User talk:Swarm

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Review of admin actions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

RealDealBillMcNeal

This post of yours [1] suggests that you intended to block RealDealBillMcNeal for a week - but two days later he was 'contributing' again - with repeated violations of WP:BLP policy along with general belligerence and soapboxing. [2] Perhaps you should consider enacting the block for the duration intended? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

You guys seem to be mistaken, that block was from an incident last month. They served the full week and have not been blocked since. However I've read the ongoing discussion and I feel a new block is warranted, especially given their previous behavior. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 17:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Oops - you're right, I'd misread the block log. Anyway thanks for dealing with the situation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Anytime. :) Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 05:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Germanwings Flight 9525

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 10:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hm, well the article activity seems to have died down and there doesn't seem to be many efforts at disruption, but of course that may be the deterrent effect of PC. Still, I don't see anything that leads me to believe it absolutely needs to be extended. I think it's definitely been useful in protecting the article but I also think we can safely test the waters with unprotection for awhile. If it doesn't work out, I'll be more than happy to reinstate it. Let's see how it works out though. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 05:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Richard Hammond

How about this one? --George Ho (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Review of admin actions

I was asked, as an arbitration committee clerk, to edit one of your headings to a less accusatory and more neutral wording and so I have done so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Less accusatory?? Tell me you're joking! You were asked by the person MAKING the egregious accusations!!!! Wtf!!! I wasn't aware being an arb clerk gave you the right to modify my postings. Less accusatory? More neutral? Ignoring the fact that I'm being slandered with lies on the very same page. This is unbelievable. I have more important things going on and if this is the way I'm going to be treated here then it's not worth my time. Good luck with the backlog, all. Peace. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 14:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Swarm, this is just a personal comment. Being brought before the Committee has to be tough for anyone and particularly an administrator. However, if it's any consolation to you, you aren't the only one. I wouldn't get defensive or upset about the perceived injustice of it. Why don't you reconsider? To be fair, though, you should expect there to be other bumps along the way. Just take a deep breath and try not to let it get to you. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Swarm, what I neglected to say in my statement above is that you can revert this edit if you so choose. I have been corrected and I apologize if my words have had a negative effect, that wasn't my intention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you Bbb. The thing is, I actually do have serious things going on in my life and Wikipedia is simply an enjoyable hobby. If I can't edit Wikipedia without having to put up with ridiculous bullshit such as this, then I'm only harming myself. I'll be happy to work on the project again once this bizarre waste of time completely blows over, but until that happens, you can consider me indefinitely retired from the project. Regardless, my entire history here is perfectly open for anyone to scrutinize. I have absolutely nothing to hide and am not rage-quitting the project or anything. I just can't deal with this bullshit right now and will not waste my time defending myself. I hope that's understandable. Best regards, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 02:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • In mild passing, accepting the case is not an assumption that there is wrongdoing by anyone - it's simply acknowledgement of an ongoing and painful dispute that is unlikely to be resolved by other means. The case hasn't been accepted yet, but please be assured that you are welcome to take part if it is, and equally welcome not to take part and let your record speak for itself. In the mean time, and if possible, please don't let this distract you from actual editing. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)