banned means banned, Don't they understand how sick they really are? Options

[TungstenCarbide]

On February 25,2012 my image was a picture of the day on English wikipedia [/url],but for the first time I was given no credit at my talk page.

Well, that's what happens when you give someone else your work. Lesson learned.

[Text]

Good line, Joker.

Heh.

The fact is, Mila, you shouldn't care about the credit, you take pictures as a hobby because you enjoy doing it. Credit is something that is scarcely enforced online.

[TungstenCarbide]

... The fact is, Mila, you shouldn't care about the credit, you take pictures as a hobby because you enjoy doing it...

a hobby? She should be working for National Geographic.

[mbz1]

... The fact is, Mila, you shouldn't care about the credit, you take pictures as a hobby because you enjoy doing it...

a hobby? She should be working for National Geographic.

Thank you, but it is really just a hobby, and I guess after all I should be grateful to Wikipedia for giving me an opportunity to share my images because for me sharing images is one of the most important things.

BTW about National Geographic, one of my images is going to be shown in a documentary that is going to run at National Geographic channel in Spring, and I am sooo happy because of this.

This post has been edited by mbz1: Wed 29th February 2012, 12:30am

[iii]

That's a very odd argument. I'm not sure we would honour such a request unless there was a compelling, real-life reason. If you edit Wikipedia under your own name, you acknowledge and accept that there are certain risks to doing so. If you edit under your real-name in so disruptive a way as to be banned, and you had no problem with the preceding disruptive behaviour reflecting badly on your real-name, then you could not reasonably take issue with a banned template. [[User:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 12:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

cite

This, Wikipedia, this is the kind of brilliance you have running the place.

For fuck's sake, little arbman, just because you think that every person banned has necessarily exhibited behavior so disruptive that it reflects "badly on your real name" doesn't make this peculiar belief of yours an immutable law of the universe. Badges of shame displayed prominently at one of the top ghits for a real name have a vindictive likelihood of causing damage when, for example, a potential employer does a perfunctory web search. Because, you see, the rest of the world cares not a lick about perusing user contributions or arbcom cases, but they will look at what appears to be a personal webpage hosted by Wikipedia and these little template messages carry with them primarily a meaning of, "this person is evil and can't be trusted". So nice of you fucks to spread that message to the world.

Seriously, someone should do something about the profound lack of education this asshat evinces. And he's making governance decisions?

Terrific. Terrific.

[thekohser]

For fuck's sake, little arbman, just because you think that every person banned has necessarily exhibited behavior so disruptive that it reflects "badly on your real name" doesn't make this peculiar belief of yours an immutable law of the universe.

I couldn't agree more, iii. In my case, I was banned twice. The first time was because I asked Durova to provide evidence to support her public claim that I had given misleading information to journalists that was published in the mainstream press. The second time was because I criticized too heavily a young man who refused to release a digital audio recording of an interview I had participated in with about 10 other people, because he said he was the only one who could "edit" the audio (it really didn't need much editing, other than to crop the intro/set-up), and that his pounding headaches prevented him from editing the audio, although the headaches seemed to have little adverse effect on his hours-long editing sprees on Wikipedia.

[mbz1]

That's a very odd argument. I'm not sure we would honour such a request unless there was a compelling, real-life reason. If you edit Wikipedia under your own name, you acknowledge and accept that there are certain risks to doing so. If you edit under your real-name in so disruptive a way as to be banned, and you had no problem with the preceding disruptive behaviour reflecting badly on your real-name, then you could not reasonably take issue with a banned template. [[User:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 12:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

cite

I believe this quote should be added to {{welcome}} message a new editor gets.

Right now {{welcome}} message links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars Wikipedia:Five pillars and from there it links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks Wikipedia:No personal attacks and from there it links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLOCK Wikipedia:Blocking policy and from there it links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy Wikipedia:Banning policy.

So it is kind of hard to learn in advance what one user page will look like, if one gets banned.

And in my situation, in my wildest dreams I could not have imagined that after being under a self-requested block for 8 months I will get indefinitely blocked by govcom, and then banned by a lynch mob without any opportunity to say a word in my defense.

This post has been edited by mbz1: Thu 1st March 2012, 5:12am

[mbz1]

Another notable saying was made by Risker http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=479421656

When someone is banned, it is the project's hope that the person will just go away; however, it's the long experience of the project that putting big red "banned" signs on the person's userpage is like waving a flag in front of a bull.

Is she suggesting that a banned person is like a bull who cannot wait to attack the 5th most popular website. or is it the 4th? 7th? She can never remember.

This post has been edited by mbz1: Thu 1st March 2012, 4:59am

[iii]

Another notable saying was made by Risker http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=479421656

When someone is banned, it is the project's hope that the person will just go away; however, it's the long experience of the project that putting big red "banned" signs on the person's userpage is like waving a flag in front of a bull.

Is she suggesting that a banned person is like a bull who cannot wait to attack the 5th most popular website. or is it the 4th? 7th? She can never remember.

The waving a flag in front of a bull idiom normally implies unnecessary provocation that will lead to a response. I read Risker as being sensibly in favor of trying to end this practice, but comparing banned editors to less-than-sentient beasts seems the going fad at that dehumanizing enterprise.

It amazes me that the typical Wikipedia practice is to replace an entire webpage dedicated to a person with a stamp of disapproval and then prevent any future edits by protecting the page. It's simply bullying for the sake of bullying since the banned person is prevented from fighting back.

[radek]

Another notable saying was made by Risker http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=479421656

When someone is banned, it is the project's hope that the person will just go away; however, it's the long experience of the project that putting big red "banned" signs on the person's userpage is like waving a flag in front of a bull.

Is she suggesting that a banned person is like a bull who cannot wait to attack the 5th most popular website. or is it the 4th? 7th? She can never remember.

The waving a flag in front of a bull idiom normally implies unnecessary provocation that will lead to a response. I read Risker as being sensibly in favor of trying to end this practice, but comparing banned editors to less-than-sentient beasts seems the going fad at that dehumanizing enterprise.

It amazes me that the typical Wikipedia practice is to replace an entire webpage dedicated to a person with a stamp of disapproval and then prevent any future edits by protecting the page. It's simply bullying for the sake of bullying since the banned person is prevented from fighting back.

They should at least spruce it up:

[Selina]

Gibbet (T-H-L-K-D)

Pillory (T-H-L-K-D)

Stocks (T-H-L-K-D)

[mbz1]

That's a very odd argument. I'm not sure we would honour such a request unless there was a compelling, real-life reason. If you edit Wikipedia under your own name, you acknowledge and accept that there are certain risks to doing so. If you edit under your real-name in so disruptive a way as to be banned, and you had no problem with the preceding disruptive behaviour reflecting badly on your real-name, then you could not reasonably take issue with a banned template. [[User:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 12:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

cite

I responded to it on Meta

No, I could not have known

You wrote:"If you edit Wikipedia under your own name, you acknowledge and accept that there are certain risks to doing so. If you edit under your real-name in so disruptive a way as to be banned, and you had no problem with the preceding disruptive behaviour reflecting badly on your real-name, then you could not reasonably take issue with a banned template."

No, it is a wrong assumption. A normal person cannot predict what sick ones will do to him.

In my wildest dreams I could not have predicted I'd be blocked by a closed tribunal, a tribunal, in which I was not allowed to participate, a tribunal, which gave me no warning.

In my wildest dreams I could not have predicted I'd be banned by a sick, cowardly and mostly anonymous lynch mob with me not being allowed to say anything in my defense!

In my wildest dreams I could not have predicted I'd be blocked and then banned after I was under a self-requested block for more than 6 months!, and for something I did on Meta. Even now banned Will Beback called my ban "a precedent"

So, no, I could have predicted what was coming my way. I was editing under my real life name. It is at my pictures that are displayed at my user page. I know it is useless to ask you to remove the sick template. That's why I am asking you to remove the pictures, and redirect my talk to my user page. If you have some compassion still left in you, you'll do it. If you do not...well it is not my problem.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

p.s. Also you write "The point of the template is to make it clear that a user is banned. As a checkuser, I know this is necessary when I'm tracking accounts back to blocked users; I need to know if there is a banned user at work in a given situation, and other checkusers and administators surely must too." It is BS. There is nothing different for CU process between blocked and banned users, and besides there's a list of banned users in case you did not know.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

And AGK responded, confirming that everything I said was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

This post has been edited by mbz1: Thu 1st March 2012, 3:04pm

[jd turk]

And AGK responded, confirming that everything I said was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

When people just delete what you've written and ignore you, it doesn't indicate you are correct. It just indicates you have gone on for far too long.

[mbz1]

The thing is that I suddenly realized I no longer wish to have my pictures with my real name at the same page with the template added there by sickos, and done



This post has been edited by mbz1: Thu 1st March 2012, 9:09pm

[mbz1]

I will never get amazed on how sick some so called functionaries are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=479677708 by Beeblebrox

So, how about this: for users temporarily banned by arbcom, we can have something milder. For users indefinitely site banned by the community, we keep the stop sign. These folks ''need'' to be told as strongly as possible that they are not welcome here.

Doesn't it understand that a banned editor knows he/she is not welcomed to an insane asylum of Wikipedia , but why wikipedia should show to the whole world how insane it really is.

Here's what Kevin responded to AGK http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=479586175

No, it's not odd at all. Wikipedians might well be able to understand the significance, or lack thereof, of the banned template. Outsiders however, who may well find the user's page at the top of a Google search, may have no such understanding. The consequences in real life could well be severe, and out of all proportion to whatever led to being banned. [[User:Kevin|Kevin]] ([[User talk:Kevin|talk]]) 06:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

and Risker agreed http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=479607205

I agree with those who prefer no template at all. The user's sanction is posted on his talk page, and the block is applied. That is all that is required. Applying a scarlet letter is unnecessary in almost every case; it certainly does not need to be done on the userpage. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 07:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[Wikifan]

hey mbz1, do u take any responsibility for why you were banned?

i get it, it's hard to respect the judicial process at wikipedia because it is so corrupt and unfair. but every editor cannot be wrong. if you showed a little humility (whether you feel it or not) maybe you wouldn't have gotten shafted as you were.

in any case, nothing is going to change and anymore protest is probably just amusing for the admins/editors behind your ban.

so go become a sockpuppet or move on like all other perma-banned editors.

[Malik Shabazz]

mbz1, why did you request that your User pages be blanked?

Edited to add: Never mind, I see that Ronhjones went back and deleted the "Banned" notice from your User talk page and added a "Retired" banner.

This post has been edited by Malik Shabazz: Thu 1st March 2012, 9:42pm

[mbz1]

mbz1, why did you request that your User pages be blanked?

I explained it above, but here's one more time.
My images have my real life name. They were displayed just below the badge of shame.
I simply decided I do not want my real name to be associated with my user page.
It hurts me in a real life, and hurts me a lot.
The badge of shame could not be removed because "banned means banned", but pictures could be removed with no harm to wikipedia So that's why I asked to remove the pictures.
Of course it is still very easy to find out my real name, but at least it will not be at the same page.
Is my explanation satisfactory?

This post has been edited by mbz1: Thu 1st March 2012, 9:53pm

[Malik Shabazz]

I explained it above, but here's one more time.

Sorry I missed it.

Is my explanation satisfactory?

Makes perfect sense.

[Selina]

If you don't want people googlestalking to find your page still it's probably best to ask to get your user name removed from the image descriptions too, and you can probably ask for the account name to be changed -- when you look in the history of the page it is all still there, you need them to do wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:REVDEL

This post has been edited by Selina: Thu 1st March 2012, 10:27pm