User talk:Swarm

This user replies where s/he likes, and is inconsistent in that respect.	This user is fallible and encourages other admins to be bold in reverting their admin actions.	~~~~Swarm signs their posts and thinks you should too!

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

Talk:Achilles' heel#Is it suitable?

Hello, Swarm. You have new messages at Talk:Achilles' heel#Is it suitable?.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--59.90.80.83 (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Adam Kotsko

You wrote. "This incident appears to be a legitimate content dispute that hasn't caused a significant amount of disruption so as to warrant any sort of intervention. I think both sides have merit to their viewpoints". Actually, this has been the source of huge disruption, hence the page being protected [1], previous editors and their socks being warned at 3RR, 2 editors blocked, editors notified about AE:DS and an ANI thread still open. Consensus had been reached that the inclusion of a twitter joke — reported solely by a number of right-wing blogs and mentioned by the right-wing WT — was UNDUE on a page about an academic. Shibollethink has arrived out of the blue and decided that he can unilaterally determine — and overturn — the existing consensus. Consensus can change — but not immediately and not without discussion again. By reinserting the contentious material, Shibollethink has restarted the edit warring and has now assumed some kind f first mover advantage, with you as his enabler. I have restored the status quo ante bellum and notified previous interested editors who were involved in reaching consensus that this material was UNDUE. Keri (talk) 07:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• First of all, what you're saying to me here is completely different from what you've said at AN3 and in the ongoing discussion on the talk page. Second of all, I merely observed that the report you filed did not warrant administrative action as of yet. Beyond that, I was not taking a stance in the content dispute in any way, shape or form, so I certainly don't see how I enabled your opponent in the dispute. I only sought to clarify how BLP plays into this dispute, and that you're not exempt from edit warring policy. Not because you're wrong in any sense, merely because you were citing it in your arguments. Furthermore, if consensus had truly been reached, you have given no indication of that incredibly-relevant fact, instead continuing to argue a content dispute you're now telling me has already been settled. Moreover, the logged reasoning given for semi-protection was sock puppetry, not the ongoing content dispute. And, furthermore Susan, enforcing an existing consensus is one of the strongest reasons for reverting changes, why you haven't explained this consensus to the editors who are challenging it is beyond me. Anyway, I have no problem with restoring a stable version and will recommend that they refrain from edit warring over this insignificant content and avoid escalating the situation, but based on my review of the current dispute, it's nothing to get too terribly worked up about and everything will be better should you remain cool. Regards, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 07:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Evelin Banev

No BLP violations occurred by unregistered users. The article as it stands is one giant NPOV violation. Alakzi (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• The article as edited by Alakzi is the grandiose NPOV violation - all information is accurately cited and represented. Alakzi should edit accordingly, not delete the contents of the entire page. Swarm please review the contents of the long-staning page and see for yourself if there are inaccuracies - all content is dully cited and factual (kidnapping, lawsuits, book - why is all of this deleted?), yet this is a very controversial figure fallen out of political grace (as seen in the quick and drastic edits). Please protect and thanks for your involvement. DiscSquare (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • why is all of this deleted? Because I've no faith that you or your predecessors were faithful to the sources or that the sources are reliable; the language used would suggest otherwise. There's not one bit of that article that's salvageable. It completely fails to mention that his acquittal was overturned by the supreme court and begins with "Banev ... was formerly accused of criminal activities" - an utter falsehood. Alakzi (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI, Swarm, Alakzi brought this to ANI. Your input is welcome. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• The protection has nothing to do with your dispute, Alakzi, just as I had to point out to you last time, so if you could quit trying to drag me into it, that'd be great. Several months have gone by since we last discussed this and you've made absolutely zero progress in resolving this dispute. Either you're in the wrong, or you simply haven't tried, which is no one's fault but your own. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 17:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oh, also, semi-protection protects against edits by non-autoconfirmed users, not unregistered users. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 17:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, he did not bring you up at all. I mentioned you and asked for input only because you had semi'ed the article, and might know some not-obvious background that explained what was going on. But I agree, the two issues are not related as such. Thanks, sorry for the confusion. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

He did specifically bring me up, I was the admin he was personally attacking at ANI, furthermore he was continuing to complain about it here as well, he's definitely taking the semi-protection as me taking a stance in favor of his opponent in the content dispute. I appreciate you letting me know however and I don't have much to contribute in terms of dispute resolution but I just thought I'd weigh in there anyway. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 20:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Evelin Banev Biography Protection

Thank you for protecting the Evelin Banev bio page! Is it possible to increase the level of protection, because as you can see from the last edits, autoconfirmed users can still delete and re-write biasly fully cited info? Thanks! DiscSquare (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• No, sorry. Autoconfirmed users are free to edit the article and, as I said before, they may be right in removing some of the info. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 17:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Swarm, I have had occasion to review the Evelin Banev article in the last 24 hours, and the text favored by DiscSquare is a hot mess of improper English; hagiographic nonsense that could have been written by the subject's mother; completely unsupported assertions of the subject's business prowess in purportedly legitimate business activities; unsourced assertions of conspiracy theories that the subject has been the subject of corrupt criminal proceedings in four different countries; attempts to obscure, minimize or dismiss criminal convictions for cocaine trafficking in Italy (upheld on appeal) and money-laundering in Bulgaria (initially overturned, acquittal then subsequently overturned, and still on appeal); and attempts to obscure, minimize or dismiss the significance of criminal indictments for drug trafficking in Romania. Moreover, the version favored by DiscSquare deletes reliable English-language sources such as The Sofia Globe and Novinite.com; in fairness to the subject, I have requested help from an editor with Bulgarian language skills, here, to evaluate the content and reliability of Bulgarian language sources. Before commenting further on this dispute, I urge you to review the reliable English-language sources I have linked on the article talk page and at WP:BLPN. Yes, Alakzi has been bitchy and rude in his approach to this matter, but most of his complaints about this article appear to be valid. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: Hey, I believe you! I made that clear to DiscSquare back in March, in fact. Despite the fact that both users seem to think my semi-protection of the article was some sort of gesture of becoming involved in their dispute, it was not in any way whatsoever and I am literally not a part of it at all. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 19:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that you thought that you were getting involved. You are not absolved of all responsibility by saying that you did not intend to have any part in it. You had an active part in the dispute by enabling DiscSquare. You saw two people with opposing viewpoints post on your talk page, and automatically assumed that it was a mere difference of opinion. You tried to apportion blame on my part where there was none. This would also explain why you protected the page against people who were trying to improve it. In these four months, you made no effort to find the truth, culminating in your prolix attack on my character at WP:ANI. You, Dennis and Chillum are clearly not fit for the job, and I say that unapologetically. Alakzi (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow. On the contrary, I never took any stance in your dispute whatsoever apart from making it clear to Disc that some of the information may have to be removed. However, you took my semi-protection of the article as an attack against your side of the dispute, and you acted like a complete asshole to any administrator who was associated in any way beyond an uninvolved administrative capacity. Also, claiming I attacked your character is like Hitler claiming he was bullied in world war 2, or Georgia claiming William Sherman was mean to them in the American civil war. Not necessarily wrong, but ridiculous in ignoring the fact that it was a perfectly justified response to out of control behavior on their own part. Maybe people would be more inclined to collaborate with you if you learned to control your emotions a bit. People like you are just as damaging to the project as people like DiscSquare. If it were up to me, you'd both be indeffed and the project would be better for it. Now, please do me a favor and kindly f...excuse yourself from this place and never post on my talk page again, I have no interest in associating with out of control, uncivil, immature, unstable people who act like troglogytes. Luckily for you, it's a big project. "Incompent admins" is the cry of any user who's whining about an admin not doing what they want. In fact, the last user who called me incompetent took their grievances to arbcom and got themselves indefinitely banned. So no apology needed...I'm not too torn up about your opinions. I'm fairly confident my reputation and logged administrative record speak for themselves. Regards. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 20:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Farrokh

You might want to have a discussion with Doug Weller concerning the use of Farrokh as a source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Why? Does he know something I don't? If I was wrong then by all means, I believe you, but I was just basing that comment on our own Wikipedia article for the guy, which makes him out to be an expert in the field. :P Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 17:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

To put it succinctly, there was a misunderstanding between Doug Weller and Farrokh. There was some communication between the two, with the end result being that despite Farrokh's writings, he is not an academic historian and is not to be used as an historical source. If you would like to verify this you can contact Doug. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

If you say so. I really don't care to get involved though, please make an attempt to explain your reasoning when reverting good faith contributors so that situations don't escalate to the point of having to explain it to uninvolved administrators. Regards, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 03:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

With reference to: Wikipedia:AAU

[Adopt-a-User] says you might be able to help me out. I'm rather new to Wikipedia and really wouldn't mind a bit of extra help if you're able and/or willing to do so? If not, that's cool, but I'd rather ask before I jump straight in at the deep end. KesterAnt (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I'm absolutely willing to help with anything you need! Feel free to come by my talk page whenever. Anything in particular you need help with right now? Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 19:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I should say I'm not interested (really) in creating new articles, more in helping clean up older ones. But aside from basic spelling/grammar (like my few edits so far), but does there become a point where that becomes superfluous?

A couple of small things I've noticed too - a sentence on one article that doesn't really make sense in the context that exists, a couple of bits of info that were taken out of one place because they were wrong, but weren't necessarily removed from elsewhere (like here, the [Antrim Plateau] link can't be right, Antrim and Londonderry are separate areas of Northern Ireland) but at least in the case of the latter I wouldn't have a clue about where to start to fix that.

In other words - yeah, I need help with the really basic stuff right now, I'd rather not accidentally edit the wrong thing :P KesterAnt (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)