Hi, Ice Cold Beer, could you leave your input on this report? I've really tried to assume "good faith" for a while, but he attacked me and harassed editors. So I would appreciate if you come to ANI. Thanks.--Caspian blue 01:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not to familiar with the large scale edit war and I'm trying to take a bit of a break right now, so I'll have to decline. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My RFA passed today at 61/5/4. Thanks for participating in my RFA. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the WP community has placed in me. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ice Cold Beer — I've done some changes to the template that you have nominated for deletion. This includes adding some functionality, so that the format of the template can be adjusted to the specific needs of an article in which it appears. The lists in the template now have their own navbars, so they can be updated easily. I've also changed the documentation, so that it adresses the BLP and WP:UNDUE concerns. With these changes, the template can be merged with the existing 911ct template, as has been suggested in the discussion. Would you agree to such an approach, so that we can make a joint proposal at the TfD discussion? — Regards, Cs32en 19:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work with the documentation. However, I still have problems with the template and I'll use Willie Nelson's appearance on the template to illustrate my concerns. Nowhere in his article is it suggested that he is a proponent of 9/11 conspiracy theories and I'm not sure that such a statement would be appropriate for that article. So that brings up two problems for me; there are no sourced statements suggesting Willie Nelson's beliefs on the issue and the template being there while the subject (apparently) isn't even worth a sentence in the article. So I believe that BLP and undue weight concerns are still not adequately addressed. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again — Thank you for your answer! I think that the editors on Willie Nelson's page can decide whether the template should be there or not. Willie Nelson has been on the existing template 911ct at the time I created the 911ct supporters format template. I don't know how long he has been on that template and whether there was broad consensus about his inclusion or not. The last paragraph in the "Activism" section on Willie Nelson's page includes some info on his statements about 9/11. There is also a FOX news report given as a source.
I think that the possible BLP issues can be adressed best at the level of the individual articles, with the template content generally following the decision on the article's page. Anyway, with the new functionality, there will be just one template anyway, and this will probably be named 911ct. We may get some agreement on how to use this template (and the wording of its documentation) from the discussion, however. If we can identify the points where we actually agree, then any discussions about the remaining aspects will be less controversial and are more likely to be successful. As for Willie Nelson, I would remove the template there and make a proposal to use the new template on the talk page of the article, if we can agree on how to move forward with this. — Regards. Cs32en 02:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How did I miss that? I should pull my head out before I get on the Wikipedia. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why'd you delete an entry I created?
I created a page for an artist I know, Alan Steinberg, and included links to his Web site, places his work is featured, etc. Why was it deleted so quickly?
Oaklandnjb (talk) 08:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Oaklandnjb[reply]
Because it was blatant advertising for that artist. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So how would one enter information about an artist in a way that isn't a blatant ad?
Oaklandnjb (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Oaklandnjb[reply]
The welcome template I placed on your talk page contains some links on article writing. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user, whom you recently blocked, has persisted in using both his user and user talk pages for repeat personal attacks. Would it be wise to protect these pages? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That passage he keeps inserting really isn't too bad, so I'd just let it be. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Recently you stopped by Talk:Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth#Suggest_merging and voiced your opinion that the subject was not notable. I had presented 9 sources that I believe establish notability. Could you please tell me your opinion on those sources? Thanks! Unomi (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please visit 9/11 talkpage and explain the policies you've called upon in recent summary. Thanks. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hahahahahahahaha! I initiated that case and am aware of the sanctions. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you did, I see you did… I've read the statements of involved parties; I'd say it was pretty bitter case. It appears, and that appearance is made by your statement, that you've initiated the hearing to preserve the particular POV. This is something I see on each new step I take. Sort of a Wikipedia exclusive mindset it is, it doesn't seem healthy or helpful. Perhaps I'm not reading it correctly, but those 'verdicts' or rather reminders about our principles reject your initial claim. Even if I'm mistaken on that one, it is clear that your repeated actions are in disagreement with three of four principles mentioned therein. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't ask if I did. BigDuncTalk 20:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to explain your edit summary? BigDuncTalk
I'm calling you a dunce for re-inserting the POV tag as an attempt to weaken the credibility of the article. BigDunc + the missing 'e' = BigDunce. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A tag doesn't weaken the credibility of the article it is editors like yourself that push a blatant POV and possible BLP violation that weaken the credibility not only of the article but of wikipedia and you being an admin give your self a pat on the back for upholding the credibility of wiki you are a shining light of neutrallity and fairness well done. Also I have brought up your behaviour on ani. BigDuncTalk 08:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We did you revert my removal of a personal attack you are aware of WP:TPG and WP:NPA. BigDuncTalk 09:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't so much of a personal attack as it is a not very nice way of saying that you're being too stubborn. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I put it back for you mate, albeit less the threatening bit...hope this helps! --De Unionist (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What an absolute joke!
I change the article to update it with relevent information. Get told that it doesn't look right because it sounds to much like a personal commentary, so i change it... Then get told by the same person that it isn't right because it isn't referenced... I reference it... Then get told it's not allowed by the same person because it's not from a neutral point of view... I explain it is from a neutral point of view as i am a football fan first and formost... He calls me a liar, so i say he's full of himself... So now i get these pathetic warnings from the jollies on wikipedia...
This website is becoming a joke. I get stupid warnings because people are in a position to push others about. It's the perfect reflection of just how power hungry and arogant some people are in this country at present.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RoverTheBendInSussex (talk • contribs)
This doesn't change the fact that your edit summary was uncivil. That being said, if you would like to provide diffs of unacceptable behavior from other editors, I would be happy to take a look at them. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a respected Moderator of one of the most difficult and contentious topics (9/11), and as a member of the 'Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism', I wanted to seek your advice, and if necessary exercise your Administrator privileges.
It is related to the British journalist and broadcaster Andrew Collins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Collins_(broadcaster)). He has a Podcast; "The Collings and Herrin Podcast' with British comedian Richard Herring, and on this podcast they requested that listeners add fake catchphrases to their own pages, and that of another British comedian called Duncan Norvelle (which I believe resulted in those pages being locked).
Further to that, on Podcast number 68 (last week's), Andrew Collins said listeners should stop defacing his and Herring's pages but instead deface obscure pages with untrue facts with the hoped for result being that one of these 'facts' ends up in an obituary.
Here is a cut and paste of what he said.....(it is also on Collin's discussion page)
[26:25] PODCAST 68......
Andrew Collins - If you're really clever,and none of you are, you'd do very subtle things on odd ones, not ones that are connected to you, not because you heard somebody say it, but you find a really random one, very strange, and add something that noone would ever know was wrong, and then its used in an obituary; let's say The Guardian or something,THAT'S the cleverness. What you're doing isn't clever, its' just stupid, it's just drawing a moustache on it.....[Herring interupts]
Richard Herring: But keep trying !! [Collins interjects about moustaches again] Keep trying, but stop, DON'T do it on MY page !! What's that about !! Do in on everyone else's page !! Not Andrew Collins' page by all means !
[END 26:55]
Now, to me, that is a blatant incitement to listeners to breach the terms and conditions (if such a thing exists ?)of Wikipedia, by committing deliberate acts of vandalism (even if it is not meant maliciously it still damages Wiki's credibility).
Also, judging by the responses of GedUK, I believe he could possibly be a Sockpuppet of Andrew Collins. I have no proof of this other than his illogical responses to this Wiki abuse sound familiar to Collins' own defense on Podcast 69 ("Can we move on now please?" (GedUK and Andrew Collins).
Can you make a decision on this matter ? And at least issue Mr Collins (he is an avid Wiki editor of Richard Herring's and his own Wiki pages) with a stern warning to cease and desist.
If you are not the right person to ask about this matter, please could you forward this onto an Admin who would be in a position to help ?
Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malau (talk • contribs) 11:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please provide some WP:DIFFS? I'm having a tough time seeing what you're seeing with respect to the user's conduct. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean user 'Andrew Collins'? He has not been the one doing the defacing. He has been asking his listeners to deface Wiki pages. If it is only actionable if he himself did the defacing, then he will escape censure?
No, I'm a bit confused by what you're asking me to do. If you would, please list the user(s) who you believe have behaved poorly and provide diffs so I can take a look at them. Thanks, Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is anything you can do. My complaint is that Andrew Collins is a wikipedia user (though I don't know what his username is), and he is using his media position to ask his listeners to add false information to random pages of Wikipedia.
I guess I thought that the Moderators would have a big database of users and their IP's and would be able to pick out Collins and either ban his IP/Username as punishment, or send him cease and a desist mail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malau (talk • contribs) 15:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re your remarks on the talk page of 9/11: I do not troll. Comprende? Sarah777 (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:But, it would appear, you do edit war. Sarah777 (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing an administrator in good standing of edit warring... will you continue to sink lower and lower? How is the view down there? --Tarage (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can nearly see the top of your head. Sarah777 (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, ICB was probably not fully aware of the nature of your activities so I must withdraw the "warring" charge. Perhaps, Tarage, you too could learn to acknowledge your errors? Sarah777 (talk) 08:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have made none. Keep digging your hole. --Tarage (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ask not for whom the bell tolls Tarage.....(or, from this time forth you gotta be a different, better, Wiki-editor. All nice and mannerly like :) Sarah777 (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one walking the wire here dear. Just as you won't soon remove the word Terrorist from the Sept. 11th article, and thereby inserting your own POV, you won't be rid of me either. Keep attacking me and attempting to re-insert POV, and you will quickly find yourself with more limited editing capabilities. Don't say I didn't warn you. --Tarage (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you direct me to evidence of your justification for banning me? I have not pushed any fringe theories. All of the references I've cited come from credible, mainstream publications. It comes across as rather Draconian to ban someone for half a year for expressing an opinion you disapprove of. I suspect that this is another case of WP:ADMINABUSE. AncientObserver (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and I believe this action is even more suspect as it is a ban of 5 people as a block with no warning to any of the persons in question. This is in fact in spite of the presence of another administrator who laid out a course of action and had parties involved in trying to work on improving the article as clearly stated in the talk page. If you have not participated in anything on that article in the last 5 months and have no record of any recent complaints, I see no justification for a ban. The justification given has no merit and I don't see how you have any basis for it. Therefore, it appears more of an attempt to stifle opposing points of view via administrative privilege as opposed to any sort of violations of wiki policies.
Someone asked an uninvolved administrator to step in and analyze the behavior of participants in the article and I did so. I am not sure how being uninvolved negatively affects my judgement as only uninvolved administrators are allowed to place editing restrictions on accounts and I can easily view editing histories and talk page archives. This has absolutely nothing to do with taking any one side in a dispute because I don't really have an emotional investment in the topic. What I discovered is that you two and a couple of fellow contributors sought to artificially strengthen a fringe (Afrocentric) view by making it appear as if there is legitimate, widespread debate on the topic among academics. What I found on the talk page was a string of circular arguments over an extended period of time, which appeared to wear down the editors protecting the article from these fringe theories. This is a common tactic used by the POV-pushers of fringe theories and I won't have any of it. That being said, it is possible to hold a fringe point of view and still be a constructive contributor to the article and I hope that you will do so after your bans are up. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I posted here wp:an#Unilateral banning of everyone one side of an editing dispute seeking clarification regarding your ban. I would also like to request that you undo and work with the editors involved using appropriate dispute resolution protocols. Simply banning one side of an editing dispute is obviously inappropriate and problematic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the editor's third ban for the same thing. Ice Cold Beer's analysis is right on the button. And I think if I had issued the ban Big Dynamo would be using different arguments explaining why as an editor/Admin who's been involved in the article I shouldn't be issuing bans. Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doug, you neglect to mention that everyone involved in the dispute was warned and rebuked previously. Where are the diffs that show the alleged disruption? And moreover, why are you advocating for a misleading and innaccurate rewriting of history. Do you really believe that no one discussed or debated who the Ancient Egyptians were before Afrocentrism in the early 60s? This is completely ridiculous and many sources have been provided exposing this fringe nonsense as complete nutjobbery. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the article says "Although questions surrounding the race of the ancient Egyptians had occasionally arisen in 18th and 19th-century Western scholarship as part of the growing interest in attempted scientific classifications of race, in academia the meme was popularised and continued throughout the 20th century in the works of George James - so yes, the first person named in that para wrote in the 50s, not far from the 60s but before the term was first used. I just deleted a sentence that I realised as almost as emotive as your prose, but the fact is that your use of 'fringe' is highly misleading and you are putting words into people's mouths. Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your evidence for these accusations Ice Cold Beer? And how do you justify banning us for 6 months?! I guess I'm going to have to read up on Wikipedia policy to see how best to report you and the other rogue Admins for your misconduct. AncientObserver (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to know as I was in the middle of contributing when all of this occurred. Then I notice that user "AnwarSadatFan" just put a sockpuppet accusation on my user page saying that I'm a sockpuppet of Mutuwandi. Finally, I am still looking to see what is the fringe theory that is being pushed. The theory that the Ancient Egyptians were black is not fringe. That's the whole point of the article Ancient Egyptian Race Debate. So what is the fringe theory? That they were aliens? See my only problem is that I cannot adequately present the citations in the article yet, and I want to get photos that cannot be argued or administered out. Until then, I have to make edits here and there, but how can I when it seems like anybody that presents the aspect of the debate outside of a referendum on Afrocentricism may be banned or blocked? --Panehesy (talk) 03:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The theory that the Ancient Egyptians were black is indeed a fringe view. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Panhesy, the sockpuppet notice was placed on your user page on April 22nd. It clearly has nothing to do with anything happening right now. Dougweller (talk) 10:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, but now there is even a more strong reason to suspect panehesy is in fact a sock puppet of wapondaponda, the editor did not edit a page since may 31 2009[[1]] ,but started to edit pretty much right after the pov pushing editors were banned,it's apparent that user: wapondaponda created a slew of socks at this article to push his agenda while shuting out good faith editors,also because he knew the article was under probation and i am sure he thought sooner or later he would be banned for his pov pushing or be founbd to be a sock of the sock master in this whole mess user:muntuwandi--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now I have asked you politely to provide evidence for your accusations that you claim justifies our banning:
"What I discovered is that you two and a couple of fellow contributors sought to artificially strengthen a fringe (Afrocentric) view by making it appear as if there is legitimate, widespread debate on the topic among academics. What I found on the talk page was a string of circular arguments over an extended period of time, which appeared to wear down the editors protecting the article from these fringe theories."
I'm calling this a blatant lie until your can provide diffs supporting the claim. I have NEVER attempted to artificially strengthen fringe views by pretending that there is a widespread debate on the topic among academics. There have in fact been several academics who have reported on the controversy with differing views as to the Ancient Egyptian's physical characteristics and the geographic origin of their culture. I as well as others have provided citations detailing their views. We've never claimed that there is a widespread debate within Egyptology and you are lying if you claim otherwise. That claim is going to be central to my argument against our banning and complaint against you. Lying to rationalize banning is an abuse of power. We did not attempt to wear down editors trying to protect the article against fringe views. When I came to the article it presented a broad scope of the controversy and I contributed to the various sections already in place. I discussed the various arguments in a civil manner on the talk page and complied with all of the Admins requests for discussing the direction the page should take when it got locked. To have some random Admin now step in and use false allegations as a justification for banning me is an outrage and I will do my best to make you held accountable for it. AncientObserver (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
POV-pushing is POV-pushing. While it's true that I've never seen a thread where you stated your intention to push Afrocentric views, your edits to the article and your rationale for them speak for themselves. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's also true that you have no evidence whatsoever that I have pushed a POV. Can you show me a rule that justifies my banning and even ONE example where I have done what you accuse me of? All of my edits come from mainstream publications and were placed in the appropriate sections of the article. AncientObserver (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Take, for instance, this. Two sides are presented fairly evenly when one side is correct according to most modern scholars. Your ban is justified by the article probation along with your continued violations of NPOV. You've been told this before and I'm not sure why you keep asking. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is your complaint against this edit? You have not demonstrated how I have violated NPOV. What I posted in this edit was additional information relevant to the section which is factual and backed by authoritative sources. Perhaps you are simply unfamiliar with the research and do not recognize this. What I am trying to get through to you is that you have no justification for banning us. I will take this to Arbcom in good time but for now I am trying to settle this dispute in a civil manner. AncientObserver (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You and your fellow afrocentric coharts have been obsessively trying to use a wikipedia article for a propaganda mouth peice to pov push and establish what race the ancient egyptians actually were to you and your coharts, a.k.a black..as a previous admin stated the problem is you don't know the difference between trying to explain the history of the controversey which by the way has "limited" scope outside of afrocentrim (not that it is never disscused outside of afrocentrism) i.e the vast majority of people that study ancient egypt called egyptologist do not spend much time or effort trying to figure out if they were black, white mulatto or none of the above--Wikiscribe (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, work on you spelling. It's cohorts not "coharts". Secondly, I am not an Afrocentrist and I am not pushing an agenda. I do have an interest in race and history (I am an Egalitarian/anti-racist). I picked up an interest in the race of the Ancient Egyptians through a discussion with racists online about race and human accomplishment. I haven't attempted to prove one way or another what race the Ancient Egyptians were. I have posted sources relevant to the article and consistent with the theme of reporting on the history of the controversy. For instance in the edit that Ice Cold Beer cited I extended the King Tut section of the article with more relevant information along with comments by experts on the science behind the reconstruction. Are my citations not relevant to reporting on the history of the controversy? They clearly are. What the current version does is attempt to limit the scope of the article and infact push an Anti-Afrocentric POV on the controversy which is anti-intellectual and historically inaccurate. The broad scope of the article detailing the history of the controversy (origins of the debate section) from the 18th century to the present is the correct account. We can talk about the material within the article. Some of which can be removed and some sections need improvement but we need to return to the broad scope, not the dishonest version that is up at the present. Let's dispense with the personal attacks and resume civil discourse. Ice Cold Beer if you lift the ban there is no reason for us to go to Arbcom but if you continue to be stubborn this situation is only going to escalate. You made a mistake that needs to be corrected one way or another. AncientObserver (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom will almost certainly reject the case at this point. I would try WP:AE first before taking it to ArbCom. Also, an off-topic note: one reason not to beat people up on their spelling is that you'll ultimately make some errors yourself, such as the typo in the first sentence of your edit. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Typos are one thing but it's annoying when people misspell the same word over and over. Especially when they are trying to call you names. Thanks for the tip. I will be sure to file my complaint when I have read up on the subject. Btw you still haven't explained what is wrong with the content in my diff that you cited. And how do you justify banning us for 6 months without so much as a warning? Can you not see how it seems to us that you are simply trying to get rid of us because you don't like our views? Banning for 6 MONTHS for pushing a POV in a talk page?! Not only did we not do this but the ban time is beyond excessive. AncientObserver (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look this is the kind of stuff that is going on at this article,this was added by a suspscted sock at this article[[2]] and here goes the source[3]--Wikiscribe (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That suspected sock is me. And for the third time I am not a sock and you know it by now. Further more, this stuff is not in violation, it was sourced from CNN's website of contributing ireporters, with a photograph! The photo can't be ignored and is relevant to the debate. But I am here to inform Ice_Cold_Beer that your block of me has ended per the
The rule regarding the enforcement of Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy is as follows:
Enforcement by block 1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann#Log of blocks and bans. Passed 12 to 0, 19:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
You are banned from Ancient Egyptian race controversy and its talk page, per [1], for a period of six months for POV-pushing, adding unsourced content, and personal attacks. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Please note the time of the block. And please recognize that the individual administrator does not have the ability to violate the terms of enforcement. I am to be blocked for up to one week. Not six months. This is my first violation, of which itself I am still contesting without resolution. There is no doubt the enforcement code is clear. One week. I am very interested in seeing how you respond. Either you respond by engaging in further enforcement against me, thereby giving more strength showing inappropriate and biased administration of this and other race topic articles. Or you can leave it alone and allow us to contribute. Your ban of me in the first place was done outside the rules of enforcement. This in itself is part of a larger project to impact change in Wikipedia's handling of issues related to black/white articles and how they are used. So please, do whatever you feel. I am more interested in seeing how the other administrators respond. I even have my appeals typed up and ready to send in the event you block me from Wikipedia, whether for the sock excuse or for editing in the article, of which I intend on editing within the policies laid out.
--Panehesy (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That edit really isn't a reflection of the general edits that have taken place at that article before Dbachmann sabotaged the page and brought in his Admin army. AncientObserver (talk) 03:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Banned editors were victims of Wikiscribe's sockpuppeting[edit]
User:Wikiscribe is a confirmed sockpuppeteer [4]. The rest of his socks need to be rooted out. And obiously you need to unban the good faith editors victimized by his abuse and further harassed and abused by your disruptive ban, Ice Cold Beer. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. We all make mistakes and you need to fix yours as soon as possible. I'm sure your apology will be appreciated by those adversely affected by your poor judgment in failing to properly assess the situation and realize that Wikiscribe and Dbachman are the abusive editors in this matter. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiscribe is a minor annoyance in my opinion. I don't trust him and would not be surprised if he is involved in sockpuppeting but your point about unbanning us is a good one. We are good faith editors. We engaged in civil, constructive discussion on the talk page and are now being punished harshly for expressing our opinion under the guise of a bogus charge of POV-pushing. I think that Ice Cold Beer simply does not like the material we provided to the page. That's no justification for giving good faith editors a 6 month ban and it is an abuse of power. I have tried to make that clear to him but he will not listen. It would be better if we simply left these two to their own devices and sought a solution to this problem elsewhere. AncientObserver (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few things CoM if you accuse me of being a sock please ascribe me a sock first(i.e my alter ego /egos ,that would make sense) and than go here[5] if you feel strongly that i am doing sock puppetry and open up a case otherwise you are currently engageing in the same disruptive behavior as a sock puppet just did a little while ago here[6].I will be waiting for my notification of a sockpuppet case against me or are you just trying to chase me off this article by bringing up an old sock puppet case that had nothing to do with this article?Remember this article is on probation..also why are you harrassing administrators so much about those banned editors???like i said it's more likely something is fishy about you than me being you showed up right after the ban took effect--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh by the way cOm since for some reason i am the focus of your tireless efforts to get the banned editors off the hook,maybe ice cold beer can let you know that it was not me that started the motions to have these people banned genius.--Wikiscribe (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know I got you in hot water for suggesting the bans on WP:ANI and you followed through, but it seems that some other users who have appeared suddenly on the article may need to also be subject to the restrictions of WP:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann.
One seems to be adding unreferenced content to the article (at least my last check) and had previously only contributed to human skin color, and some of the ones who have been most vocal about the banning lately. If you do not want to act on this, that's fine. I just wanted to give someone a heads up.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for admitting your involvement in this, Ryulong. I knew that Ice Cold Beer was not acting alone in his abuse of power. I will be sure to include this diff in my complaint. AncientObserver (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Admitting his involvement? He's talking about this edit to ANI.[7] Surely you saw it. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you're going to appeal your ban, then by all means do so, but don't keep coming here and accusing me of "abusing power". Put up or shut up. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh man! Why are acting so wrongly towards people who don't think like you? Are you fine? It looks to me that you are the one who has to be banned indefinitively from Wikipedia for abuse of power. Wikipedia is a common project, not a private project destined for the distruction of one community or another. I have never been banned from Wikipedia before your injection in the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Controle your temper. You look very young with a lot of power in your hands, so you don't know very well what to do with it, how to deal with situations. Take time to reflect on your late behavior.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't acted wrongly towards anyone on that article. All the bans are justified. I'm not angry and I haven't abused my administrative status. I'm not that young either. I think it is you who should reflect on your own behavior that got you banned from the article. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to Wikipedia so it will take me some time to review the protocol on matters like this but it is obvious that your decision to ban us was unjust, malicious and an abuse of power. You have no justification for banning us for 6 months under your bogus charges. I have put up. I've challenged you to demonstrate how we or atleast I have violated NPOV with my edits and you have failed to do so. Now it is only a matter of going to the appropriate channels to appeal our ban and report you for Admin abuse. AncientObserver (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then do it. All I've seen is talk for the past week since I made the suggestion and Ice Cold Beer followed through.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ryulong, if you actually cared about the project then you would have expressed any of your concerns in a civil manner on the discussion page like the rest of us. Instead like a sniveling coward you got an Admin to unilaterally ban good faith editors who had done absolutely nothing wrong. You, Wikiscribe, Dbachmann, William and everyone else conspiring to censor the page are the source of conflict. We were doing just fine until Dbachmann caused this disruption. AncientObserver (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no conspiracy. You guys have been overly obsessed with the article and, along with the myriad sockpuppets of Muntuwandi, have locked it down from other good faith contributors. I have no emotional attachment to the subject of the race of the Ancient Egyptians, and I have barely any knowledge in the topic. All I do know is that you guys and your obsession have made the article far from what it should be.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not involved in Muntuwandi's sockpuppetry so that is irrelevant. As far as obsession is concerned obviously people who edit articles are going to have an interest in it. There's nothing wrong with that and that is no excuse for conspiring to have choice editors banned from the page. I didn't see you list Dbachmann or Wikiscribe in your list of editors that you wanted banned. You have a personal vendetta against specific editors and that makes you the one who is obsessed. AncientObserver (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no conspiring and I have no personal vendetta against anyone invested in the topic of the race of the Ancient Egyptians. Your baseless accusations only prove my suggestion was the right choice.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My accusations aren't baseless. Your suggestion itself as well as this "Fun Fun Fun" thread are my proof that you have a personal vendetta against us. Why do you think it's "Fun Fun Fun" to have good faith editors unilaterally banned from this page if you do not have a personal vendetta against us? AncientObserver (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because the "fun fun fun" section header is ironic. Making difficult decisions to block/ban people and dealing with the resulting brouhaha isn't fun. At all. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's one way of looking at it but I suspect that Ryulong has sinister intentions and took it to mean that he thinks it is fun to ban editors he doesn't like from the page. AncientObserver (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF. Dealing with disruptive users such as yourself is not fun. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dealing with abusive Admins like you is not fun. I would assume good faith if I did not see a pattern of hostility and abuse towards myself and other good faith editors. I'm not disruptive. I was getting along with people just fine until Dbachmann started his little conspiracy campaign against us. The worst I have done on Wikipedia is improperly upload images to because I did not fully understand how to provide copyright info for them. Other than that I have contributed constructively to the articles and the talk page and since you are making allegations I challenge you to prove otherwise. Failure to do so only proves my point about you abusing your Admin status. I see that Panehesy has already made his/her move towards reporting you. We may be new to Wikipedia but we'll catch on quickly enough to fix this situation. AncientObserver (talk) 03:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have been informed of the proper forums to air your complaint. So far you seem more interested in coming here to take shots at me. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I initially came here to give you a chance to explain your actions and possibly reverse your poor decision but I admit that I am quite annoyed at you and expressed it through my responses here. How have I been disruptive again? If you can actually prove that I have been perhaps I can do better not to make that mistake in the future. I wouldn't want to get another 6 month ban without warning from anymore pages AncientObserver (talk) 03:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have submitted a request for arbitration to have you User:Ice_Cold_Beer removed from administrating the article Ancient_egyptian_race_controversy and to rescind the bans placed. I have also requested that User:Dbachmann's request be reviewed to be removed. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. I understand this will take a while, but I am patient. I also expect some unilateral action to have me banned from contributing in general or something extreme in order to prevent the process from making a resolute conclusion that is fair, but I've already accounted for that possibility, without sockpuppeting, so no need to use that excuse. --Panehesy (talk) 01:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide me with edit difs for the edits made by this use that justify his/he being banned? I have followed (not always closely) the debates at Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy for several weeks and it seems to me that this user is very knowledgable of reliable sources and very reasonable. I took a quick look over the talk page and didn't see any pesonal attacks or violations of 3RR. I am considering reversing the ban but I want to know more of your evidence before I make any decision. Ditto Lusala. i know some editors on the page have been quite contentious, but these two seem to be trying to each compromises. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ban has received support at both ANI and FTN with no consensus to overturn. The correct forum for such a request to unban is AE. If you wish to ask for an unban I would be happy to respond at AE. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an adequate response. You have not provided edit difs to show that Ancient Observer or WDFord are disruptive editors. You have not provided evidence that they are sock puppets of Big Dynamo or Muntuwandi. I did not see that you made any case whatsoever to block them at AE, so you are not enforcing anything. Nor did I see any community agreement at ANI to ban Wdford or Ancient Observer. FTN is not applicable in this case, since it is about fringe views (by the same logic, you would delete the article on creationism or the evolution-creationism controversy for including a fringe theory - some articles exist in part to provide accounts of fringe theories). Slrubenstein | Talk 12:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a perfectly adequate response. The users need to use the appropriate avenue to appeal their bans, and due to the support of several members of the community it would be unwise to unilaterally unban all five of them. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am having trouble finding the AN/I discussion in which you established support for your ban. I know it is archived by now but can you provide me the link to the ANI discussion to hich you have been refering? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 10:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here. It was hidden, so I'm not surprised you missed it. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ice Cold Beer, I look forward to you finally providing justification for banning me as you attempted to do for Wdford. It doesn't look like you got much support on that one. Hopefully the higher authorities finally correct your mistakes. AncientObserver (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AO ,i don't think it's nice to antagonize people,i think ice cold beer has brought up something at the arb thingy that has stuck in my brain , he stated something like, wdford is a single article account,okay at first blush that does not seem like a big deal this is his topic of interest for the most part,but at the second third fourth and fifth blush??? It seems looking over the edit history from all these banned accounts they all seem to edit mainly one article only,now i am no Einstein this raises a red flag to me having 5 single use accounts editing the same article and for the most part agreeing(though not always)with each very strongly on the direction of the article. You know using the article as a mouth piece to try and prove what race the ancient egyptians were :) --Wikiscribe (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's very nice to abuse your Admin privileges. The bottomline is that we didn't do anything wrong. There's nothing wrong with 5 or even 20 editors fixated on one article. There are many more readers who are interested in the topic. The people in the wrong are the ones conspiring to censor the page by either abusing their admin privileges or getting Admins to do their bidding. You Wikiscribe obviously have a problem with the material that was posted. That doesn't make posting that material wrong. I would recommend that you and Ice Cold Beer be objective rather than catering to a POV over this matter. AncientObserver (talk) 01:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that admin WMC has unblocked notorious sockmaster User:Muntuwandi ,now i could care less about that,but the problem is WMC did not issue an article ban for the Ancient Egyptian race controversy being he did use numerous sock puppets at that article and that article is under probation would that not under the rules be an automatic article ban?--Wikiscribe (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing automatic is that administrators are required to explain and provide evidence for their actions. That Ice Cold Beer has refused to provide a single diff for his bans on four editors despite their being questioned and challenged by numerous editors who think they are mistaken is a shameful and grotesque abuse of his tools and shows a total disregard for the how Wikipedia is supposed to work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Ofcourse Wikiscribe is not concerned with Wikipedia policy. He just wants the editors that he disapproves of banned from the page. All I want is to be treated fairly. If Muntuwandi has been unblocked then he cannot logically be banned from the article unless he has used sockpuppets to comment since being unblocked. AncientObserver (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No No there is a difference between a article ban and a block,just because WMC has given him a chance to edit does not mean that gives him the slip from using socks at an article on "probation" that would actually be rewarding bad behaviour it would seem,if the race of the ancient egyptian article was not on probation than this would be a non issue,but since it is it seems like it should be an issue,also AO i would have more taken the CoM course when responding, you don't make yourself look any better sticking you nose out for somebody who went "ape shit" all over the place with socks,not to mention using them at an article that is already highly viotile and highly controversial.Also i suspect that WMC unblocked wapondaponda more just to keep the sock army at bay he is not even able to revert more than one time at an article--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have raised your recent topic bans regarding "Ancient Egyptian race controversy" for review at WP:AE: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ancient Egyptian race controversy ban review. Hopefully, a review by a few enforcement regulars will help put the matter to rest. It would assist the review if you post there about your actions. I am notifying the involved and interested editors of the request. I am also posting to WP:FTN and WP:NPOVN in the hopes that the regulars there will assist the review. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. Be well! --Vassyana (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I believe it could help with the review if you would briefly summarize the reasons for which you banned each of these editors (with diffs of the conduct for which you banned them), or link to a place where you have already given such a rationale. Thanks, Sandstein 12:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the delayed response, I have been unusually busy this weekend. I plan to start work on this tomorrow evening. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ice Cold Beer. I saw your name as one of the admins who has taken action under the Arbcom case. This article has once again appeared at ANI. What would you think of imposing a 1RR restriction? (One revert per editor per day maximum). In principle, 1RRs may lead to more negotiation. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If people keep adding stuff, does that mean that it can't be reverted? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would be willing to support a 1RR restriction. CoM, I'm not 100% sure what you're asking me. Would you please be a bit more specific? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry my question isn't clear. I support the idea of limiting reverts so that discussion has to be used. But then I thought about it and I wondered what stops editors from adding controversial material while others can't take it back out without violating the revert rule. Am I missing something? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, editors A and B can keep on reverting one another so long as 24 hours passes between the successive reverts by each person. It is hoped that the slower pace of reverts will make people more likely to discuss, since they need the support of others if they expect their material to stay in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about an editor who makes additions of controversial material? Say someone adds something controversial and it is reverted. Then they add something else that's also controversial, but the other editor has already reverted something once. Is that not a problem? I think I was told that the revert rules don't apply to the same material but to any content in the article. Is that not correct? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A 1RR on an article is the same as the normal 3RR rule except it only takes two reverts in 24 hours to break it, rather than four. The definition of a revert is the same. Formally, reversing any action by a previous editor counts as a revert. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what you would have to say on my current discussion with and about Wdford, so I though I explicitly ask for your view. What do you think? Zara1709 (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I request you to consider in what way this improves the encyclopedia. Thanks for your trouble. --John (talk) 03:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to keep conspiracy theorists from promoting their crap. I thought that was obvious. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Civility and calm adherence to our policies on NPOV, RS and V are far more effective than sarcasm in my opinion. --John (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you reviewed articles, if can, could you review Dhoom 2 for a GA status? World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 08:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, but I'm not nearly active enough anymore to give the article the attention it deserves. Go ahead and post it on WP:GAN and someone will eventually get to it. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all primary sources. You need secondary sources to establish notability. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity[edit]
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts.
The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
You deleted Afranet, which now is at DRV. If you haven't already, please add your thought to the DRV discussion here. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity[edit]
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity[edit]
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the inconvenience, but have no other way than appealing for administrators’ help recover a deleted article.
I published a film article entitled Drits (Derivas), a film by Portuguese director Ricardo Costa. It is the second film from an autobiographic trilogy, Faraways. The article was kept untouched by several months. To my surprise, it was recently eliminated and redirected to the director’s page with no discussion. I undid the redirection, but saw the article was proposed to deletion. Reason: independent, verifiable, secondaryresources. I argued that the article couldn’t have but primary sources (the producer’s ones) as it is an upcoming film, like many others listed at upcoming films. A film that has not yet been premiered or distributed may not be commented. Besides, none of the films so listed has ever been deleted or even contested.
At last, in discussion, user User:reddogsix proposed that the article should be renamed to Drifts (film) or similar, and at the same time put at the disambiguation page of Dritf this reference «Drifs, unreleased film by Ricardo Costa (filmmaker). I created a new page for the same article entitled Drifts (Portuguese film). As the semantic root “drift” seemed to be the problem, I replaced the article name to Derivas (Drifts) and published it once more with some improvements. As a result, the article was fast deleted and I blocked for three days.
In the meantime, a new article about the trilogy was published: Faraways, which was proposed to fast deletion as well by the same user, User:reddogsix.
Although unreleased, although having no reliable secondary sources, Drifts is unquestionably an outstanding film for its uniqueness and characteristics: autobiography, comedy, docufiction, metafiction in one. I guess that “outstanding” may be a synonym for “notable” in such cases and that articles like this shouldn’t be deleted without previous cared analyses: important information may be lost.
This sequence of interventions is clearly a personal attack by User:reddogsix, supported by two or three user friend. It has no other explanation. It contributes in nothing to improve articles quality. Mists article, which I created on 10 September 2010, is the latest example. The article structure was unreasonably modified, loosing clarity and useful content.
Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity[edit]
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. –xenotalk 04:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
