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

PNAC

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

[3] et seq [4] et seq (new editor "Dbdb" suddenly appearing making same edits as Ubikwit in the past) [5] (many edits includingBLP violations following) [6] 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. [7] and [8] 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)

Yup. Here I added references-tags to Collects's quotation, so they don't get adopted by another post on this page. LLAP,
Dear ODear ODear
trigger warnings 11:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration

I mentioned you.[9]

Dear0Dear 23:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

User abusing rollback privileges

Hello, I noticed you recently granted rollback privileges to User:ToonLucas22. He/she violated the rule "Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits." at [10], leaving this [11] comment incorrectly stating that I had removed content without stating why, when in fact, I left a detailed edit summary [12] explaining why trivial nonnotable traffic incidents do not belong in a BLP. Dngmnglr (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dngmnglr: I was using STiki at that time, and I forgot to view the edit summary. Sorry for that. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@ToonLucas22: Apology accepted, mistakes happen. Dngmnglr (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)User abusing rollback privileges[edit]

Another discussion with Chealer

Hello! Regarding the account blocking discussion that recently took place in User talk:Chealer § March 2015, I'd just like to let you know there's a past discussion with Chealer that you might want to have a look at: Talk:Linux distribution § Information on GNU/Linux. To me, that was a pointless and really painful debate, which back at the time I've characterized as "bordering with trolling". — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Thanks for your kindness to approve me the first English wiki right. — Masum Ibn Musa  Conversation 06:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Happy to oblige, you seem like a pretty cool guy. :) Swarm... ^—X— 17:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Chealer's comments on archived AN3

I'd like to bring your attention to these edits: first edit, I reverted, and then Chealer restored. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Chealer clearly has a fundamental incapacity to be honest with himself or to recognize wrongdoing, I suspect he's just one of those people who needs to argue for the sake of argument. He apparently thinks he's perfect and that the block against him could only be the result of some perceived corruption, despite the fact that it was only imposed after he continued his behavior after being reported. It's an extreme case of irrationality the likes of which I've never witnessed before and at this point I'm not sure how to handle it. Yes, it's inappropriate to insert comments into an archived discussion, but all I can say is leave it, if he needs to have the last word so badly, whatever. I assure you the next time Chealer's behavior comes under administrator scrutiny, this whole episode will speak for itself, as he's clearly the only one who thinks there's nothing wrong here. Just try to move on, if issues with Chealer's behavior continue you're welcome to bring it to my/our attention again, either way I'll be happy to weigh in on the matter. In my experience though people will only get away with this sort of behavior for so long, he'll either have learned his lesson (despite not admitting to it) or he'll continue in the same manner and find himself in a worse situation. Swarm... ^—X— 03:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion you've offered plenty of rationale for the block at User talk:Chealer. If Chealer is still unconvinced by your explanation he should take his disagreement elsewhere. I warned him per the result of a previous 3RR case in 2012 but he professed not to understand the warning. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) From my own experience, I can only confirm that Chealer simply doesn't want to play nicely and tends to argue just for the sake of what seems to be his/her arguing focal point at the time; please see § Another discussion with Chealer above. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I just saw this discussion, after I reverted Chealer's reversion of EvergreenFir's revert at the 3RRN archive. I find inserting comments in archives, where editors cannot reply to them, because they are, umm, archives, to be really disruptive. By the way I fully agree with Swarm's lengthy and patient explanations to Chealer, although they were apparently a WP:WASTEOFTIME, given the attitude of the editor. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I have asked Bbb23, a 3RRN regular, to look into this case. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for the comments. I'll leave the archive edits be, but I am following the pages Chealer often edits and will be keeping an eye on them. I've lost good faith in this user. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• The only thing I've done is left a clear warning on Chealer's Talk page that if they edit the archive again, they risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for that Bbb, and good to see you! And thanks to the rest of you guys for weighing in, I definitely agree, and needed to hear another voice of sanity after all that. Not that I'm surprised, but it's become clear that this user has more of a history than I was even aware of when I imposed the block. In hindsight, I'm concerned it may have been too lenient considering the greater behavioral issues at play (they clearly remain unresolved). Then again, that's fine, just keep an eye out and we can revisit the issue if and when we need to. Swarm... ^—X— 19:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you very much Bbb23 for your help. My thanks also go to Swarm for persevering in his valid explanations for his block to the user, despite the obstacles. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Heck, look at that reply... It reminds me to those numerous illogical "I see nothing wrong there" / "can you explain why" / "your reasoning is wrong" responses I've seen from Chealer. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Bizarre. Swarm... ^—X— 03:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you, a thousand times thank you! I greatly appreciate your help Swarm! AcidSnow (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem, figured I'd just make it easy on everyone. :) I commented on the AN3 report as well. Swarm... ^—X— 03:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. It wasn't intended to be at ANI but at the Edit War page. I think I wanted to say something else but I don't remember. AcidSnow (talk) 04:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Revdel please

I saw you were active today at ANI, so I am coming to you with a request for revdel including edit summary. [13] Thank you in advance! Binksternet (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Done, and no problem! Thanks for bringing it up! Swarm... ^—X— 21:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Life Is Real Only Then, When 'I Am'

I'm not sure that many of us have the option of nominating the page for deletion, it being fully protected and all. I know I can't. Maybe not a big thing, admittedly, but just saying. And some people like me drawn in from the FTN noticeboard discussion might forget in a week. John Carter (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Anyone can still nominate the page for deletion, you'll just need an adminstrator to place the AfD notice at the top of the article. Would you like me to take care of that for you? Swarm... ^—X— 22:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the subject is notable, having been cited in several other books, etc. I think page protection is less than optimal, but oh well, we don't live in an optimal world.- MrX 22:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

IP back to inserting same content

The IP User:50.184.134.157 you immediately unblocked and warned is back to inserting the same content at the Walter O'Brien article as before. He first announced it here: [14] and proceeded here: [15], [16]. He also now claims a reputable source isn't a reputable source and will likely remove the source. He is also planning on deleting quite a bit of sourced content [17]. Which is everything they promised to do before they were blocked, so... -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

And now he's saying this: [18], intending to utilize WP:IAR to justify adding WP:SYNTH. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I admit that the change I proposed in the talk page needs discussion. That's why I posted it there. I won't carry it out unless there is consensus. The changes I did carry out are non-controversial, and I repeatedly asked you for any conceivable reason why someone could object to them, and you couldn't give me any. There is no problem here.50.184.134.157 (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether your changes are non-controversial or not, you have exceeded 3 reverts. WP:3RR works on a count of reverts, it takes no account of justification (except to uphold WP:BLP). And I also disagree with your assertion that your edits are non-controversial. You violated both WP:ALLEGED and WP:SYN: that's controversial. Skyerise (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

RFA

Hi

Can I ask a favor with regards to your comment at WP:AN, I would appreciate a brutally honest evaluation of my editing history with regards to requesting an RFA. There are a couple of screwups in there so feel free to drag me over the coals with regards to them if you see fit. I feel now that im aware there are other more janatorial admins that there may be a validity in my consideration of applying but I'd still feel happier when someones had chance to give me an honest (and mostly uninvolved) piece of feedback. Understand if youd rather not but If you dont ask you dont get. Amortias (T)(C) 21:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Sure, I'd be happy to! It's going to take awhile but I'll try to get that done for you within the next 24 hours or so. Some advice I can give you right off the bat, though:

• If you haven't already, start studying up on WP:RfA. Look at previous RfAs, both successful and unsuccessful. Try to get a gist of what helps candidates and what hurts candidates. What kind of questions might get asked and how you would best answer them. Find similarities from unsuccessful candidates and eliminate problems from your own editing.
• Become familiar with Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates. It may be seem a little excessive, but it spells out anything and everything you'd possibly need to know about going through an RfA. I can't emphasize enough that the information there is invaluable. It also contains links to different users' RfA criteria.
• Start thinking about who you might like to request nominate you. I normally don't put forth nominations, but I might be willing to co-nom if/when I feel you're ready. I can give you some suggestions if you have no opinion on this.
• Take a look at my RfA criteria, which are very reasonable and accurate in terms of representing what the community wants to see.
• Take a look at my RfA, if you're interested (my stats at the time are on the talk page).
• Don't involve yourself in drama, unless you're trying to mediate a dispute (i.e. simply avoid getting into disputes, walk away from any that arise).

Anyway, I'll get back to you on this. Swarm ^X 22:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Block of Texasreb

Thank you for dealing with a dedicated disruptive editor. As I communicated in my assessment on Talk:Confederate States of America, over time the editor has made it clear he or she is not here to create an online encyclopedia working inside of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Given the way User:NorthShoreman's page was vandalized in the minutes immediately after Texasreb was blocked for editwarring, it's reasonable to verify checkuser connection between the ip vandal and User:Texasreb. For my part, I'd like to see the block for Texasreb extended to 30 days. The user has made it quite clear that blocking (perhaps even banning) won't stop that editor from pushing a fringe point of view on the CSA page. I'd appreciate any consideration to further discourage this disruptor. IMHO, a longer block will have a preventative effect not a punitive one. BusterD (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

You've got a mail

Hello, Swarm. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone

Do you mind taking a look at this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zhanzhao OccultZone seems to be attacking anybody that disagrees with them and only seems to be getting worse. I think you already know how he acts so maybe you have a good picture of his actions and demands. Resaltador (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)