Jump to content

User talk:KnightLago/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10


The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

Radek aka Radeksz, EEML activity and renewing partially his ban

Hello, I'm not sure if I'm addressing the right editor but if not perhaps you could point me in the right direction :) I created a page called Spieprzaj dziadu! which was AFDed last year with the involvement of 5 members of the EEML, which you were the clerk for. Because of EEML involvement the page was reinstated last week and now there is a new AFD. The only thing is, banned and then unbanned user Radeksz has voted for its deletion. He voted last year too. Now, I don't have proof that the EEML sent out a message to vote last year, but the undeletion of the article shows that other editors were happy that there was enough of a likelihood that there had been skullduggery there. It therefore seems that Radeksz is being, at best naughty, at worst breaking the spirit of his unbanning, by returning to the scene to vote to delete once again. He also left this strange comment on my talk page suggesting I shouldn't even mention him in passing without his knowledge (!) while I voiced my concerns to others regarding the original AFD. I therefore think Radeksz should be banned once again from this topic, and warned about his behaviour. He's obviously, IMHO, not learned from his previous experience or perhaps is pushing to see how far he can go. In my view, however, he's now gone too far.

Your views would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. Malick78 (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I voted, as I did last time, simply because I think the article should be deleted. BTW, if anybody still has the archive it can be easily checked that this article was never discussed. This is just paranoia. Also, KnightLago, whatever his other sins may be, was not a clerk for the EEML.radek (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The article at AFD also appears to have several copyright violations in it.radek (talk) 10:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I request you immediately withdraw your bad faith accusation. I learned about the AfD discussion because of the automatic notification at Poland-related articles for deletion. And if you would cared to check you'd see that I regularly participate in the AfD discussions on Poland related articles, the latest example is from yesterday(!): [1]. The insinuations that I came to help Radeksz, which you are spreading, are uncivil and dumb. The reason I voted for the delete is simply I don't believe we should have an article on a stupid phrase made by a politician. Bush or Berlusconi for example, both had many similar incidents but we don't make articles on that, do we? As for editor Radeksz I most certainly respect him, (something I can't really say for yourself judging from your behavior both at the AfD and on this talk page), but we do have a different opinions on a number of topics.  Dr. Loosmark  13:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I've never had someone so clearly civil calling me uncivil. I guess I should cherish being called "dumb" by you. The problem is, you and Radeksz have both had scrapes with WP's regulators before and that's bound to make other editors wary of you. Are you surprised? But let's not scrap over this on someone else's talk page. Sorry KnightLago. Malick78 (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Scrapes with wikipedia regulators? Okaaay.. The reality of the matter is that you brought this to KnightLago's talk shopping for a ban and then tried to paint my voting on a RfD in a very bad light as well. Also I did not call you "dumb", I said that the insinuations you were spreading were dumb.  Dr. Loosmark  16:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

Userpage for User:Timothymarskell

Please explain why this userpage should not display the template, {{Blocked user}}. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Because I asked nicely; and because we do not want to exacerbate an already delicate situation. KnightLago (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
That does not really provide any information or explain anything. The account is indef-blocked, is it not? -- Cirt (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Cirt, when statements are made that certain aspects of a situation are not suitable for discussion on-wiki, perhaps you might consider initiating queries off-wiki? –xenotalk 23:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
You mean, to inquire off-wiki somehow as to why the userpage for blocked user Timothymarskell (talk · contribs) must not state that the user is blocked? Or for some other matter? -- Cirt (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Anything related to this matter, really. This is a very delicate situation due to circumstances that cannot be discussed on-wiki; we would appreciate it if any further inquiries could be made to us through email. Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Kirill, for the clarification. -- Cirt (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your understanding Cirt. KnightLago (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
You are most welcome, KnightLago. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Update

Redacted because of privacy concerns -- Cirt (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, in case that was not made amply clear previously, take no further action on-wiki in this matter. Contact the Committee by email if you have further concerns. — Coren (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, and replied, at my user talk page [2]. -- Cirt (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Asgardian ban evasion

Hi. Can you tell me if User:125.63.185.218 and User:125.7.71.6 are/were the sock puppets Asgardian was using to evade his 1 year ban? I ask, because another editor came to me asking for help because of conflict he was having with someone editing from those two IPs, and I started the sock/checkuser investigation on those two IPs for this reason. I want to know if those IPs are going to be blocked, and what I can tell that other editor. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't confirm or deny whether an IP address belongs to anyone due to the privacy policy. KnightLago (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
So what do I do about those two IPs? Are they going to be blocked? What do I tell that other editor? When I began sock investigations in the past, and the IPs in question were found to be socks, naturally, they were blocked. Nightscream (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
From what I can tell, both IPs are currently blocked. KnightLago (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

What was the account he was using that got him banned? --DrBat (talk) 05:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Was was using IP addresses. KnightLago (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you please annihilate my two IP edits, and I will revert it but with my registered username?

I just want to hide my IP address. Sorry.Helloword 02:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Send us a message by emailing User:Oversight or oversight-en-wp‐at‐wikipedia.org including the diffs or the IP address and we will do this for you. Risker (talk) 02:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

Rogue administrators

I am writing because one or more admins are blocking accounts from users who happen not to agree with them. My crime was to post these comments: User talk:BadBabysitter. I will leave it to you to decide whether or not the charges are valid. My attempts to complain have also been blocked. Attempts to contact you by email and phone also failed. I had to change my IP address in order to be able to contact you. I suspect a very large number of users have similarly been falsely accused and have been unable to contact you because they did not know how to alter their IP address. Alternate user name (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

According to Daniel Case, the reason I was blocked is that my editing attracted scrutiny. [3] Since I did not actually do any edits [4] it is clear that the charges against me was trumped up by Looie496 [5]. It remains unclear what is motivating other admins to go along with this sham. However, there is no doubt in my mind about what is motivating Looie496.
Emails to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org from aol.com are still being returned. 2nd Alternate user name (talk) 07:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
If you wish to appeal your block/ban please email arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. KnightLago (talk) 11:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Nine Garcia

knight lago ...

nina garcia's age and name have been verified in several places ... when are you going to allow the actual data to remain ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.21.33 (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Where? The sources in the article support the current date of birth. KnightLago (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

WP:CHECK request

User:Kaverijha16 seems to be the same person as the blocked editor User:6feetheight, along with anons User:61.2.209.68 and User:61.2.209.94. Similar edit pattern and edit summary, as well as overlapping interests, are somewhat suspicious. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Please file a SPI request. KnightLago (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Query

I was wondering (please dont feel obligated to answer the following) how far back can a checkuser be used to look at edits conducted between 2 users? My next question is about filing a proper SPI which i guess is the heart of my query; just how many edits are proof for a solid case to be presented for the duck test? Im sorry to be asking so many queries but id like to have my ducks in a row so to be before filing a report without biting a user. Your opinion would be most welcome, thanks for your time Ottawa4ever (talk) 07:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

There are no set number of edits for a solid SPI case. Each case is unique. If you believe you have evidence of abusive sockpuppetry go ahead and file an SPI case. KnightLago (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

Help needed

Hello. Can you please, as member of arbitration comity, read Talk:Kosovo#Kosovo article split and post your opinion? Threat is based on WP:ARBMAC, and we are trying the last step in normal dispute resolution, before requesting full arbitration. Please, read the post, at least to the line, and post your opinion. As this is lasting for years now, we need your help to end it nicely, and without sanctions and arbitration's. Once again, Please, we need your help. --WhiteWriter speaks 11:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

Asgardian sock investigation

Hi. I started an investigation into Asgardian's socks. I don't know why the ones from September and last month closed without any apparent resolution or finding, but one of the IPs named during that one is one of the three I've named in this newest one. Someone on that page mentioned that a CU could look that investigation over and forward it to arbcom, but I don't know exactly what that means, whether it was done, and what, if any effect that had. Since you're a member of ArbCom, can you advise me on how this works? Can you help out with that sock investigation, and let me know if you can block the IPs in question, including the eight ones named in the September and November investigations, and the ones in this newest one (one of which is one of the ones mentioned in those prior ones)? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The SPI case you re-opened is the best venue to address your concerns. A CheckUser will look at the evidence you presented and determine whether a check is warranted, and if one is, run one, and take the appropriate action. Just because the previous cases were closed does not mean that they were closed without any action being taken. KnightLago (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Then why is he still editing, and from at least one of those past IPs that were previously named? Nightscream (talk) 10:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

Asgardian sock investigation

Hi. I started an investigation into Asgardian's socks. I don't know why the ones from September and last month closed without any apparent resolution or finding, but one of the IPs named during that one is one of the three I've named in this newest one. Someone on that page mentioned that a CU could look that investigation over and forward it to arbcom, but I don't know exactly what that means, whether it was done, and what, if any effect that had. Since you're a member of ArbCom, can you advise me on how this works? Can you help out with that sock investigation, and let me know if you can block the IPs in question, including the eight ones named in the September and November investigations, and the ones in this newest one (one of which is one of the ones mentioned in those prior ones)? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The SPI case you re-opened is the best venue to address your concerns. A CheckUser will look at the evidence you presented and determine whether a check is warranted, and if one is, run one, and take the appropriate action. Just because the previous cases were closed does not mean that they were closed without any action being taken. KnightLago (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Then why is he still editing, and from at least one of those past IPs that were previously named? Nightscream (talk) 10:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The case has closed, and this is the result:

  • User:HelloAnnoying will not take action against two of the five IPs named, because--get this---Asgardian didn't use them during the ten day period of the sock investigation itself. That's right. If you engage in IP sockpuppetry, you can evade consequences by just not using them during the investigation.
  • HelloAnnoying instituted only a two week block of the other two IPs, arguing that this is just a "starting" point, and if Asgardian (whom HA refers to as "they") comes back, he/she will take further action. Never mind the three years in which he routinely violated policy, the 12 unreversed blocks, the two ArbComs, the RfC, the one-year ban extended to an indefinite ban, and the ban evasion since then. No, according to HelloAnnoying, none of those constituted the "starting point".
  • HelloAnnoying says he/she will not indefinitely block an IP, despite the fact that doing so if perfectly acceptable, has precedent, and is allowable on the block settings page, including for IPs.

Now can you please do something? Nightscream (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this may be a prolific sock, but the user can change/not use IPs anymore, so why are we going to bite the new editors that are on those IPs that could befinit the wiki. If there is sustained over a long period of time, abuse of a single IP address, then there might be merit in that. "Blocks on shared or dynamic IP addresses are typically shorter than blocks on registered accounts or static IP addresses made in otherwise similar circumstances, to limit side-effects on other users sharing that IP address." (from WP:BLOCK) & also please take a look at how long you should block an IP. Just a note, I already left a note on the sock investigation page, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asgardian. -- DQ (t) (e) 22:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

Broward Sheriff's Department

A well publicized incident is being removed. The age of the article has caused most sites to drop their mentions however The Miami Board wrote a Report on the Police at Boward attacking freedom of Speech and firing on protestors without restraint. Is everything has to be well publicized then many articles would not exist. I submit to you that Multiple Referances as well as a full investigation launched by the city against the department warrent mentioning. So on those grounds I ask the revision be redon if you like I can provide more links.

Alexodia (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Alexodia

If it is really important as you say it is then it likely deserves a place in the article. But, I think we would need to do a few things. First, find a few more sources. Second, work on how it is presented. We need to cover both sides equally. And third, we need to keep its coverage proportional to its importance in the history of the entire department. If you can find a few more sources to start, I think I can help you work it into the article properly. KnightLago (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

Carnegie Foundation

The Carnegie Foundation is a well-respected research organization devoted to higher education. Their classifications are included within the introductory paragraphs of other universities' wiki pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.148.35 (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It is important, but a classification of this type does not merit a mention in the lead of the article. It is mentioned appropriately later on. KnightLago (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

Please peer review Institute of Chartered Accountants of India

I have recently nominated Institute of Chartered Accountants of India for peer review. I humbly request you to peer review the article. R.Sivanesh ✆ 08:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

1953 Iranian coup d'état

Question for you concerning 1953 Iranian coup d'état article: A request for arbitration over that article was made about a year ago and refused ... since then I've been trying to improve the article and have done a poll among active editors here and here that reached no concensus, followed by a RfC that also reached no consensus. The RfC dealt with just two sentences and there are many more I (and I think others) would like to resolve.

Question: As an arbitrator, do you think there is now reason enough for the case to be accepted for arbitration? If not, would it help for me to make a RfCs for other issues in dispute, i.e. is it better for arbitaration to deal with the issues one at a time or together?

(Even without any special knowledge of the history of the coup I think you will agree the article's point-of-view is not neutral, the lead is overly long and detailed, and article organization leaves much to be desired.)

--Thank's in advance BoogaLouie (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I am no longer an Arbitrator. Arbitration is not for the resolution of content disputes, but user conduct problems. The issues you mention (NPOV, the length of the lead, and organization) fall into the content arena and are almost never subject to Arbitration. It sounds like you are working your way through the dispute resolution process, and I would encourage you to continue. Only if you feel there are issues that are within the Committee's purview should you file a request. KnightLago (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you and I'm happy to continue to do RfC on other issues/sentences, ... if I can see some light at the end of the tunnel.
If you look at the RfC I started, you see a roughly equal number of opposed and support replies, so the article stays as before. But there's no examination of who has the evidence on their side. (I think) I've given evidence that the proposed changes are supported by WP:RS, and the opposing commenting editors haven't refuted this, but where in the wikipedia dispute resolution prosess does any admin or mediator or arbitrator take a look at the evidence, wiegh it and see who has the facts on their side? So can you give me a hint as to how to resolve this? Thanks. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
It seems like you are doing what you should be doing. I would encourage you to encourage those engaged in the dispute to try and compromise and present both sides of the information there is a conflict over in the article. Besides RFC, you may also want to consider mediation. Sorry I can't be of more help. KnightLago (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

Sockpuppets

Would you take a look at this? http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py?namespace=0&all=on&user1=%D0%A4%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2&user2=Moryak&user3=DonaldDuck You have blocked the latter before, and it seems he is back in the game.--Galassi (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


I think I have to reply to this. User:Moryak and User:Федоров are suspicious but I never edited most of this navy articles and that accounts are not my sockspuppets. Any check will prove it.

Probably, the real reason behind this request by Galassi is my old RfC (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lute88, see also Lute88/Galassi comparison, which shows much more similarity) and recent content dispute in this article. --DonaldDuck (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

The Signpost: 26 September 2011


The Signpost: 3 October 2011

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

The Signpost: 7 November2011

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

Could use some extra eyes on something...

If you get a chance could you take a look at Chemo (comics), ites edit history, and this editors contribution history.

I'm approaching a few old hands at Comics since there is something odd here and I want to make sure it isn't just me. I'm also approaching you and a few other Arbs since this may impact Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian and I'd like some general imput.

- J Greb (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

Dear KnightLago,

I am translating the Chinese version of "the Legal history of Chinese Americans" into English. Since we are talking about 1785 to current, it is a lot of work and I would like to get help from Wiki editors most of whom are excellent writers.

I was told that Wiki is free source and its articles can be "copied and past". It turned out to be wrong information. In order to complete this worthwhile project, I would like to hire some one to do the writings.

Can you help? Eric hsu1222 (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

Happy Adminship Anniversary

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello KnightLago. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 12:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

Abuse Filter on the Article Feedback Tool

Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.

For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

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) 18:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

N.B.: I apologize if you have received any duplicate e-mail messages pursuant to this notification; this may have been due to technical difficulties on the Toolserver. Thanks, — madman 18:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

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) 02:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

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 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. WJBscribe (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KnightLago/Archive_6&oldid=1141498536"