Reply and restore. On to ANI? Your choice. |
Ice Cold Beer (talk | contribs) m Reverted edits by Spotfixer (talk) to last version by Ice Cold Beer |
||
Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
--[[User:Thesoxlost|Thesoxlost]] ([[User talk:Thesoxlost|talk]]) 20:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC) |
--[[User:Thesoxlost|Thesoxlost]] ([[User talk:Thesoxlost|talk]]) 20:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
:Yeah, I've seen those. I'm not willing to take any action based on those quotes because Schrandit was responding to some pretty nasty comments and because there's only two, and both are directed at one editor (instead of multiple editors). [[User:Ice Cold Beer|Ice Cold Beer]] ([[User talk:Ice Cold Beer#top|talk]]) 21:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC) |
:Yeah, I've seen those. I'm not willing to take any action based on those quotes because Schrandit was responding to some pretty nasty comments and because there's only two, and both are directed at one editor (instead of multiple editors). [[User:Ice Cold Beer|Ice Cold Beer]] ([[User talk:Ice Cold Beer#top|talk]]) 21:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
== The Colberry == |
|||
<!-- |
|||
Oh, and if you remove this civil, humorous and deeply honest criticism, you will be immediately "nominated" for WP:ANI. |
|||
Take pride in your malfeasance; don't try to cover it up. Deleting this award is the 'second' clearest admission that you've earned it. |
|||
--> |
|||
{{Infobox |
|||
| colour = darkred |
|||
| colour text = white |
|||
| above = '''The "Colberry"''' |
|||
| name = Colbert Award |
|||
| image = [[image:ThumbsUpStephenColbert.jpg|120px]] |
|||
| caption = The Stephen Colbert Memorial Award for Wikipedia Administrative Malfeasance |
|||
}} |
|||
Congratulations, sir or madam, you've just won the coveted ''"Colberry"''! |
|||
Out of all of the administrators on Wikipedia, your recent actions have stood out and drawn the nation's attention due to their ''exceptional level of malfeasance''. |
|||
Thanks to your abuse of power, outright corruption, and gross incompetence, good editors have been punished, bad editors have been rewarded, and the overall quality of articles has been significantly diminished. Because of people like you, Wikipedia will continue to be the deserving butt of [[Stephen Colbert]]'s jokes. |
|||
By all rights, your sysop bit ought to be flipped into a permanent block, but we all know that'll never happen. So here's a big thumb's up for you; keep up the bad work! After all, Colbert depends on you for material. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Spotfixer|contribs]]) 02:32, 6 January 2009 |
|||
:[[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]], how is this "award" anything other than a violation of [[WP:CIVIL]]? It contributes nothing to dispute resolution and its sole purpose is as an insult. -[[User:Neitherday|Neitherday]] ([[User talk:Neitherday|talk]]) 02:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Civility does not mean silence. It is possible to be highly critical without being uncivil, and this is a fine example. Note the use of humor, particularly the parody of the Wikipedia awards and the relevance of Stephen Colbert, a comedian known for making fun of Wikipedia's inaccuracies. Fundamentally, this sort of criticism serves a vital function by drawing attention to problem administrators, such as Ice Cold Beer, and I believe it is my fundamental right as a Wikipedian to protest the sort of harmful rule violations that this admin is responsible for. In fact, since they seem eager to hide the truth, I'm going to ANI right now to report his removal of warnings if he does it again. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer|talk]]) 03:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:06, 6 January 2009
Main ||| Talk ||| Contribs ||| Edit Count ||| RfA ||| Recall
|
Follow-up to your block on User 24.187.112.15As soon as he was able, anonymous editor 24.187.112.15 thumbed his nose at your 24-hr block and re-posted the personal attack that got him blocked in the first place. He also deleted your notification of the block from his talk page. I hope you see fit to impose a very much longer block this time, indefinite would be best. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 06:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
A question raised by the actions of Ray JohansonAfter a spree of his/her nonconstructive edits ( [here] ) earlier today (12/27), and subsequent warnings, you issued a block on ray johanson. Considering the nature of the edits, I certainly have no problem with this, but it does strike me as odd that one of the warnings issued was for a comment (or was it comments?) left on my talk page. As a non informative page, it seems.. unjust somehow, especially because I was not the one to revert and warn the user(This is MY talk page, after all). Really, I would not have warned them, or reverted their comment, I would just explain my actions in a professional, mature manner, and leave the immature and somewhat abusive message there as a record of sorts. (Yeah, I know it's in the history page, anyhow.) It's not like my talk page is frequented by lots of people (I hope..) In any case, is there any specific wikipedia policy(Or maybe just strong precedents) about user talk pages? OR does this have more to do with Huggle checking user talk page edits, as well as edits to actual articles? I'm kind of clueless.. (But it was kind of neat to see my talk page on Huggle..) Also, I just received this warning from Vianello(At the bottom of my talk page - I don't know how to link directly to the comment yet.)... Any clue what's going on here? I mean, other than that someone is trying to make me look bad, somehow? (Well, having an entirely fictitious and ambiguous user page is kind of asking for it)Is this a good reason to fuel more baseless paranoia, causing my slow degradation into a homeless alcoholic? Or should I just have a Guinness, laugh, and forget about it? In any case, I applaud your actions against the Vandals. It's the Admins who do the blocking that make the warning and reverting worth it. Huzzah! Huzzah! All hail Ice Cold Beer. 𝕭𝖗𝔦𝔞𝔫𝕶𝔫𝔢𝔷 talk 23:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch. I was gonna give you a RickK Barnstar... But I see you just got one. Maybe next month - I can see from your contribs that you're plenty deserving. I'm mighty surprised that anyone bothered - reading my userpage, creating the accounts, et cetera. Those vandals.. just have too much time on their hands. But without them, how bored would I be? Just out of sheer curiosity, how much time do you(Or should one) spend on your administrative responsibilities? (I'd consider doing an RfA, but.. I work alot, suffer from a general lack of self-confidence, and get enough gratification out of what I can do with Huggle.. The only benefit I'd see to the community as a whole is that someone else wouldn't have to do as much work. Besides, I like to take 'time off' from editing to read history) 𝕭𝖗𝔦𝔞𝔫𝕶𝔫𝔢𝔷 talk 01:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of Camp Nebagamon ArticleEarlier this month, you deleted an article on Camp Nebagamon for blatant advertising. While I don't remember the original article exactly, you probably had grounds for this. However, I feel that the organization is worthy of a Wikipedia page. As an alumni, I feel qualified to rewrite it. Could you please copy the text of the article you deleted into my user space so I could have that to go off of? I am not a Wikipedia regular, so I hope I followed all of the protocol correctly... Thanks.TheYellowMole (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Spotfixer blockIce Cold Beer, Your recent unilateral ban of Spotfixer was a poor use of administrative rights to resolve a conflict. A brief search clearly shows incivility and violations of WP:EQ on both sides. The block antagonized one editor, implicitly supported the bad behavior of the other editor, and escalated the conflict further. Administrators have a responsibility to be neutral and reserved. Per WP:blocking, you should not block parties involved in conflict disputes, nor angry parties to "cool them off." Blocking for disruption is appropriate only in cases of persistent gross incivility. Please keep in mind that administrator tools come with a responsibility to be reserved and work to improve the wikipedia project. --Thesoxlost (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
FYI: User_talk:Schrandit "I'm trying not to be a jerk as I write this but you've got me pretty well convinced that you are a bigot, and not a terribly bright one... -Schrandit" "Check the page again, it does not. You are a bit a vindictive jerk and would get me blocked if you could... - Schrandit" --Thesoxlost (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
|