User talk:Mbz1/a7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Mbz1

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mbz1 (talk | contribs) at 19:40, 27 December 2010 (→‎I'm willing to unblock you: question to Gwen). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

  • I uploaded more than 100 FP on commons.
  • I uploaded quite a few (never counted) FP on English Wikipedia.
  • Every year (4 years) since I started contributing to wikipedia at least one of my images got to a final round in POTY competition.


Просто целиться в лампу
Трудно в нечто без данных.
Яркость - слабость таланта.
Серость - сила бездарных.
Yevgeny Yevtushenko

Сыт я по горло, до подбородка
Даже от песен стал уставать,
Лечь бы на дно, как подводная лодка,
Чтоб не могли запеленговать!
Vladimir Vysotsky



  • “The rain it raineth on the just
    And also on the unjust fella,
    But chiefly on the just, because
    The unjust steals the just's umbrella”



  • 'Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?'
    'That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,' said the Cat.
    'I don't much care where —' said Alice.
    'Then it doesn't matter which way you go,' said the Cat
Spumoni
Spumoni
  • 'But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
    'Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: 'we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.'
    'How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
    'You must be,' said the Cat, 'or you wouldn't have come here.'


blocked

Straight off your interaction ban, you began wantonly hounding that editor and others, again. I have blocked you for one week, owing to harassment and disruption. If, when this block lifts, you carry on with this behaviour, your next block will be much longer. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mbz1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked as a result of of this this thread The block reason is personal attacks, harassment and disruption. There was neither attack, nor harassment nor disruption. As you see the blocking admin has never provided any differences of any of my "crimes" . I was hounding nobody. I saw this post about user:Daedalus969 in my watch list and added my input to an/i. How it is hounding? I have no interaction ban with that user.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You know well by now that editors are supposed to be notified when they're discussed on ANI, so running around claiming "canvassing" is disingenuous at best. That frivolous SPI was clearly harassment, and you were properly blocked. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

So you blocked me for a week for a bad faith report! It actually was not a bad faith report and it was not intended as a harassment. I really found this strange that a user will react the way they did on AN/I report that should have never been filed in the first place. I do not find it strange anymore, if even admin reacted the way she did. BTW may I please ask you to review what is wikihounding: Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. (highlighted by me) Now, when you have learned what is wikihounding please provide some examples of me ever wikihounding anybody. Please also provide examples of PA and disruption that were worth blocking for a weak or even for an hour for that matter.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the ANI thread speaks for itself. Meanwhile Prodego warned you to stay away from that editor earlier today. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but I cannot find any differences of me wikihounding or personally attacking somebody or anybody. Could you please be so kind and provide the exact differences of me wikihounding and personal attacking somebody. Please just take them from that very AN/I report and post them here. --Mbz1 (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly this AN/I report and the block look more and more as witch hunt, and witch hunt it is.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See the ANI thread which you linked to in your unblock request, along with this hollow arb enforcement request and the meaningless CU report I linked to above. If you don't understand what you've done, there may be a need to lengthen your block. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And who decided that it was "this hollow arb enforcement request" You did? Let me see. On 17:35, 23 December 2010 that AE was first mentioned on AN/I. On 18:28, 23 December 2010 you blocked me after on 18:21, 23 December 2010 you made this edit ? So when you read the AE report and came to conclusion it is hollow? I do not believe you ever read it. I still see no evidences of wikihounding and or personal attacks. I do not believe you should keep your administrative tools.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) A few examples, just from your last 100 Contributions, which were mentioned in the ANI:

  • this: "user:Daedalus969 harassed and wikihounded me all over wikipedia until an interaction ban (that I enjoyed very much) was issued between the user and me. Too bad it has expired. That user user:Daedalus969 will never drop the stick, and he wants to be an administrator!"
  • this: "Even gatoclass never claimed anything about coatracks, but you right I did learn something, like how unpleasant some users, who hardly wrote a few articles themselves could be."
  • this: "Rant, rant, rant. The users as you are only good to drive content contributes away"
  • this edit summary: "get out of my section, even look of your signatue makes me sick"

Your Contributions page was linked from the very top of the ANI page, and as a result several different people requested that you be reminded of WP:BATTLEGROUND with a block. betsythedevine (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
Indef-blocked by Gwen Gale Rd232talk 12:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mbz1, given your posts in the aftermath of this block, I think the likelihood of further harassment and disruption from you is much longer than one week and hence, I've lengthened the block to indefinite. You can appeal this block and its lenghtening by posting {{unblock|why I should be unblocked}} below. However, before posting another unblock request, I would think you should carefully read Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could have responded and explained every difference that betsythedevine provided above, but I will not bother. There's no use. I am guilty of nothing.
Gwen Gale, don't worry. I am not going to post unblock request or/and appeal the block. I have done nothing to be blocked for, and you still did not present any differences to support the claim of wikihounding and personal attacks because the above differences are not personal attacks .
I have never done anything in purpose to harass and/or wikihound anybody. I was wikihounded and harass way too much myself to do this to anybody. This SPI I filed could have been filed as a mistake, in a hurry, but it was not filed in bad faith and it was not filed to harass anybody. I myself was the subject of 2 SPI with much less (practically no evidences) They both were approved, were run, came back as "unrelated" and nobody ever got even warn over any of them leave alone blocked. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This block isn't about guilt Mbz1, it's about things you have done which stalled building the encyclopedia by wasting the time of volunteer editors on this privately owned website, with all its flaws. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've edit warred over a misleading template at the top of this page, I have locked you out of your talk page. You can ask to be unblocked by email, through WP:BASC. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This appears to be a flawed block. Ab initio, the blocking admin failed to supply any evidence to support the charge of "wantonly hounding that editor and others, again". The denial of the unblock request, which stood on grounds that differed from the original block, was similarly flawed. It cited "editors are supposed to be notified when they're discussed on ANI". That is true. Failure to do so happens all the time, for all sorts of reasons, and is on a regular basis addressed by other editors indicating it should be done or doing it themselves -- this is not by any means a blockable offense, and the assertion that it is suggest a wholly unequal application of the rules. Running around claiming "canvassing" where it is arguably disingenuous has happened as well in other areas without blocks being applied -- if Sarek really believes this is a blockable offense, I would like to know so I can direct him to editors who are doing precisely that, and ask him to block them forthwith -- nobody else has done so. Sarek's view that the SPI was frivolous is Sarek's point of view; that is not "clearly harassment". The diffs that Betsy provides are frivolous, and clearly not blockable offenses (really -- does she think it is a blockable offense to say "Rant, rant, rant. The users as you are only good to drive content contributes away" -- this only demonstrates how far she is reaching to try to make a silk purse out of a cow's ear). Gwen's extension of her own block to indef for what she perceives as "likelyhood [sic] of harassment" is as flawed as the spelling -- I see no basis for an extension of any sort, let alone an extension to indef, and find it odd that the same involved sysop is reacting to criticisms of her actions by engaging in further questionable actions.

I think we need some non-involved sysops who have not been formerly involved with this or with the blocked editor (and who are not wikifriends of the blockers) to review this. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have never (as far as I can remember) interacted with this editor, and am not "wikifriends" of the blocking editor (sorry Gwen, but you know what I mean). I have looked at the evidence here and can see nothing that says this block is incorrect. The user's block log is effectively the best evidence here - at some point we have to say "seriously, we are all volunteers here, and you're wasting our time - go and waste someone else's". Black Kite (t) (c) 22:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi again BK. Thanks. Can you be more specific as to what in the above precisely warrants an indef block. Including, in draconian manner, a block on the user's own talk page? This seems quite out of the ordinary under these specific circumstances. I've addressed the circumstances with specificity above. Among other things, if you believe that running around claiming "canvassing" where it is arguably disingenuous is a blockable offense, I would like to know so I can direct you to editors who are doing precisely that, and ask you to block them forthwith. Uneven application of even-handed rules is, I know, something that you seek to avoid assiduously.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mbz seems to have gone out of his way to cause problems, agreed with my suggestion he avoid interacting with users with whom he has had problems in the past, and then did it again. I can't see any other explanation except that his only intention is to cause the maximal amount of disruption he can. Thus, I support an indefinite block as well, and I am uninvolved. Prodego talk 01:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this is pretty much what I see as well. This is the sort of behaviour one expects from a SPA or new editor, not an experienced one. When an experienced editor apparently deliberately does exactly what they've been asked not to do, it is difficult to assume good faith. Having said that, indefinite does not mean infinite - if Mbz1 can convince the community that they will cease their disruptive behaviour and stick to any interaction/topic ban that is organised, then I don't see any reason why they should not be unblocked, with the caveat that any further repeat of the behaviour will mean an actual indefinite ban. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prodego raises an interesting point. If a sysop makes a suggestion that is not agreed with, which is simply a suggestion, that is one thing. But Prodego indicates that Mbz agreed with the suggestion, and then failed to follow up accordingly. I think that calls for an explanation from Mbz, and would be interested in what Mbz has to say on that point.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did said I will stay away, but when I said so I was absolutely sure that this episode is over. Apparently it was far from over because a few users came out and about at the same time to bring a new life to the thread that should have never been filed in the first place. I was so surprised by those posts and their eagerness in looking over my old contributions, notifying 3 users that I believed it was fishy. I filed an SPI not to harass anybody, but to defend myself. I have already admitted it was a mistake, but nothing more than a mistake. It is interesting to note that all admins, who claimed I filed SPI in a bad faith and to harass are refusing to assume a good faith towards me. As I have said below only idiots will file SPI to harass because they will end up being harassed themselves. The only reason I filed SPI was to defend myself from something that in my opinion passed a duck test --Mbz1 (talk) 05:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WRT the diffs I provided -- Mbz1 had repeatedly asked for diffs, claiming she made no attacks on anyone. I never suggested that any single diff was a blockable offense -- anybody can have a bad day. But what is striking in this case is the number of different kinds of examples of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, including but not limited to her offensive personal remarks to many different editors just in the top 100 edits of her contribution list, plus filing a nuisance SPI, plus accusing editors who were notifying others of their mention on an ANI of canvassing, plus starting an edit war on this talk page which is what led to Mbz1's being blocked from editing it. Not to mention wikilawyering about the exact wording of WP:WIKIHOUND because the word "hounding" was used in its conventional English meaning by the blocking admin. Instead of learning from the one-week block, Mbz1 continued to give more evidence that she did not feel she had to change her behavior in any way. betsythedevine (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs both individually and as a whole are IMHO frivolous. And clearly not blockable (let alone indef blockable) offenses. The one cited is just a stark example of the extreme effort being made to turn nothing into something -- it would not even garner an incivility warning in the normal course.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've reinstated Mbz1's talk page access, and added in the indef-block template (edit warring over this seemed the cause of the access removal) at the appropriate place in this thread. Removing talkpage access for a user who's just been indef-blocked for non-obvious reasons shouldn't be done lightly, and it wasn't absolutely necessary here. Rd232 talk 12:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've also started Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_review. Rd232 talk 12:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your e-mail

In reply to your e-mail,

"You are probably the last person I could count on to help me, but I will try. I am not asking you to review my block, but why my talk page access was removed. I only added the template http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Indefinite
I believe I am allowed to have such things at my talk page."

I believe that this issue is moot. The purpose of your talk page is for you to communicate with others with respect to your Wikipedia editing. If you no longer edit Wikipedia, the talk page has no purpose for you. Because you are indefinitely blocked and have said, above, that you do not intend to appeal your block, you have no need to edit your talk page. It is therefore not necessary for me to review whether the removal of your talk page access was correct.  Sandstein  07:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds correct that (and I am not clear if this is the case) if the user does not wish to appeal his indef block, there is no need for access to this page to be granted. If the user were to wish to appeal his block, or to discuss the rationale for it with an eye to possibly appealing it, I would think that it would be appropriate to restore access for that purpose.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The access should be restored. Blocking Mbz1 might be appropriate. Blocking and gagging seems overly harsh and unnecessary.
Also, I want to go on the record as saying that this user clearly has something to offer WP. A quick review of some of the photography uploaded by this editor should make that blatantly clear. I'd call for more stringent topic/interaction bans over indef block. NickCT (talk) 08:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, topic or interaction bans require cooperation from the banned editor. All that admins can do to enforce those is to block (globally) for violations. Unlike parking tickets, which are for the same amount every time, it seems that blocks in Wikipedia are escalating in length. So, Mbz1 is the only one who can improve on this situation. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there's ongoing discussion on ANI, including an unblock review, it seems only fair that Mbz1 have access to her talk page in order to address comments on ANI and answer questions, etc. Can we please at least do that much? - Alison ❤ 13:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Rd232 restored talk page access before you posted this. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool beanz - thanks :) - Alison ❤ 14:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make you smile

I know how you feel, but just to make you smile, I would like to remind you what Wikipedia consensus looks like. Feeling better already? Good :)--Broccoli (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think this is the first time I'm posting to your talk page. I actually liked some of your articles, e.g. the one on the ravens of the Tower of London. You seem to be a valuable contributor, but please lay off filing a kiloton of administrative requests. I see no reason for the admins not to lift your block if you agree to that. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Card

Merry Christmas
At this festive time, I would like to say a very special thank you to my fellow editors, and take the time to wish you and your loved ones a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year. And, in case you can't wait until the big day, I've left you each three special presents, click to unwrap :) Acather96 (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Yellow and Red present.gif

Thank you very much, Acather96! I wish you a Happy New Year!--Mbz1 (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So let me see

What I was blocked for:

  1. I filed AE concerning user:Supreme Deliciousness. The only thing I have done was to collect evidences presented about the user in other AEs by me and other editors and combine them in one place for an easy reading. I did add a few new ones. I even added this comment to explain filing of AE: *Comment to administrators: The purpose of this AE is mostly to make your life easier by putting all the evidences about SD that appear in a few different AEs together. Have I done something wrong by filing this AE? No, I did not. I have a great concern about user editing and filed an AE in a good faith. It was closed improperly. My block should not have impacted the discussion. AE should not have been closed by an admin, who never read it only because the filer is blocked. here on a different AE request at least 3 administrators have agreed that SD editing has is problematic Once again the only thing I have done was putting the evidences from 2 different AE in one for an easier reading and adding a few other ones. It was filed in a neutral tone, and at least one administrator was interested in getting SD explanations even it was opened for only a short time. I am not sorry for filing this AE report, it should be reopened, but I promise, if I am ever unblocked, never again contribute to AE.
  2. My next "crime" was this post on AN/I thread started by somebody else. It was a good faith post not to harass anybody, but to help an editor, who found themselves in a similar situation I was.A few months back somebody helped me to deal with harassment by that user I felt obligated to support somebody else. There was no PA and, no harassment intended in that post, but I promise, if I am ever unblocked, never again contribute to AN/I and stay away from that user. Did my single AN/I post (a one sentence) in a thread that was stated by somebody else deserved deserved this battle ground reaction and canvasing sorry, notification of a willing administrator? No, it did not!
  3. The list of my other "crimes" is "kindly" provided by user:Betsythedevine just above have no PA and no harassment in them. Besides my posts were taken out of content. If somebody blames me in plagiarism it is a rant. Also it should be noticed that English is not my first language, and sometimes I might use the words in a wrong way, but here's a dictionary entry for "rant" Does this look like it could be a PA?
  4. SPI report. I did file it not to harass. Only idiots could file SPI to harass, if they know it will come out negative. Was it my mistake to file it? Yes, it was. Was it filed in a bad faith? No, it was not! Here I'd like to ask everybody to assume a good faith towards my action too, but I promise, if I am ever unblocked, never again file another SPI. It appears to be much safer to be a subject of one :) as I was on at least 2 occasions.
  5. My accusation in users "canvasing" made my unblock request declined. Well, this is a tricky one. I read that "However canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate" I believed that notifying 3 users I had disagreement with without notifying any one, who might have supported me falls under this description of inappropriate canvasing. OK, I read the policy wrong. Did I really? Should I have been blocked for this? No, maybe warned, maybe explained, but not blocked!
  6. The other "crime" I accused in is a disruption of the project. No, I did not disrupt the project, a valid AE request (and I insist it was valid), a 4 posts on AN/I (3 in a thread about me), and a a single wrong SPI could not, and should not be called a disruption.
  7. Somebody suggested, if I am ever unblocked to post me on indefinite topic ban for I/P conflict related areas.I do not mind this sanction at all. It is much healthier to have such ban, but I would like to understand what I have done wrong in this area? I am not edit warring, I rarely edit in the area at all. Yes, I filed 2 AE requests in the last week. IMO and in opinion of at least 3 administrators they have at least some merits. But let's assume I have done something wrong with those AE. Then ban me from AE, but why to ban me from I/P conflict in whole? I asked this question only for my own understanding, as I said I am perfectly fine with being banned for the area.
  • OK, I am not saying that I was absolutely right in all my actions listed above. I believe no reasonable person could claim being absolutely right, but IMO I did not deserve to be blocked. Nothing of what I have done or said was done or said in a bad faith. Nothing of what I have done or said was done or said to harass somebody. Nothing of what I have done or said was done or said to wikihound anybody.
  • The following statement is not WP:NOTTHEM It is just to show that some of supporters of the block are involved with me. A few of the most loud of my accusers are involved with me. Please see this post made on wikipedia review by user:tarc about me: "I'll repost a response I made to that insufferable twat Mbz1" And now that very user has a nerve to support my indefinite block! But according to this it cannot be considered a good faith edit, and it is not.User:Bulldog123 what a name :) is very upset with the article I wrote List of Jewish Nobel laureates. He wants it out badly, as one could see from two deletion requests in a few month. Still it cannot explain his false accusation in me wikihounding 5 users. I wikihound none! My valid blocks count is 8, not 10 as bulldog is claiming and none before that one for PA and/or harassment.I am not sure why bulldog dislikes me so much. I guess he hopes that with me gone, the article he hates so much will be gone too.user:Bali ultimate falsely accused me in plagiarism at least in a few places.
  • I am not saying that I should be unblocked because of my many positive contributions. I am saying that any editor in my situation should have been unblocked (or rather never blocked).--Mbz1 (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You repeatedly asked for a list of diffs, and I provided links to only three of the five confrontational and aggressive remarks from your recent history that had been mentioned in the ANI. Concerning the first of these three diffs, your remark at an ANI which you describe above as "a one sentence", could you explain which one sentence you mean out of these four sentences: "The same happened to me a few month ago. user:Daedalus969 harassed and wikihounded me all over wikipedia until an interaction ban (that I enjoyed very much) was issued between the user and me. Too bad it has expired. That user user:Daedalus969 will never drop the stick, and he wants to be an administrator!" The second and third diffs I cited come from a talk page argument with Bali Ultimate. In the second you told Bali Ultimate he reminded you "how unpleasant some users, who hardly wrote a few articles themselves could be." Is that not a personal attack? In the third you said "The users as you are only good to drive content contributes away." Is that not a personal attack? And the motivation for all that unpleasantness was not some life-and-death matter or threat to the honor of a beloved country; Bali Ultimate was somehow frustrating your ambitions for yet another of your DYK-targeted articles. I completely agree with Mbz1 that saying "Rant rant rant", although uncivil, does not by itself constitute a WP:PA. If you still don't see any WP:PA in the first diff, here are the two I see: "harrassed and wikihounded me all over wikipedia" and "will never drop the stick". betsythedevine (talk) 03:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all you are right. I wrote 4 sentences. Sorry about this. About "harassed and wikihounded me all over wikipedia" and "will never drop the stick" I honestly do not believe it was PA. If it were a false accusation, then yes, but sadly it was the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The user got involved themselves in the matter that did not concern them at all. Then the user left quite a few "warnings" at my talk page after I repeatedly asked them to stop. Then the user reported me as a vandal for...deleting his warnings from my own talk page! I was lucky the admin really looked into what was going on and instead blocking me for "vandalism" removing messages from my own talk page), warned the user in the very strong words. The warning did not really help because after that the user nominated on deletion at least 2 pages from my own user space. Then..I could have continued,but I believe it is enough. So, when I saw a similar situation with another editor, it just brought a painful memories back. I remembered how desperate I was, and I simply wanted to express my understanding, if you wish, to the editor. I came from an absolutely different culture. In my country saying "harassed and wikihounded me all over wikipedia" would not have been such a big deal at all. I cannot apologize for this comment. If it were a false accusation, I would have, but I said the truth. You saw down below that I did apologize to two editors I felt like apologizing. If I feel I have said something wrong, I will always apologize. This is not the case. Maybe I should not have posted to the thread, but I do not consider that post to be neither harassment, nor PA, nor a disruption. It was posted in a good faith. I am sorry for getting in such details, but you asked, and I simply wanted to show to you on one example only that it is not right to take my comment out of content. I could have explained the situations with my other posts too, but I believe I'll leave it here. I will only add one more time that I do not believe I am 100% right , but IMO I did not deserved to be blocked at all,leave alone indefinite leave alone removing talk page access.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apology

Dear Rd232, may I please ask to accept my sincere apology for what I said to you in a past? You are a kind and a fair person and a great, unafraid administrator! I definitely do not deserve such kindness from you. If I were able, I would have given you a barnstar, but I am not able to do it at your talk page, and to post it here would be kind of silly i guess.

I would also like to apologize to Sandstein for emailing them last night. Silly me believed that it was OK to email an administrator and to ask to review removing of my talk page access, but thanks to user:Betsythedevine I realized now that I was "canvassing". So, Sandstein, I am really sorry I canvased you. It was a good faith email. It was not my intention at all to create you any troubles because of that. This all comes from my misunderstanding of the policy. You see, I believed that this is a good example of Canvassing because the message cannot be called "neutral" (IMO), and because this very administrator ended up blocking me, but now I am starting to realize how wrong my understanding of the policies really is! This message was simply a notification Wonder why only this particular administrator was "notified", but anyway.... My email to you was Canvassing. Maybe I should have emailed to my blocking administrator instead of emailing to you, but honestly I was simply afraid because, when I said "a" she blocked me for a week, when I said "b" a week long block was changed to indefinite, when I said "c" she removed my talk page access, so I was sure, if I am to email her (say "d") she will remove my email access too :)

To all, who posted here I wish to thank you for taking your time to stop by and for sharing your thoughts with me.

To everybody I wish Happy Holidays!

--Mbz1 (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, WP:CANVASS says that messages regarding wiki matters must be limited in number AND neutral in wording AND nonppartisan in targeting AND open rather than secret. I felt your email to Sandstein fell short of the second of these requirements. (Also the fourth, but that was excusable since you had no wiki access.) Your explanation of why you lost talk page access was "I am not asking you to review my block, but why my talk page access was removed. I only added the template http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Indefinite I believe I am allowed to have such things at my talk page." You lost talk page access after refusing to acknowledge that any block was justified, after attacking the blocking admin and all your critics, and after edit-warring with the blocking admin. You did not "only" add the template, you removed your own long-standing statement that you are "Semi-retired" and instead added a pile of your past awards, etc. Doing her credit, Gwen did not remove your new trophy wall, but she did remove your new "blocked" template, explaining that putting it there would mislead other admins. You then, 3 minutes later, edit-warred her decision with an Undo. I think that summarizing all these actions by you as "I only added the template" is a misleading and non-neutral account of the behavior that got your talk page access blocked. That was why I called this particular piece of off-wiki solicitation for help "canvassing." betsythedevine (talk) 03:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know what I kind of do not think one could edit-war on ones own talk page. According to the talk page policy I might delete and add to my talk page almost anything, and changing semiretired template with a indefinite blocking template did not violate talking page policy. The block was not justified. The blocking administrator was canvased sorry, notified about AN/I thread, she should not have removed my talk page access. Betsythedevine, may I please ask you from now on to stay off my talk page? Your messages at my talk page look more and more as wp:bait.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will be happy to stay off your talk pages if you do not post remarks about my actions on your talk pages. If you want to criticize me on your talk pages, please expect to see my answers appear here. betsythedevine (talk) 04:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See, your messages at my talk page are extremely unhelpful. Besides your statement about the reasons my talk pages was locked is false to say the least. Here's what my dear blocking admin wrote: "Since you've edit warred over a misleading template at the top of this page, I have locked you out of this your page.", and it is exactly what I wrote in my email to Sandstein. One more time I am asking you to stay off. You have AN/I to add my new "crimes" in. If you are to post here again, it will be deleted. Until my talk page is not locked for my editing I have the right to delete your messages, and I will.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mbz -- yes, you are of course completely within your rights to remove your own statement that you were "Semi-retired" from your own talkpage. That is without question. You were also completely within your rights to restore reflection of your past awards to your talk page. That is, after all, where they first appeared. And I was interested to see them -- they are quite impressive, and reflect much work to improve the Project, which stand you in good stead. Good editors and sysops will note that, and will scratch their heads at any future attempts to belittle them. And of course it would have been completely inappropriate for an editor or sysop to remove them from your talkpage--an actionable offense, actually. If I were you, I would take it for granted that seasoned thoughtful editors will know these things. Merry Christmas.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I posted my DYKs and FPs btw (only a small part of them btw), when I thought that my indefinite block is to stay. I was not going to appeal it, because there's no use to appeal such an extreme unfairness as was done to me. I believed it should have been lifted with no appeal or to stay as a constant reminder of what happened. When I posted my templates, the edit summary was for a good memory :), and this is what I meant only for a good memory. I did not know the block would be brought up for review, but user:Betsythedevine appears unable to assume good faith. She complained about this on AN/I and then came here with the same thing. She wanted to present this as I should be extremely grateful to my blocking administrator for leaving those alone. Honestly after everything else she, my blocking administrator that is, has done to me, I would not have been surprised, if she has deleted those too. I said that, if I were able I would have given Rd232 a barnstar for their kindness and understanding, and if, I were able to I would have given my blocking administrator a nice trout. Maybe I still will, if I am ever unblocked :)--Mbz1 (talk) 05:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • From WP:BLOCK: "A usual block prevents users from editing all pages except their user talk page. Users are allowed to retain editing access to their user talk page, in order to have a chance for appeal, and so that they are not shut out completely and are able to participate at least to some degree in Wikipedia, while the block is active...A minority of editors who are blocked use these privileges poorly, for personal attack or to play games and make a point. Inevitably the response to such actions is simple – editing access is blocked in its entirety and without further discussion, whereas if the user had been responsible and reasonable, an entirely different result might well have happened." I did not assert you were not within your rights to edit your own talk page, I merely listed a few of the many actions you engaged in there that A) were far in excess of your claim in the canvassing email to Sandstein that you "only added the template" and B) might lead a reasonable admin to feel you were using it "for personal attack or to play games and make a point" and thus were by policy likely to be blocked from using it further. betsythedevine (talk) 14:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words, Mbz1, they are much appreciated. You may have said about enough to merit unblocking in relation to the specific issues that led to the blocking, but I'm not familiar with the background and it ideally needs some input from the blocking admin before making an unblock request. I'd like to add something else though: in the spirit of Christmas and New Year, I suggest you think a bit more about how you can avoid getting caught up in WP:BATTLEGROUND dynamics: these are often collective dynamics in which people get caught up in vicious circles reflecting back bad faith or bad behaviour they experience from others. The only real solution (besides avoidance, voluntary or enforced by bans) is to constantly and very consciously try to break that cycle by exhibiting more good faith and being nicer and more helpful than those who disagree with you. See for example WP:FORGIVE, to which I've just added an apposite quote from a mug I got for Christmas :). One particularly concrete part of this would be to avoid edit summaries that could be construed as rude, and to avoid responding to talkpage posts by undoing them - that's rarely helpful and hardly ever necessary. Anyway, take some time to reflect on how you can make Wikipedia a more pleasant place for you and for others, and good luck. Rd232 talk 11:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rd232. There's lots of truth in your message.
When I delete messages from my talk page, as I have done a few minutes ago, I do it mostly not to get hurt myself, but not to hurt a user, who left the message.
I understand you cannot unblock me. If you are to unblock me, you might loose your tools, and I would have never ever accepted such sacrifice from anybody. Good luck to you too, and once again thank you for your understanding!--Mbz1 (talk) 14:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked Gwen Gale for more input (User_talk:Gwen_Gale#Mbz1). On deleting talk page posts - do consider that short-term solutions to communication may have long-term effects on relationships which should be taken into account, including effects that aren't obvious or predictable. It's really best avoided if at all possible, and certainly something that should not become a habit. On occasion it may minimise drama, but generally it doesn't contribute to collegial editing, or to dispute resolution where problems exist. Rd232 talk 02:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I opined against indef'ing you on ani. Do not construe that as supporting you, however. I'm seeing a slew utter bullshite from you, mixed with a history of doing some good stuff. Above, you called for Gwen's tools; *NOT*. You need to profusely apologize for that. The SPI was totally inappropriate, too; Dae “hunts” sock. A *lot*. I don't approve of his approach to that. I believe I also saw a ref to problematic editing on your part re Israel/Palestine. You should not be surprised that a lot of people are fine with cutting you loose. I think the best you're going to get here is an RfC/U that you quite earnestly participate in and take a lot of the comments aboard *willingly* If you don't, the next step won't be a time-sucking Arb Case, it will be a community ban discussion in which you *will* be banned. There's a lot of tl;dr here, and people hate that. I'll keep an eye on this, but frankly the timing of this sucks for many people. If I see much more that I don't like, expect me to be in the support ban camp. Merry Christmas, Jack Merridew 09:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jack thanks for your message. I have already agreed that filing SPI was a mistake, but it was not done to harass, hound or upset any user. When I filed this SPI, I was more than 60% sure that I was right. So, was this a mistake? Yes, it was. Was it "totally inappropriate", was it filed in a bad faith? No, it was not.
I myself was a subject of SPI request 2 times. First time it was ordered by an admin. They ordered SPI on me and...on two accounts that were created with the only purpose to attack me on AN/I an hour or so before. Just stop and think about this for a moment: They claimed I created socks to attack myself! The other SPI was run om me and on IP with a perfect English. My English is very recognizable as well as my images. Even, if I wanted to make a sock, and I never ever will, my sock would not survive a few hours. Nobody was even warned, leave alone blocked, for requesting those SPI on me, and both were requested to harass me. BTW that second SPI was the place, where I got a "pleasure" of meeting Dae for the first time. It is how all this has started.
I wish you a Marry Christmas and a Happy New year.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mbz1, this is something you must avoid in the future; try not to interact with this user or any others, with whom you may have similar problems, even at the expense of moving to different subject areas. Otherwise you soon will be in trouble. Biophys (talk) 02:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mean I soon will be in more troubles than I already am?  :) Although I see the user as a very problematic in I/P topic area I have no personal problems with SD whatsoever. The user has never wikihounded me, never harassed me personally, and I was rather impressed that the user has chosen not to join the choir of my accusers on AN/I and did not vote to support my ban. Good for them! Before I posted the info in question in AE request I made myself familiar with Outing policy. According to this policy I did not outed the user. Having said so, of course I will not do this again. In an unlikely event I am ever unblocked I am going to be officially banned from all administrative boards, SPIs and AE. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Perhaps you did not "out" him by the letter, but you did try to harass him, or at least it seems so to an outside observer. If you do not understand it, this is not a good sign. You must avoid conflicts like that with him and others, or you may be site banned later (I assume you will be unblocked in a week to resume editing). I would be happy to see you around. Very best wishes. Biophys (talk) 06:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand once and for all I have never tried to harass anybody. I had to present the evidences of the user using multiply accounts and I did. The purpose of AE request was trying to have the user sanctioned to prevent them from making such edits like this one for example, in which the user labeled noted historian as "Jew"] in article Khazars with the only purpose to discredit the opinion of the historian because he is a Jew. The AE was closed absolutely improperly and the user goes on with their tendentious editing pattern that gets reverting almost at once.I would not have discussed this user here and now, but your accusation in harassing the user is was too serious, and I felt I should respond. May I please ask you to leave it here? As I explained to you already, if I am ever unblocked, I am not going to have anything more to do with any administrative notice boards.Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Sorry, I only wanted to give you a friendly advice, just like here (your comment was made on a user page, not on administrative pages, hence my concern).Biophys (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diffuse and disengage

I've been watching this from afar and just have to speak up:

This talk page is now more than 70,000 characters. Plus all the other keystrokes on this incredibly disruptive matter over the months must make a whopping total of perhaps 300,000 characters. Plus, the time others spend simply reading this stuff.

How big is an average article? 3,000 characters? I don't know.

I am very protective of this project, and this is a huge power drain. Imagine if all this energy was put to building the encyclopedia? There would be tons of new content and articles.

The whole "cost/benefit" thing keeps coming to mind. Letting anyone edit works out. There is a decent net gain. Vandals are a sinch. One click and it's back to work. But this stuff is insufferable. So many times I've seen editors suck everyone in for a dramafest. I don't know what to suggest other than putting a strong emphasis on "diffusing and disengaging" whenever possible. So, to all the editors who have been on that track: "Good on ya". Too all the editors who have tried to keep the pot boiling: "Nerts to you."

What's the fastest route to ending this and everyone getting back to construction? Thanks for hearing me out. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to mention one more of our involvements. I mean, the one, when I spent a few hours searching the Net and walking around the stores to get an image of Afro pick you requested. Remember? Warm regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I do remember and I am grateful. But that does not mean I should feel guilty or owe allegiance. My allegiance is to the project.
My opinion on your photographic contributions is that they are wonderful assets to Wikipedia. My opinion on any edits, by anyone, that wastes the project's resources is that it is a terrible shame. This one is a doozey. This whole thing seems like a couple of senators on the house floor arguing over who stole whose parking space, with everyone else getting pulled in for the ride.
I do hope you get unblocked and contribute zillions more awesome photos. I do hope that this whole matter gets dropped and never brought up again. Kindly and sincerely yours, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to unblock you

Having read the above, I'm willing to unblock you if you agree to the following:

  • A ban from ANI or AN for six months.
  • A ban from filing SPIs or AEs for six months.
  • If you truly have a worry about someone's behaviour, go to any one and only one experienced editor or admin (whomever you please) and ask them to have a look for you.

That's all. You don't have to agree to these three things for an unblock, there are other ways to make that happen, but one would need to look into those through other editors and admins.

If you agree to this, please be wary of doing anything which might or could be taken by other editors, mistakenly or otherwise, as disruptive to the project, or as a needless waste of time to other volunteer editors.

I didn't see anything straightforwardly linked to IP topic warring as such. Be aware though, the editing of controversial topics takes a lot of care and often, a lot of time along with a willingness to put up with content one doesn't like. Dealing with flawed sources and flawed en.WP article content can be like the Pitch drop experiment. Is it worth your time? That's up to you as a volunteer. Meanwhile, try not to comment on other editors, no matter how nettled you may get, stay on the sources and how to echo them article text.

It would also help if you didn't remove comments from your talk page, no matter how much you don't like them but rather, set up a talk page archive. You don't have to do this but it can only help you, if you can live with doing that. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gwen, Thanks for your very generous offer. It is very kind of you that you do not request me to apologize. It would have been really easy for me to accept your offer especially because I myself made the same offer at this very page, but this will be dishonest on my part just simply accept it and got myself unblocked. I have absolutely no problems with not only 6 months ban on every board you listed, but even on indefinite ban on those boards either. There's the other thing that bothers me. When you changed my block time from a week to indefinite, it was my understanding that you have done this because I did not understand what I was blocked for. Gwen, I am afraid I still do not. I will not start my explanations all over again, but IMO a single post on AN/I thread that was started not by me, an absolutely valid AE request, a single, yes, "wrong", but still a single SPI that was not filed with a purpose to harass anybody, but just with a purpose to defend myself should not have resulted in a block.
To sum it: I accept the bans that you suggested not because I believe I've done something very wrong to deserve to be banned on those boards, but simply because it is healthier for me to be banned from there, but I do not accept the validity of the block. Having said this I am not claiming I was 100% right in what I did. I was not, but I believe nothing of what I have done deserved a block even a very short one.
So now, you know, where I stand on this, and this is entirely up to you, if you unblock me or you do not.
I have a question please. If I am not unblocked, am I allowed to remove declined unblock template from my talk page? I know declined unblock templates should not be removed, but the thing is I asked for unblock, when I was blocked for a week. Now, when I am blocked indefinitely, maybe it is OK to remove it? Actually, I would like to ask you, if it is allowed of course, to make an archive for me, and to move everything starting from your initial block message to all the way down to this archive. Please leave only indefinite block template. I did not add it in purpose to upset you. I simply believed it is the way it should be in order not to mislead the users, who will look at my talk page.
I realize that my position made it difficult for you to unblock me. I could have simply agreed with your terms, but as I said above it would have been dishonest on my part. I will understand, if you will rather keep me blocked.
I wish you a Happy holidays, and once again thank you for the offer!--Mbz1 (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I gave a more thought to you blocking me, and I understand that you probably believed I filed SPI request in a bad faith. If I did, then maybe it would have been a blockable offense, but once again I assure you, it was not filed in a bad faith. That's why I was so horrified by the block. It felt as a small snow ball suddenly became an avalanche that crushed my every bone.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Convenience link: Help:Archiving a talk page. Rd232 talk 15:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Rd232.I returned the messages you removed, and the one I removed myself back to my talk page. Thank you for the link and for removing a message from my talk page! It was very kind and thoughtful of you as everything else you have done for me for the last few days, but it's OK. Although my English is not good enough to understand what the user meant in her message, I've reached the point, when nothing could hurt me more than I'm hurt already. I do usually archive my messages, but I cannot do it now. Now, in my current situation, (being blocked that is) I could edit only my own talk page, and only after you kindly unlocked it. So, no, I cannot archive anything now. If you could believe it I am even grateful for my ordeal, if for nothing else, then at least that I got a first hand opportunity to get to know you better! I wish you a Happy New Year.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Mbz, these terms seem entirely reasonable and appropriate to me, and I hope you accept them. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Epipelagic, thank you for your message. I wanted to thank you for your post on AN/I, and now I got this opportunity. Thank you very much for being so kind with me! You are a real friend as it is said "a friend in need is a friend indeed".
  • I agree with you that the offer Gwen made is not only reasonable, but also kind.
  • With all my heart I wish you a Marry Christmas and a Happy New Year!--Mbz1 (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And may your new year be a happy one too! --Epipelagic (talk) 01:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per offline discussion, as part of this offer, I'm willing to mentor Mbz1 for 6 months. Mbz1 has indicated they don't intend to edit extensively and will clear edits outside their own user space with me. ++Lar: t/c 17:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Lar. To keep me blocked any longer with such extraordinary commitments on my part is a punitive measure.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing punitive here, Mbz. If you agree to the above, I will unblock you. If Lar is willing to mentor you, that's wholly another topic. If you want to wait for more input, that's ok too. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to be officially banned from all main space wikipedia. Is this OK? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very funny :D Gwen Gale (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gwen, I was not kidding. Please believe me I am in no mood for jokes now. I said exactly what I meant. I'd like to be able to edit in my own user space only, to menage my own in my own user space picture galleries. I do ask you consider unblocking me under such conditions (editing my own user space only). Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gwen: You offered to unblock if the user agreed to avoid certain areas. The user has offered to avoid areas that are a large superset of the areas you list. I think you should consider that as sufficient to meet points 1 and 2. I think point 3 is met by my offer of mentorship (which Mbz1 requested of me offline). ++Lar: t/c 19:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So why is she jokin' about it then? She knows what she's doing and that's ok, let someone else deal with it. But I'm only waiting for her to agree with what I put forth. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why you cannot AGF? I was not joking, but OK here it is your way:

Although I do not believe I deserve it, but I agree on

  • A ban from ANI or AN for six months.
  • A ban from filing SPIs or AEs for six months.
  • If I truly have a worry about someone's behaviour, go to any one and only one experienced editor or admin (whomever I please) and ask them to have a look for me.

Is this Ok now?--Mbz1 (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! Pls give me a tick. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I don't understand the point of asking for more restrictions beyond what the blocking admin said would be required to unblock you. I don't understand why Gwen should forbid you to edit outside your own user space -- if you want to confine your future edits to your own user space, what will prevent you? betsythedevine (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Mbz1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

as above

Accept reason:

You've agreed to stay away from ANI, AN, SPIs and AEs for six months, along with going to only one experienced editor or admin if you have worries about the behaviour of another editor. Welcome back! Gwen Gale (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Am I allowed to archive this template, or this should be kept at my talk page as my active bans notice?--Mbz1 (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

Biophys (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, very, very much, Biophys. It is very kind of you. I wish a Happy and healthy New Year to you too.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year 2011!

USSR stamp New year 1962 4k

Happy New Year to you! (substitute 2011)! BorisG (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

שלום שלום

שלום לך מבז1!

דרישת שלום חמה מישראל. אני מקווה ומאמין שתשוחררי מהחסימה הלא צודקת הזאת, כי יש לך המון מה לתרום כאן. Broccoli (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mbz1/a7&oldid=404507195"