| Revision as of 17:59, 19 March 2010 view sourceMbz1 (talk | contribs)22,338 edits →Blocked for 24 hours for disruptive editing: fixed← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:00, 19 March 2010 view source Mbz1 (talk | contribs)22,338 edits →Blocked for 24 hours for disruptive editing: removedNext edit → | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
| == 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. | |||
| ] (]) 17:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:00, 19 March 2010
|
|
Just around the corner,
there's a rainbow in the sky,
So let's have another cup of coffee,
and let's have another piece of pie.
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...--Geewhiz (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
MfD
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: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Mbz1/"Mbz01 is the user looking at sanctions" --Avenue (talk) 10:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, I saw it. I deleted the page.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Today's image
Today's article
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.
'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.'
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.
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".Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=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". |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{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 = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{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". |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}