Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:30, 5 November 2020

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 Misplaced Pages 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.

Talk This 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.

Adoption

Hello! I'm interested in the Misplaced Pages adopt-a-user program. Are you still participating, and would you consider adopting me? I chose you because your interests/philosophy seem to line up broadly with mine, because of your stated dedication to helping out new Wikipedians, and because you seem reasonable and well-spoken (well-written?). I have been on Misplaced Pages for some eight years, but only seriously engaged starting about a year and a half ago. Despite a fair number of edits, I still feel pretty rough around the edges and, as a result of being self-taught, I spend an inordinate amount of time figuring out how to do simple things. I'm mostly interested in help streamlining my Misplaced Pages working style and navigating the labyrinth of Misplaced Pages community guidelines/norms. I appreciate any help you're willing to give. I should note also that due to a lack of free time I tend to only edit about once per week on average, so I understand if you feel it's not worth your time. Thanks! --Shmarrighan (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at m:Merchandise giveaways/Nominations § Shishir Dua

 You are invited to join the discussion at m:Merchandise giveaways/Nominations § Shishir Dua. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

Request for reduction in protection level on Kamala Harris

My apologies. I did not realize I was supposed to reach out to you, as the protecting admin, before requesting reduction in protection level. My only excuse is that this is the first time Im approaching this procedure, and I did not find it clear, and muddled my way through it.

The page has calmed down dramatically from where it was a month ago. Vandalism has disappeared. The talk page is active, edits generally have consensus, and there is no recent edit waring.

The time to go back to semi-protection seems right. A level of sanity has been achieved, and if things don't work out, we can go back to Extended confirmed protection.

Thanks for your consideration. Rklahn (talk) 07:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• Of course the disruptive editing has calmed down dramatically since last month, that's the point of the page protection. Saying the disruption has stopped since the page was protected, thus the page can be unprotected, is circular logic at its worst. I can think of no remotely-plausible rationale for unprotecting a high-profile political candidate's article immediately before an election. It's unthinkable. ~Swarm~ 22:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• It never ceases to amaze me when whenever I see requests to downgrade protection on the basis that disruption from accounts restricted by that very protection has ceased for the duration... Vandalism has disappeared — of course it has. Extended-confirmed accounts engage in vandalism so (so) infrequently so as to be deemed statistically insignificant. El_C 22:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Amkgp

Hi Swarm,

you previously warned Amkgp that they would be indefblocked from PERM if they made another request there. . Can you tell me where to go for this? Thanks. ◊PRAHLAD (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 20:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Mail call

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).

Administrator changes

Ajpolino • LuK3

Jackmcbarn

Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM

There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely 1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.

Technical news

• The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).

Arbitration

• The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
• Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.

Miscellaneous

• The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
• Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

FYI about Aroniel2

Hey! You dealt with Aroniel2 a little while ago back in 2018. They were unblocked, but seem to be off at it all again. Just wanted to give you a heads up that I've just brought it back up on the ANI after they're back here POV pushing. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 04:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

REQUEST FOR ADOPTION

Hi Swam,

I bumped into your profile at the adopt-user page, I sure like the good works you've been doing hence my choice of making myself your adoptee...

I actively became a user about last week ago, It dawned on me that choosing to be self-taught in this space will be a nightmare, hence my request to have you adopt me as your adoptee...

I intend to learn how to create notable and publication- worthy articles through your tutelage. I'm open to learn whatever pleases you to teach .

I hope and will be glad if my request is considered...

Thank you...

• Felixeshiet (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Administrator changes John M Wolfson Bduke • Nilfanion • Philosopher • Rspeer • Yunshui Interface administrator changes Ragesoss TonyBallioni

CheckUser changes EdJohnston • Oshwah • Yamla Yunshui Oversight changes Anarchyte Yunshui

Guideline and policy news

• Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.

Technical news

• Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
• Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
• Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.

Arbitration

• The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
• The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.

Miscellaneous

• A reminder that standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. (American Politics 2 Arbitration case).

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Thanks

Thanks Swarm for your honest comment. -Darouet (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Guidance for improving chances as to being granted template editor rights

Hello Swarm (talk), I just thought I would take you up on your offer to ask questions on your talk page about my recent application to be granted template editor rights. I read through what you had posted in denying my request. You make a lot of salient points. I get it now. Specifically, my right to WP:TPE was revoked because what I did wrong was that I failed to engage other editors in a discussion about the Denver Broncos color scheme over at WT:NFL (that discussion is here). I get it. I know now that what I should have done differently is that I should have engaged other editors in that discussion and should not have unilaterally made changes at Module:Gridiron color/data without first engaging in a discussion that should have resulted in a WP:CONSENSUS all interested editors could live with. If I were to submit another request to be granted WP:TPE rights, what I would & should do differently is to not unilaterally edit protected templates that go against the WP:CONSENSUS. I also know better that I definitely should not constantly revert myself repeatedly over protected templates. OK, on to your next point. Let me specifically explain my current understanding of the rules. I understand that the template editor right is a right reserved for highly technically competent editors. It's reserved for editors who are experienced in dispute resolution and for editors who are highly competent with coding. As you said, it is a high stakes user right. I understand that changes to protected modules (unless they are fixes of obvious markup errors, for example) should only be made after substantial discussion, and should conform to the agreed upon WP:CONSENSUS, per WP:TPECON. I also understand that I need to know WP:TPECON front and back. That part I get. The last thing I want to say is this: I need guidance as to how to improve and become more competent in the Template space, and to understand the rules and conditions of the Template editor user right. Could you please help? Also, have I addressed some of your concerns? If not, how can I address them better? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Another twist

Following up from AE, it looks like nobody has objected to the topic ban, but I noticed something else when I went to log my removal of the Consensus Required sanction: the Consensus Required sanction had never been logged in the first place. JzG only logged a 1RR restriction. (Not sure if it was a one-off mistake or their real intent, but the next month they correctly logged this one as Consensus Required.) In any case I'm not sure what to do with this now. I'd feel weird enforcing the sanction down to the "letter of the law" while ignoring the other "letter of the law" stating that for a sanction to be valid it must be properly logged. ~Awilley (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind. After closely reading the page at AC/CS I didn't find anything that explicitly says that the mis-logging makes the sanction invalid. And Thucydides411's latest comment (showing SPECIFICO correctly explaining the sanction to other users when it was to their advantage) convinced me that this is a clear case of gaming. ~Awilley (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)