reported to administrators for misconduct before this point. Anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree on this, as there is currently no preventative need to block the user, and blocking them after I have already chosen to protect the page would be an egregious abuse of the tools. Rest assured, this is a one-time break given the reasons I've outlined, and this user will not be getting away with continuing to edit war or refusing to discuss, now that they've been formally warned and given a motive to discuss. You don't have to agree with my methods, but asking me to block them now is inappropriate. Swarm ♠ 03:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- To be clear, "involved" as in very recently interacted with in a friendly and sympathetic manner (very sympathetic as it turns out), not WP:INVOLVED, happy? I've seen you make bad blocks, now you refuse to make a good block, as in, an obvious, straight forward and certainly called for block, not only based on the obvious 4RR vio, but past, current and very likely to be on-going, behaviour. I'm not sure how hard you looked at their talk page, but they have been warned about edit-warring before. Then there were the three different editors that all encouraged this user to stop reverting this time and discuss on the talk page, which he repeatedly ignored while arguing via revert edit summaries. And, who else would you block? No one one else violated 3RR... another thing you got wrong. (Did you even look at the report? Are you sure you have the right one?) Oh, and by the way... as of this post, he still has not come to the talk page to discuss anything. At all. So, yeah... he's definitely a great candidate to hand out a free pass to. Geez, heaven forbid you say "I got it wrong", then do the right thing. - wolf 22:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- To be clear, I’m not involved, and you’re apparently misinterpreting common courtesy for sympathy for that user. I reviewed the user’s talk page and they have never been warned for edit warring. To me, page protection is preferred above blocking, particularly one-sided blocking. It takes two sides to edit war, and I would have blocked both sides had I decided to go that route. Swarm ♠|
- Take a look at his talk page, especially before the mass-blankings. There are numerous warnings for edit-warring, disruptive behavior, "revenge reverts" leaving a page in a mess, hostile edit summaries with personal attacks, and on and on. This was a clear 4RR vio, from an unrepentant, uncommunicative user will continue with this problematic behaviour. This calls for a block, (something I learned from you, so the contradiction is baffling). The next time he does this, there will be no record of this, and it'll be treated as a first time offence, likely with the same kind of enabling type of leniency you are showing here, as opposed to users with blocks who are immediately given more, longer blocks. Just be consistent. Just enforce the rules like you are supposed to and were expected to when given the tools. I know you were involved with his indef request and exchanged friendly notes, but you are one the very few to see that side. Please do some research and take the appropriate action. Thank you. - wolf 12:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
(I really was hoping we were dome) "Upset" and "outraged"...? No. "Disappointed"...? Yes. And you can now add "baited" to the list. I don't have a provlem with "you", I don't know you (and there's no need to personalize this). For all I know, you could be a great person IRL. I just don't care for some of the admin decisions you've made. When editors make mistakes, accountability is required. It would be nice to see that from admins as well, at least occasionally. If you see a report from me, by all means, action it, especially if I've gone to the trouble of filling it out and, that is why you have the admin tools in the first place. If you're going to avoid your responsibilities everytime it involves someone that criticized you for avoiding your responsibilities, why be an admin? Lastly, page protection can be very controversial. I'm not saying it was in this instance, but when you have disputed versions, suddenly locking one of them in for several days can just cause more problems. The problem in this case was a single editor. That should've been clear. They violated 4rr which was also clear. And with this clarity, I also want to make clear I am not acausing you of "admin abuse" or violating the policy, wp:involved. If that wasn't clear before, I hope it is now. I think you made the wrong call, and a very contradictory one. But I've also said that a half dozen times as well. So, hopefully now we are done. Have a nice day. - 
wolf 02:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
FWIW
The clean block log is almost certainly due to the toxic environment in the "superhero movies and TV shows" topic area; Adam and two or three of his friends are very good at getting "full" articles that they have privately drafted over the course of months in the draft space into the mainspace as soon as the films enter production, then forcing them through the GAN process very quickly after the films have come out (which is facilitated by GA reviewers' having a vested interest in passing rather than failing the articles despite obvious OWN/stability issues). They tend to defend each other against edit-warring accusations, and collectively force out outside input. It's been going on for years, and the longer it goes on the more they seem to consider it to be the "norm". I'd be as shocked as you and would probably say This is so unbelievably out of line that I cannot even believe this user maintains a clean block log.
if I had not been trying to edit these articles since c2015 and running into stiff resistance from the editor in question constantly.
Admins don't like to look at this problem, it seems (Bish once told me that she just wouldn't touch superhero movie article disputes, and Drmies said something similar about a related dispute). Your final warning just now will have been a godsend if Adam finally takes it seriously.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Just so it's clear, the above is intended solely as a response to the "I cannot even believe this user maintains a clean block log" -- I too can hardly believe it, but I've had literally years to mull over it and try to figure out how this situation came about. I'm not trying to start another discussion, just clarifying. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm just going to add this here since it is about the same topic, though I have no interest in responding to Hijiri's usual complaints about me behind my back. Swarm, your comment about me is filled with misinterpretation, hyperbole, and strangely personal comments; your threat to block for something that I have not done is quite astounding. Did you not think that the fact I have not been blocked before may be because ... I never deserved to be? I just find it very strange that you are threatening to block me for ownership and being uncivil when that is exactly what I was dealing with from the other editor. This is not just my opinion, as several other editors (who I have no affiliation with and have not talked to in any other way) have also interpreted the situation in that way. In fact, the other editor finally seemed to be coming around to having a reasonable conversation on the issue before you posted your bizarre assessment. I would be especially concerned if you were swayed by Hijiri's late interjection given their penchant for attacking me with false accusations (like the rubbish about Nazis that they added to the ANI thread). - adamstom97 (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Again, not a discussion of Adam's behaviour; I don't know why he would want to make it such. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
- The onus is on you to understand the problem with your behavior and rectify it. The policy considerations here are fundamental and straightforward, so it’s either an ownership issue, or a competence issue. Either way, it’s way out of hand and it needs to stop. I’m not going to argue with you about whether there’s a problem. We’re way past that point. This has gone on too long. Swarm ♠ 12:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing anything, I'm just trying to work out what's going on. It's pretty shocking to go from a seemingly well-respected and valued member of the community with good working relationships with most editors I've come across to being told that I could be blocked at any time. Since this has all happened because I asked an editor to discuss their bold change before implementing it, is it worth me even trying to dispute edits moving forward? - adamstom97 (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's not "most editors you've come across" -- it's most editors who can stand to put up with you for more than one or two reverts. And you could have been blocked at any time before now: hence why others can be so surprised that you haven't been. You have violated our edit-warring policy countless times, and even breached the "bright line" of 3RR more than enough times to justify a block (enough times being once). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- I explained the problem in great detail, including the specific disconnects between your behavior and policy, in that large paragraph I wrote at ANI, so you have no excuse to claim you have no idea what the problem is. For the record, I see the offense here as being very severe and feel you’re already firmly in lengthy block territory, and you were issued a warning as a courtesy, because I’m assuming you’re competent enough to knock it off. But, should you violate the warning, I will not hesitate further. The disconnect from the disruptive behavior you’re attempting to portray is not going to help your case. Yes, your communication is mellow and reasonable, but it doesn’t match up with the way you’ve actually been behaving. Your commentary here does not strike me as being any different from your commentary throughout the whole ordeal. You’re apparently unable or unwilling to understand straightforward points that are being made to you. That comes across as being either willfully manipulative or incapable of effective communication. If you honestly believe that you’re in good standing after the conduct I’ve witnessed, you’re deluding yourself. Serious changes are needed. If you don’t want to get blocked, simply read up on the relevant policies cited at WP:ER/UC and in my ANI response, steer clear of the behaviors described there and you will not breach the warning. You’re not going to be blocked for being involved in good faith disputes. All this means is that competent policy adherence is going to be enforced going forward. Swarm ♠ 13:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- I hope you are keeping an eye on the discussion at the Ant-Man and the Wasp talkpage, where this warning was largely dismissed as
the opinion of one editor
and Aeusoes1 was again warned his edits would be reverted because they're not well written. The discussion at ANI took place over the weekend and I didn't see it until after it was closed, or I would have offered my own experience with garbage reversions and ownership behavior on that same article.[4] That said, the notion that Aeusoes1 has to get individual approval/consensus for what amount to basic copyedits (or else be reverted) and that a RFC is required for some plot summary wording changes seems to pretty well suggest that nothing has changed. Grandpallama (talk) 11:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)- Well, yeah. I stupidly tried reasoning with him, but when you put it like that demanding an RFC for a change to the wording of a plot summary where Adam doesn't seem to want to say what his specific problem is beyond "almighty BRD" does seem extremely excessive, and is almost definitely a violation of yesterday's "final warning". I've been encountering IDHT from this user since roughly April 2015, so I fully expected to see that kind of response to this warning, but managed not to say as much until after someone else did. I'd say at this point a short block is in order; he's caused enough disruption to merit a site-ban, but given his clean block log it may just be that no one has ever told him no, and he might improve if given a short block. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- BTW, Swarm, the diffs are here and here. And sorry, I didn't want to message you about this after having inadvertently invited drahms onto your page yesterday when trying to provide historical background, and also pinging you on that other, loosely related, discussion. I just decided to chime in after someone else did. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's clearly a violation of the warning that was just given. If adamstom97 feels the RfC is needed, he can open it and ask about Aeusoes1's edits. Telling Aeusoes1 that they have to open the RfC, submit all their proposed changes, and then get "approved" to add those edits to the article (or else be reverted) is exactly the behavior that resulted in the ANI report in the first place and that adamstom97 was told to cease. The only objections to the edits that have been raised have been about the writing quality and how encyclopedic they are, which seem spurious to me, given both my own experience with adamstom97's command of grammar and from a look at the proposed changes which are all perfectly sound and reasonable. (I'll also now quit bombarding your talkpage with drama.) Grandpallama (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- I hope you are keeping an eye on the discussion at the Ant-Man and the Wasp talkpage, where this warning was largely dismissed as
- I'm not arguing anything, I'm just trying to work out what's going on. It's pretty shocking to go from a seemingly well-respected and valued member of the community with good working relationships with most editors I've come across to being told that I could be blocked at any time. Since this has all happened because I asked an editor to discuss their bold change before implementing it, is it worth me even trying to dispute edits moving forward? - adamstom97 (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- I mean, I think I’ve made it sufficiently clear to Aeusoes1 that they’re free to implement their edit and that if Adam continues to exhibit ownership behavior that he would be blocked. Adam literally does not have to agree with me or listen to me. I can’t force him to. Based on his talk page comments, he doesn’t want to, and that’s fine. I’m not going to block him for just saying he doesn’t agree with me. He’s been made aware of where the line is drawn and what the consequences will be. But if Aeusoes is going to continue to engage with Adam and attempt to work with his demands, that’s his prerogative. I think it’s bizarre that he filed that complaint and now is continuing to attempt to satisfy Adam, but if he doesn’t care, why should I? Swarm ♠ 12:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Based on the ANI discussion, I see an implied narrative that I'm using ANI to get my way in a content dispute. The benefit of an RfC is that it prevents the appearance of impropriety. An editor shouldn't have to fight overwhelming scrutiny every time they want to make minor edits, but that bridge has already been crossed in this instance and several well-meaning editors have already suggested an RfC. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Aeusoes1: You should proceed as you feel most comfortable, but Swarm has made clear that the outcome of the ANI discussion means your bold edits were fine, and that the decision to proceed with engaging this as an RfC is also entirely your choice. And while I'm not a fan of keeping ANI discussions open for extended lengths of time, I do think the fact it all occurred during the weekend and was closed so quickly meant that other voices who might have spoken up in support of your edits (and perhaps in confirmation of having had similar experiences) didn't see the discussion until it was over. So the sentiment you reference may not be as representative of overall sentiment as you think.
- I also feel like the subsequent statement that your edits will be reverted if you don't get the RfC endorsement is already a violation of the terms Swarm set out regarding ownership behavior, collaboration, and references to a non-existent "policy" that changes to existing text are not generally permitted, but I guess that statement wasn't far enough over the line to prompt action at this time. Grandpallama (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- So when I was told that I am still allowed to dispute edits, that was not the case? I am actually not allowed to ask to have a discussion about something? To be clear, I am asking for an RfC on the matter to try and get more eyes on the issue (as it seems to me that more people who are not regularly editing an article get involved with discussions when they are formatted as an RfC) to avoid it being a me vs. them argument as that is not helping and has only caused more strife. If there are more opinions than just mine being expressed then hopefully people will stop claiming that I need to approve their changes to the article and will instead focus on actually discussing the change. If I was wrong and I am actually not allowed to dispute this edit without being blocked then that is what I came here to find out in the first place. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- You once again disputed the edits without providing specific objections, and indicated that you would continue to revert without doing so. Had Aeusoes1 ignored your comment and implemented their edit again, and had you reverted again without providing specific objections, as you declared you would, you would be blocked right now. The user is not under any obligation to comply with continuing ownership behavior, but if they want to spend their time getting a pre-consensus that isn’t required, that’s up to them. I’m not sure if you would truly ignore the warning and willingly get blocked over this, but Aeusoes is unwilling to put you into that position, and for that you should be grateful. Swarm ♠ 19:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- This is literally what I said:
I stand by my right to revert your bold change because I believe it is written worse than the current summary and in a way that is not appropriate or professional enough for Wikipedia. I ask, again, that you go ahead and open the RfC so that we can get the view of the community and not be governed by the biased opinions of just a few.
I very clearly stated my objection to the edit, and I in no way indicated that I would continue to revert without explanation. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)- Just to be clear, the problem here is not "reverting without explanation". It's "reverting without citing specific objections". "Specific objections" refers to clear, individual, policy-based points of contention, rather than vague, general, non-policy-based complaints such as "it's written worse". That's not a valid reason for preventing another user from making bold edits in good faith. This is a clear indication of continuing ownership behavior. I had no intention of policing or micromanaging that discussion, and assumed that you would simply get your act together, but the complete lack of any understanding or reasonable conduct is incredibly concerning. It really does appear that you're pushing the boundaries as far as possible. Swarm ♠ 22:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- I would agree that "it's written worse" is not a valid argument if someone is making a change based on a policy or even a guideline, but it is completely reasonable if the other argument is "it's written better". Do you seriously want me to ignore any edits that I believe are arbitrarily making the encyclopaedia worse? Especially when all I'm asking is for the wider community to discuss whether they find value in the changes or not. If others agree that the new version is better, I am not going to stand in the way of it being implemented. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, the problem here is not "reverting without explanation". It's "reverting without citing specific objections". "Specific objections" refers to clear, individual, policy-based points of contention, rather than vague, general, non-policy-based complaints such as "it's written worse". That's not a valid reason for preventing another user from making bold edits in good faith. This is a clear indication of continuing ownership behavior. I had no intention of policing or micromanaging that discussion, and assumed that you would simply get your act together, but the complete lack of any understanding or reasonable conduct is incredibly concerning. It really does appear that you're pushing the boundaries as far as possible. Swarm ♠ 22:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- This is literally what I said:
- You once again disputed the edits without providing specific objections, and indicated that you would continue to revert without doing so. Had Aeusoes1 ignored your comment and implemented their edit again, and had you reverted again without providing specific objections, as you declared you would, you would be blocked right now. The user is not under any obligation to comply with continuing ownership behavior, but if they want to spend their time getting a pre-consensus that isn’t required, that’s up to them. I’m not sure if you would truly ignore the warning and willingly get blocked over this, but Aeusoes is unwilling to put you into that position, and for that you should be grateful. Swarm ♠ 19:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- So when I was told that I am still allowed to dispute edits, that was not the case? I am actually not allowed to ask to have a discussion about something? To be clear, I am asking for an RfC on the matter to try and get more eyes on the issue (as it seems to me that more people who are not regularly editing an article get involved with discussions when they are formatted as an RfC) to avoid it being a me vs. them argument as that is not helping and has only caused more strife. If there are more opinions than just mine being expressed then hopefully people will stop claiming that I need to approve their changes to the article and will instead focus on actually discussing the change. If I was wrong and I am actually not allowed to dispute this edit without being blocked then that is what I came here to find out in the first place. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Based on the ANI discussion, I see an implied narrative that I'm using ANI to get my way in a content dispute. The benefit of an RfC is that it prevents the appearance of impropriety. An editor shouldn't have to fight overwhelming scrutiny every time they want to make minor edits, but that bridge has already been crossed in this instance and several well-meaning editors have already suggested an RfC. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
(←) Yet again, a perfectly reasonable comment at face value, that doesn't actually match up to the reality of the situation at all. Aeusoes1's explanation for his edit was not "it's written better". It's actually broken down and explained in excruciating detail in the "Proposed changes" section. The fact that you're completely disregarding that explanation and falsely claiming that the only explanation provided was "it's written better" is a textbook sign of disruptive behavior. Swarm ♠ 23:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- The only explanation he has given is a 1000 word-long, multi-sectioned WP:WALLOFTEXT, and I am the unreasonable one? My instinct is that the user was being completely genuine and not intentionally disruptive when they wrote that comment, but then again they have reported me to ANI twice based on the same misunderstanding with no evidence to support their false accusations, and I have been through enough personal abuse on Wikipedia in the last year to know when it is time to take a step back. The only reason I am still pushing on with this dispute is that I am reluctant to give up on an issue because of the way others are treating me in fear of setting a bad precedent. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Wow, Adam, are you serious? First you impede the user for not having any reason for implementing the changes, hammering them over and over again for “making changes for changes sake”, and when they provide a detailed rationale for their changes, you continue to impede the user, only suddenly it’s because the user’s rationale is a “wall of text”. That “wall of text” was literally only written because you were claiming that the user had no reasons for their edits, and the second they provided their reasons you moved the goal posts, while still failing to present any specific reasonings for the dispute you’ve forced with that user. This is some of the most uncollaborative, unreasonable conduct I’ve ever witnessed. When I reviewed the AN/I report, I hoped a warning would be sufficient. Now I’m beginning to think that I was wrong. Swarm ♠ 02:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Adam, why would you think this revert with this edit summary was appropriate under the circumstances? At the time you made that edit, the RFC (disregarding the pre-RFC discussion, where an overhwelming majority favoured "slave") had 8 for "slave" and 5 against, and of those five two were "weak" and two more were you and your frequent owning tag-team partner F1F93. Had you said "wait for the RFC to close", that might have been reasonable, but you made a comment that was completely out of touch with the reality of the situation, which seems to indicate that you intend to continue, going forward, claiming consensus is on your side regardless of whether it actually is or not. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- When I checked the talk page before making that revert (it was in this state at that time) there were five editors pro-"slave" and seven editors against. That sounds like "no clear consensus" but leaning away from slave to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- No, it was in this state (and even had it not been, you could have assumed Capriaf was for "slave" given that it was them you were reverting), and those for "slave" were Aeusoes1 (who didn't express an opinion in the RFC question as they are not allowed but you knew their opinion perfectly well and they also posted this), Adamfinmo, Argento Surfer, Isaidnoway, *Treker, SarekOfVulcan, Robertgombos and Capriaf (eight editors), with those opposed being you, Markbassett, SassyCollins, DonIago (weak), DonQuixote (weak) and Favre1fan93 (six editors, of whom two were "weak"). You seem to be including TriiipleThreat based on the assumption that since he always sides with you and F1f93, which may be a reasonable reading of his comment, but he didn't actually say as much, and had I said what you just did I would no doubt be accused of "assuming bad faith" or some such. You also seem to have left out both Aeusoes1 and *Treker because their !votes weren't bolded. This kind of "creative" interpretation of "consensus" is a perfect example of your disruptive editing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- BTW, there was already, before the RFC being opened, a clear majority in favour of "slave", with Aeusoes1, Capriaf and Adamfinmo supporting the change and only you with your typical "status quo" argument and DonQuixote making a very weak "the film uses the word slave but that might be figurative, and because of that the burden is on those wanting to use the word" argument. And now that the RFC is open with a clear consensus in favour of the change, you are still demanding that no change be made until the RFC has been closed. This is exactly what Swarm warned you about. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- When I checked the talk page before making that revert (it was in this state at that time) there were five editors pro-"slave" and seven editors against. That sounds like "no clear consensus" but leaning away from slave to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- I am honestly so sick of your nonsense Hijiri. I don't know how you keep getting away with treating me and others that you don't like as absolute trash, but congratulations, it's working. I really don't want to be here any longer, but seeing as how no one elae is going to defend me...
- I looked at the talk page, in the state that it was in (not the state that you want it to have been in), I counted up the bolded votes that I could see (without any of your creative counting) and I used that to inform the edit summary as I reverted an edit that needed to be reverted—if I had changed a page to my preferred version in the middle if an RfC, you know that you would have gone absolutely off at me for ownership and disruptive editing and all sorts of other stuff because of just how much you hate me, but as soon as I do it in a calm and objective way you are on me like I killed someone. Are you intentionally stalking my edits, looking for the first sign of something that you can twist into a blockable offence? - adamstom97 (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- I am not "intentionally stalking your edits"; I just glanced at your contribs following the final warning (and your attacks on me further up this thread) and the first two things you did were violations.
- Swarm, would you mind blocking Adam for the above? Expecting me to put up with
I am honestly so sick of your nonsense Hijiri. I don't know how you keep getting away with treating me and others that you don't like as absolute trash
is completely inappropriate, and accusing me of "creative counting" when he's the one ignoring independent opinions if they aren't expressed in the form of bolded !votes is just plain wrong. - Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Seriously? You have been calling myself and several editors names and throwing unsupported accusations at us throughout this thread (for instance, see why this thread was started in the first place...)! These are blatant personal attacks, and are in line with the behaviour that you yourself just asked me to remove from my user page citing WP:POLEMIC. This is not new behaviour as you know that you go to the talk page of most editors that I have disputes with to complain about "those MCU editors" or "those superhero movie editors". And now you have basically admitted to WP:HOUNDING with the obvious intention of pushing me until you can get me blocked here. If I do get blocked for being blatantly abused and harrassed by an editor who has made no effort to hide their dislike for me and multiple other editors then that will be outrageous. You cannot treat someone like this, on Wikipedia or otherwise. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Kindly retract the above bogus accusations of name-calling, "throwing unsupported accusations" (I opened this thread to answer a question Swarm had posed, and did so in a perfectly civil manner) and POLEMIC. Accusations made without evidence are personal attacks. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- You're happy to dish it out, but as soon as someone calls you out on your abusive behaviour it is "don't expect me to put up with this" or "retract that". The very first paragraph of this thread is full of your own twisted opinions referring to other editors as "toxic", saying "they" do this and "they" do that (which is what you brought up POLEMIC for at my talk page), and adding that we "collectively force out outside input". Made-up nonsense, just because you haven't been able to get your way a few times. And how else would you expect someone to take the comment "your frequent owning tag-team partner"? You can't just say stuff like that about people because you know that retaliation from them will get them blocked. Regardless of what happens to me, you should be ashamed of the way you so blatantly put others down just because there are some editors who are willing to revert you and make you actually discuss issues at a talk page. I mean, seriously, "trying to provide historical background"? Why don't we bring up the time that you tried to stop a GA review from going through simply because you don't like me, and were only prevented when another editor told you to cut it out. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- I explicitly said I was not going to ask you to strike Alex's personal attack against me from your talk page (which was unprovoked and unwarranted). You are talking about a comment I made on another user's talk page in answer to a question he had posed. None of this has anything to do with POLEMIC; the comparison would only be kinda-sorta-notreally valid if Swarm took my comment and added it to his user page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- You're happy to dish it out, but as soon as someone calls you out on your abusive behaviour it is "don't expect me to put up with this" or "retract that". The very first paragraph of this thread is full of your own twisted opinions referring to other editors as "toxic", saying "they" do this and "they" do that (which is what you brought up POLEMIC for at my talk page), and adding that we "collectively force out outside input". Made-up nonsense, just because you haven't been able to get your way a few times. And how else would you expect someone to take the comment "your frequent owning tag-team partner"? You can't just say stuff like that about people because you know that retaliation from them will get them blocked. Regardless of what happens to me, you should be ashamed of the way you so blatantly put others down just because there are some editors who are willing to revert you and make you actually discuss issues at a talk page. I mean, seriously, "trying to provide historical background"? Why don't we bring up the time that you tried to stop a GA review from going through simply because you don't like me, and were only prevented when another editor told you to cut it out. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Kindly retract the above bogus accusations of name-calling, "throwing unsupported accusations" (I opened this thread to answer a question Swarm had posed, and did so in a perfectly civil manner) and POLEMIC. Accusations made without evidence are personal attacks. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Seriously? You have been calling myself and several editors names and throwing unsupported accusations at us throughout this thread (for instance, see why this thread was started in the first place...)! These are blatant personal attacks, and are in line with the behaviour that you yourself just asked me to remove from my user page citing WP:POLEMIC. This is not new behaviour as you know that you go to the talk page of most editors that I have disputes with to complain about "those MCU editors" or "those superhero movie editors". And now you have basically admitted to WP:HOUNDING with the obvious intention of pushing me until you can get me blocked here. If I do get blocked for being blatantly abused and harrassed by an editor who has made no effort to hide their dislike for me and multiple other editors then that will be outrageous. You cannot treat someone like this, on Wikipedia or otherwise. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- I looked at the talk page, in the state that it was in (not the state that you want it to have been in), I counted up the bolded votes that I could see (without any of your creative counting) and I used that to inform the edit summary as I reverted an edit that needed to be reverted—if I had changed a page to my preferred version in the middle if an RfC, you know that you would have gone absolutely off at me for ownership and disruptive editing and all sorts of other stuff because of just how much you hate me, but as soon as I do it in a calm and objective way you are on me like I killed someone. Are you intentionally stalking my edits, looking for the first sign of something that you can twist into a blockable offence? - adamstom97 (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I've had enough of this. I don't know you Swarm, but I believe that in general you must be a fair and reasonable editor otherwise you would not be an admin. I don't know if you have some sort of personal problem with me, but the fact that you keep ignoring my arguments and are being swayed by the lies of others tells me that I just need to walk away from this page. I will also attempt to avoid Hijiri and their atrociously abusive behaviour, but given they keep following me around I'm sure that will be unsuccessful. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Don't edit articles in my wheelhouse, would be the best way to avoid me "following" you, except that almost all the articles you edit are in my wheelhouse. MCU movies are about the only big-budget Hollywood blockbusters I never wait to see on DVD or Netflix (at least since real world financial troubles made it difficult for me to watch every new movie that came out, something I used to make a habit of doing). Accusing people of "following you" when they just happen to have similar interests to you would be a gross personal attack by itself, but combined with the fact that you showed up on an ANI thread that didn't concern you, something you had never done before, just to undermine me indicates a pretty outrageous double standard. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Goes to see why that would have happened, reads the first line of the edit... adamstom97 (talk) 03:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- You made a disruptive comment clearly motivated by your prior negative interactions with me, totally contradicted by the actual state of affairs on the page in question (the following topic bans and ArbCom blocks support this), and made an excuse about how you were already on ANI for your own reasons. It's still hounding (
singling out of one ... [editor] and joining discussions ... they may edit ... in order to repeatedly ... inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating ... annoyance
[5]). You should not have done it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- You made a disruptive comment clearly motivated by your prior negative interactions with me, totally contradicted by the actual state of affairs on the page in question (the following topic bans and ArbCom blocks support this), and made an excuse about how you were already on ANI for your own reasons. It's still hounding (
- Goes to see why that would have happened, reads the first line of the edit... adamstom97 (talk) 03:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yet again, Adam, you're ignoring the fact that I'm directly responding to your arguments in an attempt to get you to see reason and falsely claiming that you're making arguments which are being ignored. I do not wish to block you indefinitely, I'm literally pleading with you to recognize the problem here. Swarm ♠ 16:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia
