User talk:Mbz1/a7: Difference between revisions
→The reason for my block: I removed one only block explanation that BTW has explained absolutely nothing because no single differences of so called "disruptive" editing was provided. |
→The reason for my block: urge an early unblock |
||
| Line 225: | Line 225: | ||
Bwilkins, May I please ask what exactly did you mean, when you said: "you [[WP:SOAP]]'d"? What number/numbers of the policy I have violated and how did I violate them? I insist on the explanations in order do not repeat the same mistake in the future. Thanks.--[[User:Mbz1|Mbz1]] ([[User talk:Mbz1#top|talk]]) 13:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC) |
Bwilkins, May I please ask what exactly did you mean, when you said: "you [[WP:SOAP]]'d"? What number/numbers of the policy I have violated and how did I violate them? I insist on the explanations in order do not repeat the same mistake in the future. Thanks.--[[User:Mbz1|Mbz1]] ([[User talk:Mbz1#top|talk]]) 13:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Unblock seems warranted == |
|||
I have had enough interaction with Mbz1 that I don't consider myself uninvolved, but reviewing the material given, something seems off to me. Mbz1 does sometimes act a bit impulsively and says things that may not have been the best approach but Georgewilliamherbert does not seem uninvolved in this matter to me. Some of his blocks and unblocks have been found to be a bit hasty or ill considered, this may be one of them. So I would urge an early unblock for "time served" with an admonishment to try to stay calmer. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 15:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 15:55, 20 March 2010
February 2010
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Sandstein 00:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)- I am proud of this block. I am fighting for the right cause! The block only proves one more time my point that Wikipedia is non-censored only from one side. To call European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights its working definition for antisemitism and Simon Wiesenthal Center and original research seems kind of strange. Oh yes, and I do not think I could ever stop to call the things with their real names.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- And how dare you to say that I am "mainly here to fight an ideological battle and not to improve Wikipedia" only because I called an anti-Semite "an anti-Semite" and wrote his name in small! It is he, who was brought here to fight an ideological battle not me. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Blocked
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.
My images and videos that got FP status on English Wikipedia
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My many images that are featured on Wikimedia Commons (four of them were the finalists of the picture of the year 2007 and 2008
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-|-|-
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-|-.jpg)
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-|-]]|-
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-|-
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-|-
|-|-
|-|-|-
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-
|- 
|- 
|-
|- 
|- 
|-
|-|-
|-
|-
|-
|- 
|- 
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-|-
|-
|-
|-
|-|-
|-
|-
|-|-
Some of my images that got QI status on Commons
Two of my images selected for Wikimedia Foundation annual report 2008-2009
Wikimedia foundation selected 25 images out of thousands that were uploaded to Commons for its annual report 2008-2009,two of which were mine
and See page 9
Successful featured picture nomination
|
Your Valued Picture
|
DYK for List of Jewish Nobel Prize Winners
|
On March 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of Jewish Nobel Prize Winners, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Calmer Waters 06:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
DYK for List of Jewish Nobel Prize Winners
|
|
On March 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ronald Levy, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Thelmadatter (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Successful featured picture nomination
|
Successful featured picture nomination
|
Successful featured picture nomination
 |
* 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
* '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.
Mbz1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The block was issued by an involved admin in the violation of consencus at AN/I. I'd like to ask an univolved, fair administrator to review the block, and to explain to me what my editing could be consider to be "disruptive".
Decline reason:
Procedural decline on three grounds. First, do not remove the blocking admin's message (or other relevant communication) before contesting a block because this makes the review of your block unnecessarily difficult for the reviewer. Please restore all relevant material before requesting unblock again. Second, you must explain clearly (with diffs of edits by the blocking admin) why exactly you believe the blocking admin is involved with respect to you; your link does not make this clear. Third, you do not address the reason for your block. It is not up to the reviewer to explain your block to you; rather, it is up to you to explain to the reviewer why the block is wrong. Sandstein 20:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
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.
May I please ask you to keep in mind that for the last 24 hours I was accused by factsonthe ground in demonstrating "a racist anti-Palestinian agenda" with no reason whatsoever; threatened with the "perma-ban" in the violation of WP:TPNO by Shabazz with no reason whatsoever and so on, and so on. The page from my user space was nominated for deletion with no reason whatsoever. My edits were reverted with no reasons whatsoever. Please stop wikihounding! Is there any fairness to be sought for?--Mbz1 (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- I have never removed block message. It is here as you could see. Once again the blocking admin shows he does not know what he's talking about.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- This edit is probably what he's referring to [2], where you removed his explanation for the block to you. Dayewalker (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I removed the so called explanation together with the title by an accident. Title of course does not matter, the block template was never removed. I added the title back as soon as I noticed it, and now I am accused in lying. Is here somebody fair and brave enough to stop wikihounding at last? --Mbz1 (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- This edit is probably what he's referring to [2], where you removed his explanation for the block to you. Dayewalker (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- I have never removed block message. It is here as you could see. Once again the blocking admin shows he does not know what he's talking about.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
As Keegan said just few days ago: "Mbz1 should not be "ganged up on", as this is perceived.", but I am and more than ever.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Response to Sandstein
- Thank you for taking the time to review my request.
Blocked for 24 hours for disruptive editing
Without asserting blame for events happening prior to this week, earlier this week I and others imposed the 24 hr interaction ban to try and calm the larger conflict down. Since then, the level of personal attacks and disruptive actions by all but one of the parties involved dropped off nearly completely.
For whatever reason, you have continued them.
I advised you a couple of days ago to take a short break, hoping that you would calm down and find a way to continue the content debates without disruptive actions and personal attacks. Your response has been to redouble those attacks. Reviewing ANI currently, there is significant administrator support for a proposal blocking you for a week and putting you on user interaction probation for three months.
I am not taking up that proposed community sanction now. But reviewing your actions since my request for you to take a break, it's clear that you are poking sticks into situations to escalate conflict, with multiple parties, in multiple venues. That's disruptive to the community. We expect editors to handle conflicts in an adult manner - with respect for other participants, and dealing with disagreements at a friendly, or at least not insultingly combative, level.
I am blocking you from editing for 24 hrs to prevent further provocations and disruptive behavior.
When the block is up - I strongly urge you to either disengage from this subject or to participate in a constructive manner with due respect for other Wikipedians' participation. Even in contentious areas, we expect people to handle content conflicts with dignity and respect. If you cannot do that, you either need to stay away from contentious areas, or reconsider whether you are able to participate in Wikipedia on an ongoing basis.
That decision is up to you. If you chose to behave in a constructive manner then nobody will remember this a year from now. I hope that you chose that path.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Above is the original block message. As you could see no single differences of "disruptive behavior" is provided.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Here's how the blocking admin and me are involved
- A day or so ago the blocking admin left this warning at my talk page.
- I've removed it with edit summary: "Empty words of so called uninvolved administrator, who has no idea what he's talking about."
- I then a left this message at the blocking admin talk page
- I assume that after all of the above the blocking admin might have a strong feelings about me.
- According to this the blocking admin is involved with me: "In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen to have a conflict of interest in conflicts they have been a party to or have strong feelings about.", and should not have been the one, who issued a block.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The reason for my block
Well, I do not know, but here's a copy from AN/I of initial complain and my first response:
Will somebody please give Mbz1 (talk · contribs) something stronger than a cup of tea? Earlier in the week, she was banned from interacting with Factsontheground (talk · contribs), me, and a few other editors (we were all told not to have anything to do with one another). See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive603#Incivility, claims of harrassment, and talk page drama, especially the "Temporary topic ban" section.
Now that the ban has ended, Mbz1 awarded a barnstar to another editor in which she referred to Factsontheground as "lies-on-the-ground"[3]. She left a series of nasty messages at User talk:Factsontheground#Wikipedia is not a forum related to a five-day-old message. When Georgewilliamherbert left two messages there for FoTG, Mbz1 added an unnecessary taunt. When I removed it, she restored it. Twice.
Mbz1 is growing emboldened by the fact that her behavior seems to be sanctioned by the admins and others who watch this page. Is somebody willing to stand up and tell her, No!, you can't insult, offend, and taunt other editors? Or is this sort of behavior okay now? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Honestly that is not ever warrant a response, but in the last few minutes Malik Shabazz violated two wikipedia policies 3 times:
- reverted my edits from the other user talk page in the violation of WP:TPO
- reverted my edits from the other user talk page in the violation of WP:TPO, and in the edit summary advising me "to stay in my corner"
- threatened me with the "perma-ban" in the violation of WP:TPNO in particular: * Do not threaten people: For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you
- Looks like Shabazz forgot to add that that my message he reverted was posted in response to that: Factsontheground wrote about me: I believe that Mbz1 demonstrated a racist anti-Palestinian agenda " with no reason whatsoever.
- Of course I would not have objected, if factsonground removed my message from the talk page.Shabazz should not have done that.
- For the record factsonground did not remove my message, and instead has responded calmly to Georgewilliamherbert, Sure, George, I just want to move on. This whole conflict is really boring me.
- About "nasty messages" here's another thread wich explains the things.
- Something else should be mentioned. Shabazz writes: "Earlier in the week, she was banned from interacting with Factsontheground (talk · contribs), me, and a few other editors" . There's a mistake in that statement. We all were banned from interacting with each other. Please see here for example.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- After that I banned myself from participating in AN/I discussion and have never violated the ban.
- So, if any of my edits could have been considered "disruptive" it happened more than 15 hours before the block was issued, which means it is a punitive action now.
- Here's a thread on AN/I about me. IMO it should have given a chance to stay it course, especially with me not commenting there.
- Please see here. The only admin, who supported the block was heavily involved Shabazz.
- One more thing: At the moment of the block or so called "disruptive" edits I was not under any topic ban and/or edit restrictions.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- If any so-called "disrupting" edit happened it was before An/I thread was started. I saw users being unblocked during AN/I thread deciding their destiny, but to block me that I could not even defend myself, is very, very unfair. I've done absolutely nothing to deserve it. It is a punitive sanction to satisfy 4 users, who were wikihounding me for days!
Mbz1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Complied with reviewing admin demands just above
Decline reason:
Your entire set of activities on this talkpage during your block has been extremely disruptive. You removed declined block requests, you removed block notices, you WP:SOAP'd, and you jammed the page full of images to either show how much we'll miss you, or how important you must be. Although I sympathize with the situation, the sympathy was easily dissolved by these activities. The block will expire on its own later today - you'll have some apologizing to do when that happens. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
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.
- Did I understand you right? Did you decline my unblock request not because the initial block was a good block in your opinion, but because " entire set of activities on this talkpage during your block has been extremely disruptive"? How disruptive one could have been at one's talk page during an unfair block? Well, let us see:
- I have never removed block notices. I removed one only block explanation that BTW was explaining absolutely nothing because no single differences of so called "disruptive" editing was provided, and was just a set of empty words of unfair, unworthy and involved administrator Georgewilliamherbert.
- I did not know I have no right to remove declined unblock requests. I removed only one declined unblock request. Even now I believe that as long as I did not add another unblock template, which I did not, it should have been fine.
- of course I did "jam the page full of images". I've nothing to say in my deference for that one :) except maybe that even my hounds did not complain, at least not yet, about that "disruption".
- If you believe "my entire set of activities on this talkpage during your block has been extremely disruptive" please feel free revoke my privileges of editing my own talk page, if for nothing else, but just to satisfy 4 hounds of mine, you know. Surely I will not be surprised any more than I already am. This block is very unfair, your decline reason is very unfair.
- I have no problems apologizing, when I believe I should. This is not the case! I've no apologizing to do, and I will not!
- Having said what I did I still would like to thank you for reviewing my request, and for declining it, and once again please do not hesitate to remove the privilege of editing my own talk page, just in case I would get some crazy idea, and add few dozens more "disruptive pictures", you know :) Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Bwilkins, you wrote that Mbz1 has
- removed declined block requests from her talk page
- removed block notices from her talk page
- jammed her page full of images
- violated WP:SOAP
Regarding 1,2and 3 - they are not WP violations. Every user has a right to do those things on their own talk pages. Regarding 4, I see five items specified as WP:SOAP, but do not see that she has violated any of them, and particularly not on her talk page. Explaining and justifying one's own actions, while under accusation, is not WP:SOAP.
In fact, it seems you have manufactured excuses for upholding an unfair block. 173.68.240.19 (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Whoever you are, IP, as I learned few hours ago I had no right to remove the declined block request. It is here. But even, if I am guilty in that removing, my only guilt was that I did not know the policy. Well now, I do :)--Mbz1 (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- About violation of wp:soap. Maybe the admin is talking about #4 "Self-promotion" .I am not sure it applies to my own talk page (it is confusing), but if so, I did add my first block template that was not at my talk page before. So, I did attempt to be fair and balanced in my "self promotion" .--Mbz1 (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- I re-read the policy wp:soap one more time in particular that line: "It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement" IMO they aren't talking about Wikipedia projects there, but rather about real life projects.I believe you are right, IP, I have not violated anything from WP:Soap, except maybe the admin will explain what they meant, but I doubt they would.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Bwilkins, May I please ask what exactly did you mean, when you said: "you WP:SOAP'd"? What number/numbers of the policy I have violated and how did I violate them? I insist on the explanations in order do not repeat the same mistake in the future. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Unblock seems warranted
I have had enough interaction with Mbz1 that I don't consider myself uninvolved, but reviewing the material given, something seems off to me. Mbz1 does sometimes act a bit impulsively and says things that may not have been the best approach but Georgewilliamherbert does not seem uninvolved in this matter to me. Some of his blocks and unblocks have been found to be a bit hasty or ill considered, this may be one of them. So I would urge an early unblock for "time served" with an admonishment to try to stay calmer. ++Lar: t/c 15:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)