Misplaced Pages

Adventures in Wonderland

Blocked

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 , 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)

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 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.--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 Misplaced Pages: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". She left a series of nasty messages at User talk:Factsontheground#Misplaced Pages 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 /_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)

• All of the above is only the end of the long, long story.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

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=Complied with reviewing admin demands just above |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=Complied with reviewing admin demands just above |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=Complied with reviewing admin demands just above |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}