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

Hello

Hello. Do you mind taking a look at this? I don't feel like explains in great detail despite it already being done on the article itself. I would prefer to sleep. AcidSnow (talk) 08:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Done. Sorry, just now got around to it. Swarm... ^—X— 17:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry and thank you! AcidSnow (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

User accusing me of being a sock puppet of HGA

Hi, It appears that user talk:64.134.157.208 has accused me of being the "sock puppet" of user talk:Hga, which is not the case. I have asked him to cease but he has now spread this to the discussion page for the AfD for Hoplophobia. He is falsely accusing me of this activity and trying to sway opinion on the discussion page. I removed the accusation from the AfD page and he has put it back. Is there anything that can be done to stop this?99.242.102.111 (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It appears IP 99 is canvassing here. Hga and 99 are both including material from fringe blogs which in no way meet Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources and they were recently warned of that and they deleted the warnings and reinserted the crappy sources and material. Hga has been editing (owning) the article for years. They have had plenty of time to find reliable sources and clearly have not done that so their terribly sourced material should be deleted IAW policy. They should find a source that meets the reliable source guidelines before reinserting material about a person who died in the last 10 years. Hga appear to be asking for a check user on the ANI. It would be very helpful but in no way give them the right to keep putting crap in articles. Thanks 64.134.157.208 (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is the crap they both keep adding. [1] Not something that is even remotely acceptable. They have demonstrated long term tendentious edit warring in the articles history. 64.134.157.208 (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, here's something I can speak definitively about, the edit reference to an issue of Cooper's Commentaries where he reiterated his rules of gun safety, life and death important since they are generally considered to be the best. However people were modifying them, and after some searching I realized those who weren't "improving" them were using corrupt texts. So I found the most recent direct quote of Coopers, put that text in there, and made a link to the DVC site (if I remember correctly), one of the many sub rosa copies of the Commentaries on the net. That citation seems to have been changed into two different onee, but, as I've said on the talk page and the ANI section, I have the authorized paper copies of Commentaries on order, and I will in due course be updating all references to the Commentaries to these 3 bound volumes. Hga (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Fibrowarrior

Regardless of the merits of the unblock request and your accept, courtesy and policy "require" that you check with the blocking administrator before accepting the request.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

You're right, sorry. Accepting unblock requests isn't something I commonly do. I've brushed up on the unblocking policy and will be sure to remember this in the future. Thanks for the reminder, it only helps me improve! Swarm... ^—X— 01:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI regarding Joseph Prasad

Just so you know, blocked editor User:Joseph Prasad is trying to recruit at least one other editor to proxy/meatpuppet for him at the Seth MacFarlane talk page discussion where he was edit warring (see here: [2]). I tried to explain to him (firmly) that such a practice is verboten, and add some advice regarding his block (see all the comments from me and him here [3]), but he wouldn't hear of it and deleted the comments as "harassing". Maybe you will see a need to let him know that such behavior (recruiting meat puppets) is against policy? Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

PNAC

Kindly note the repeated insertion of BLP violations at Project for the New American Century

[4] et seq [5] et seq (new editor "Dbdb" suddenly appearing making same edits as Ubikwit in the past) [6] (many edits includingBLP violations following) [7] third Ubikwit revert within less than 24 hours.

In describing the Bush's primary advisors, including prominent PNAC members Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Armitage, scholar Guy Roberts has noted that Colin Powell was the only to have military experience, and presents a passage in which PNAC co-founder Robert Kagan attempts to differentiate between the policy positions of Powell and those of the neoconservatives in which Kagan characterizes Powell's approach as ruling out "almost every conceivable post-Cold War intervention".

Some scholars have drawn attention to the influence of Albert Wohlstetter on the intellectual origins of PNAC. Alastair Finlan indicates that Wolfowitz had been a graduate student of Wohlstetter's, and states

Wolfowitz along with other former proteges of Wohlstetter such as Richard Perle, for instance, would create a lobby group called "The New American Century" (PNAC), which espoused a neoconservative vision of the future.

In discussing the PNAC report Rebuilding America's Defenses (2000), Neil MacKay, investigations editor for the Scottish Sunday Herald, quoted Tam Dalyell: "'This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war. These are the thought processes of fanaticist Americans who want to control the world.'"

Sources which are not on point for PNAC, or which specifically violate BLP do not belong in the article - and I am exceedingly disappointed that I am now unable to actually remove the damn accusations of living persons being "draft dodgers" from an article.

I suggest you read the reverts and insertion of BLP violations and material which is not directly related to PNAC but SYNTH connections of "the source says this about this person as an individual, so we can extend the argument to all of PNAC" etc. And note that the consensus on the article talk page was against such inclusion - especially since sources did not link PNAC as a group to having draft-dodgers be key players. Cheers. and try to do the right thing please! Collect (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit has also posted at Talk:Dick Cheney iterating the criminal charge of draft-dodger, etc. and is specifically adding BLP violations on the PNAC article -- including such violations as saying specific people "studied under" the same person - which is blatant OR and SYNTH on his part, etc. He has a standing warning from Robert McClenon for his editing on BLPs and I suggest that instead of yelling at me for edit war where my edit summaries clearly noted the applicability of WP:BLP that you note Ubikwit's blatant and continued violations of policy. [8] and [9] more than adequately show his disdain for the policy on the Dick Cheney article. And his use of WP:CRYBLP as his excuse for such violations is wearing thin. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

He has now posted that I can not remove BLP violations of all damn things!

Collect You know that you are supposed to raise BLP claims at the BLP board after deleting text on the basis of a claimed violation of BLP. You need to start following that directive and stop making unilateral pronouncements on such matters.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Which is about as absurd as Kafka might wish. Read my post at WP:BLP/N. Saying that a person is a "draft-dodger" is a criminal charge. Sourcing it to a publication of AK Press does not work as that is not a "reliable source" under WP:RS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

RPP

As a follow up from the recent 3RR block you performed ([10]) letting you know I have requested page protection at the article Drake Discography (see here: [11]). The RPP was requested prior to the block of those two editors. Additionally, another editor whose edit warring block will expire shortly was also edit warring at that same article before his block. There is a current content dispute there that has not been addressed at the article's talk page. Based on this [12] I think it's entirely possible the editor to be unblocked shortly might take advantage of the other two editors being blocked from editing. The RPP is purely preventative and I think that even though the other two are now blocked from editing, there will still be problems there. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I recommended to the third editor that they refrain from editing while the other two are blocked to precisely avoid this impression. I've also recommended to Joseph Prasad that they start a discussion thread on the article talk page after the expiration of the other two blocks. Requesting preemptive page protection on the assumption that they will take advantage of the block is an assumption of bad faith and the request should be rejected. Blackmane (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Bad faith only as a result of his recent behavior with inviting meatpuppetry, edit warring and not believing he was edit warring, his refusal to look at his behavior and having a plan to improve, his willingness to immediately jump into the fray as savior of the Wiki as soon as his block is up. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I've declined that request because pages are not protected preemptively. The user is welcome to edit as a productive Wikipedian once their block expires, and has agreed to stay away from the page in question and per WP:AGF we should take their word on that. They don't want to get blocked again and seem to realize that they will be if they return to their old behavior, and if that happens we can deal with it then. Swarm... ^—X— 06:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! . . .and question

Hello Swarm,

Thank you for your prompt response to the issue which I posted on the Edit Warring Noticeboard regarding the Glengarry Glen Ross (film) page. [[13]]

That was my first time on an administrator noticeboard and I had no idea what might happen.

I hate to bother you with a question: I see that User:LawrencePrincipe has been blocked. Would it be appropriate for me to now restore the material that he was deleting? Or must I leave it alone?

Thank you again, Xanthis (talk) 07:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I saw your edit just now, which makes my question moot. Thanks again. Xanthis (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Xanthis, thanks for bringing the issue to our attention. And don't even worry about bothering me, it's our job to help out other people! It's good you asked instead of simply reverting again; the removal was inappropriate so yeah I've gone ahead and restored the content as it's being discussed still. But it's generally best practice to revert as little as possible, and never to break wp:3rr. Even if you're "right" in a dispute! You did the right thing by reporting your issue. Swarm... ^—X— 07:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)