| Revision as of 22:52, 19 March 2010 view sourceMbz1 (talk | contribs)22,338 edits →A quote for today: Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: 'we're all mad here. I'm mad.← Previous edit |
Revision as of 00:29, 20 March 2010 view source Mbz1 (talk | contribs)22,338 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
==Blocked== |
|
]]|]|]] ]<br><br><br><br> |
|
|
''Just around the corner,''<br> |
|
|
''there's a rainbow in the sky,''<br> |
|
|
''So let's have another cup of coffee,''<br> |
|
|
''and let's have another piece of pie.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="user-block"> ] {{#if:24 hours|You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours'''|You have been temporarily ''']''' from editing}} for {{#if:|'''{{{reason}}}'''|repeated ]}}. Please stop. You are welcome to ] after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our ] first. {{#if:|] (]) 17:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block2 --> |
|
==Thank you== |
|
|
Mbz1, I appreciate that. Now that my block has been lifted, I can tell you that your Inquisition photos are right on the ball...--] (]) 14:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div style="position: absolute; right: 250px; bottom: 150px; z-index: 10;"> |
|
==MfD== |
|
|
|
<div style="width: auto;"> |
|
Daedalus seems to have decided he shouldn't intrude on your talk page to tell you about this, so I will, in case you haven't seen it: ] --] (]) 10:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
<div style="padding: .5em 1em;">]</div> |
|
:Thank you, I saw it. I deleted the page.--] (]) 11:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
</div> |
|
|
</div> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?' |
|
== Today's image == |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
== Today's article == |
|
|
|
|
|
<big>''']'''</big> |
|
|
|
|
|
== A quote for today == |
|
|
|
|
|
* 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. |
|
'That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,' said the Cat. |
|
'I don't much care where —' said Alice. |
|
'I don't much care where —' said Alice. |
| Line 28: |
Line 15: |
|
|
|
|
|
* 'But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked. |
|
* 'But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked. |
|
'<big>''''''<big> |
|
'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. |
|
'How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice. |
|
'You must be,' said the Cat, 'or you wouldn't have come here.' |
|
'You must be,' said the Cat, 'or you wouldn't have come here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Blocked== |
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="user-block"> ] {{#if:24 hours|You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours'''|You have been temporarily ''']''' from editing}} for {{#if:|'''{{{reason}}}'''|repeated ]}}. Please stop. You are welcome to ] after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our ] first. {{#if:|] (]) 17:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block2 --> |
|
|
|
|
|
{{unblock reviewed|1=The block was issued by an in the violation . 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=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. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
May I please ask you to keep in mind that for the last 24 hours I was accused by factsonthe ground with no reason whatsoever; ]] 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?--] (]) 18:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::I have never removed . It is here as you could see. Once again the blocking admin shows he does not know what he's talking about.--] (]) 18:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::: This edit is probably what he's referring to , where you removed his explanation for the block to you. ] (]) 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 . Is here somebody fair and brave enough to stop wikihounding at last? --] (]) 19:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
, but I am and more than ever.--] (]) 19:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Response to Sandstein == |
|
|
|
|
|
:Thank you for taking the time to review my request.<br> |
|
|
===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 Misplaced Pages 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.--] (]) 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 at my talk page. |
|
|
:I've removed it with edit summary: |
|
|
:I then a left |
|
|
: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: , and should not have been the one, who issued a block.--] (]) 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 {{user|Mbz1}} something stronger than a cup of tea? Earlier in the week, she was banned from interacting with {{user|Factsontheground}}, me, and a few other editors (we were all told not to have anything to do with one another). See ], 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". She left a series of nasty messages at ] related to a ''five-day-old'' message. When ] left two messages there for FoTG, Mbz1 an unnecessary taunt. When I removed it, she . . |
|
|
|
|
|
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? — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 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:<br> |
|
|
:]] |
|
|
|
|
|
:], and in the edit summary advising me "to stay in my corner" ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:] 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: 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, |
|
|
:About "nasty messages" . |
|
|
|
|
|
:Something else should be mentioned. Shabazz writes: "Earlier in the week, she was banned from interacting with {{user|Factsontheground}}, me, and a few other editors" . There's a mistake in that statement. We all were banned from interacting with each other. Please see for example.--] (]) 04:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*After that I 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 . IMO it should have given a chance to stay it course, especially with me not commenting there. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Please . 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.'''--] (]) 21:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*All of the above is only the end of the long, long story.--] (]) 21:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{unblock|Complied with reviewing admin demands just above}} |
|
