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

[mbz1]

A few days ago I told my friend that, when a user is banned from wikipedia, his user page is replaced with banned user template. She looked at me, and asked "why?" I was not able to explain to her "why" because a normal person will never be able to understand it anyway.

Even before I was banned, I observed how a "little shit" Daedalus969 (T-C-L-K-R-D) and other "little shits" were doing this, but today a sitting arbitrator AGK (T-C-L-K-R-D) did it too:
"banned means banned; barnstars, and his actual userpage, are in the history"
Why, AGK, did you do it? What is wrong, if below the banned user template there would be barnstars? What are you afraid of? Don't you understand how sick it looks to normal people?

And suddenly I realized that "the banned user template" is the only thing I'd like to be associated with me in the insane asylum that calls "wikipedia" http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...0&oldid=3513926.

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[Heat]

A few days ago I told my friend that, when a user is banned from wikipedia, his user page is replaced with banned user template. She looked at me, and asked "why?" I was not able to explain to her "why" because a normal person will never be able to understand it anyway.

Because to a great extent banning people is a game of whack-a-mole and the banned template is either a trophy for the banner or his/her way of branding the banee as his/her chattel.

[Emperor]

A few days ago I told my friend that, when a user is banned from wikipedia, his user page is replaced with banned user template. She looked at me, and asked "why?" I was not able to explain to her "why" because a normal person will never be able to understand it anyway.

Because to a great extent banning people is a game of whack-a-mole and the banned template is either a trophy for the banner or his/her way of branding the banee as his/her chattel.

That's a nice way to put it. I agree, it's really all about the banner feeling good about themselves.

[mbz1]

A few days ago I told my friend that, when a user is banned from wikipedia, his user page is replaced with banned user template. She looked at me, and asked "why?" I was not able to explain to her "why" because a normal person will never be able to understand it anyway.

Because to a great extent banning people is a game of whack-a-mole and the banned template is either a trophy for the banner or his/her way of branding the banee as his/her chattel.

Well, yes, but why in the world that template could not be simply added to a current user page,with everything else that the user had there before is left alone. What is wrong with that?

[AGK]

A few days ago I told my friend that, when a user is banned from wikipedia, his user page is replaced with banned user template. She looked at me, and asked "why?" I was not able to explain to her "why" because a normal person will never be able to understand it anyway.

Even before I was banned, I observed how a "little shit" Daedalus969 (T-C-L-K-R-D) and other "little shits" were doing this, but today a sitting arbitrator AGK (T-C-L-K-R-D) did it too:
"banned means banned; barnstars, and his actual userpage, are in the history"
Why, AGK, did you do it? What is wrong, if below the banned user template there would be barnstars? What are you afraid of? Don't you understand how sick it looks to normal people?

And suddenly I realized that "the banned user template" is the only thing I'd like to be associated with me in the insane asylum that calls "wikipedia" http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...0&oldid=3513926.

My objection in this case was to the use of an invented barnstar gallery. The banned template was not replaced or added above Will Beback's previous userpage.

I see you circumvented your English Wikipedia block by adding a message on my Meta talk page. Please stop using other Wikimedia websites to participate in Wikipedia, at least until you're willing to act in that project's benefit.

By the by, I may be a sitting arbitrator, but I was inactive on the TimidGuy case and I played no part in the decision-making process for the case.

[spp]

A few days ago I told my friend that, when a user is banned from wikipedia, his user page is replaced with banned user template. She looked at me, and asked "why?" I was not able to explain to her "why" because a normal person will never be able to understand it anyway.

Even before I was banned, I observed how a "little shit" Daedalus969 (T-C-L-K-R-D) and other "little shits" were doing this, but today a sitting arbitrator AGK (T-C-L-K-R-D) did it too:
"banned means banned; barnstars, and his actual userpage, are in the history"
Why, AGK, did you do it? What is wrong, if below the banned user template there would be barnstars? What are you afraid of? Don't you understand how sick it looks to normal people?

And suddenly I realized that "the banned user template" is the only thing I'd like to be associated with me in the insane asylum that calls "wikipedia" http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...0&oldid=3513926.

My objection in this case was to the use of an invented barnstar gallery. The banned template was not replaced or added above Will Beback's previous userpage.

I see you circumvented your English Wikipedia block by adding a message on my Meta talk page. Please stop using other Wikimedia websites to participate in Wikipedia, at least until you're willing to act in that project's benefit.

By the by, I may be a sitting arbitrator, but I was inactive on the TimidGuy case and I played no part in the decision-making process for the case.

Wait, how can one circumvent a block on one project by posting to another? Tons of users do that every day on other projects.

[mbz1]

I see you circumvented your English Wikipedia block by adding a message on my Meta talk page. Please stop using other Wikimedia websites to participate in Wikipedia, at least until you're willing to act in that project's benefit.

I assure you that I will use "other Wikimedia websites" as I am pleased. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
Although you still have a choice: You could block me globally as some sickos have already suggested. I will appreciate this action. Cheers.

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[jd turk]

The banned template and blanking of the user page should, in essence, end all on-wiki discussion of and from the banned user. Sure, there's something to the whole "trophy kill" aspect of it for the banner, but if you've screwed up badly enough to be actually banned, nothing should be going on at your talk page anyway. You appeal to Arbcom, or you go away. No more time lost for either party.

Mbz1's latest campaign of insanity has gotten her banned, her page should be blanked and marked as such. Leaving it open for people to come there and either talk about her photos or take shots at her doesn't help anyone. She's in the "crying out for attention" stage of the final flameout right now, the quicker she goes away permanently, the better it will actually be for her.

[lilburne]

A few days ago I told my friend that, when a user is banned from wikipedia, his user page is replaced with banned user template. She looked at me, and asked "why?" I was not able to explain to her "why" because a normal person will never be able to understand it anyway.

Even before I was banned, I observed how a "little shit" Daedalus969 (T-C-L-K-R-D) and other "little shits" were doing this, but today a sitting arbitrator AGK (T-C-L-K-R-D) did it too:
"banned means banned; barnstars, and his actual userpage, are in the history"
Why, AGK, did you do it? What is wrong, if below the banned user template there would be barnstars? What are you afraid of? Don't you understand how sick it looks to normal people?

And suddenly I realized that "the banned user template" is the only thing I'd like to be associated with me in the insane asylum that calls "wikipedia" http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...0&oldid=3513926.

By the by, I may be a sitting arbitrator, but I was inactive on the TimidGuy case and I played no part in the decision-making process for the case.

English isn't Mbz1's firsty language and I think that 'sitting' is a spelling mistake.

[mbz1]

A few days ago I told my friend that, when a user is banned from wikipedia, his user page is replaced with banned user template. She looked at me, and asked "why?" I was not able to explain to her "why" because a normal person will never be able to understand it anyway.

Even before I was banned, I observed how a "little shit" Daedalus969 (T-C-L-K-R-D) and other "little shits" were doing this, but today a sitting arbitrator AGK (T-C-L-K-R-D) did it too:
"banned means banned; barnstars, and his actual userpage, are in the history"
Why, AGK, did you do it? What is wrong, if below the banned user template there would be barnstars? What are you afraid of? Don't you understand how sick it looks to normal people?

And suddenly I realized that "the banned user template" is the only thing I'd like to be associated with me in the insane asylum that calls "wikipedia" http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...0&oldid=3513926.

By the by, I may be a sitting arbitrator, but I was inactive on the TimidGuy case and I played no part in the decision-making process for the case.

English isn't Mbz1's firsty language and I think that 'sitting' is a spelling mistake.

Thanks for catching it. What should it be?

[mbz1]

I see you circumvented your English Wikipedia block by adding a message on my Meta talk page. Please stop using other Wikimedia websites to participate in Wikipedia, at least until you're willing to act in that project's benefit.

And now, when you refused to grant my request, I "circumvented my English Wikipedia block" with this post:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...0&oldid=3514357

But, why, oh why, AGK? I am banned, am I not? "Banned means banned", is it not? Are you refusing to do it because I deserve the honor less than Will BeBack (T-C-L-K-R-D) does :-) I simply cannot believe that admins get preferential treatment even in adding "banned user templates" to user pages :-) Cheers --[[User:Mbz1|Mbz1]] ([[User talk:Mbz1|talk]]) 19:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[Emperor]

Wait.

You added a message on his talk page?

What kind of person does that?

[AGK]

A few days ago I told my friend that, when a user is banned from wikipedia, his user page is replaced with banned user template. She looked at me, and asked "why?" I was not able to explain to her "why" because a normal person will never be able to understand it anyway.

Because to a great extent banning people is a game of whack-a-mole and the banned template is either a trophy for the banner or his/her way of branding the banee as his/her chattel.

Well, yes, but why in the world that template could not be simply added to a current user page,with everything else that the user had there before is left alone. What is wrong with that?

Sure, it could be - that strikes me as the most elegant, fair solution.

[radek]

A few days ago I told my friend that, when a user is banned from wikipedia, his user page is replaced with banned user template. She looked at me, and asked "why?" I was not able to explain to her "why" because a normal person will never be able to understand it anyway.

Even before I was banned, I observed how a "little shit" Daedalus969 (T-C-L-K-R-D) and other "little shits" were doing this, but today a sitting arbitrator AGK (T-C-L-K-R-D) did it too:
"banned means banned; barnstars, and his actual userpage, are in the history"
Why, AGK, did you do it? What is wrong, if below the banned user template there would be barnstars? What are you afraid of? Don't you understand how sick it looks to normal people?

And suddenly I realized that "the banned user template" is the only thing I'd like to be associated with me in the insane asylum that calls "wikipedia" http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...0&oldid=3513926.

My objection in this case was to the use of an invented barnstar gallery. The banned template was not replaced or added above Will Beback's previous userpage.

I see you circumvented your English Wikipedia block by adding a message on my Meta talk page. Please stop using other Wikimedia websites to participate in Wikipedia, at least until you're willing to act in that project's benefit.

By the by, I may be a sitting arbitrator, but I was inactive on the TimidGuy case and I played no part in the decision-making process for the case.

I actually hate that practice of putting those templates on user's pages. It is very unsavory. And in some cases (not nec this one) the glee with which people jump to slap it up there is plain ol' disgusting.

Anyway, can someone explain to me what is up with the "For working around the clock to defend fascism and synarchism, I hereby award you the "rabid dog beast-man Barnstar." Keep up the bestial work. " barn-star from Cognition? Was that someone trolling Will?

[mbz1]

A few days ago I told my friend that, when a user is banned from wikipedia, his user page is replaced with banned user template. She looked at me, and asked "why?" I was not able to explain to her "why" because a normal person will never be able to understand it anyway.

Because to a great extent banning people is a game of whack-a-mole and the banned template is either a trophy for the banner or his/her way of branding the banee as his/her chattel.

Well, yes, but why in the world that template could not be simply added to a current user page,with everything else that the user had there before is left alone. What is wrong with that?

Sure, it could be - that strikes me as the most elegant, fair solution.

It does? Then why did you do this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=479093896 ?

I am not sure about barnstar gallery added after he was banned, maybe he does not want these himself, but how about using his old page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=474717749 (only remove "administrator" things, and add the template)?

BTW, AGK, I'd like to ask you please, how you got to this thread so quickly? Were you emailed about it? I am asking because a few months ago I made a comment about another arbitrator here on WR. Then I got a quite innocent email from him. He told me he was emailed about my post, and asked me to email him, if I am to post something about him ever again. Would you like me to email to you too? Oh, wait, I forgot you told me "never email to you again" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[AGK]

Wait.

You added a message on his talk page?

What kind of person does that?

Not the whole story. Mbz1 e-mails me and the committee's various mailing lists more frequently than probably any other editor, and all about basically the same issue. My annoyance at seeing yet another venue - my meta talk page, which I never use - being used for her agenda is not as misplaced as it may seem.

[AGK]

I am not sure about barnstar gallery added after he was banned, maybe he does not want these himself, but how about using his old page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=474717749 (only remove "administrator" things, and add the template)?

BTW, AGK, I'd like to ask you please, how you got to this thread so quickly? Were you emailed about it? I am asking because a few months ago I made a comment about another arbitrator here on WR. Then I got a quite innocent email from him. He told me he was emailed about my post, and asked me to email him, if I am to post something about him ever again. Would you like me to email to you too? Oh, wait, I forgot you told me "never email to you again" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

I have already said I have no issue with his userpage.

Good grief, please don't e-mail me too (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[mbz1]

Wait.

You added a message on his talk page?

What kind of person does that?

Not the whole story. Mbz1 e-mails me and the committee's various mailing lists more frequently than probably any other editor, and all about basically the same issue. My annoyance at seeing yet another venue - my meta talk page, which I never use - being used for her agenda is not as misplaced as it may seem.

Publish all my emails, and all you responses! Publish emails members of govcom exchanged about me. Publish them either here or on wiki. Publish everything.
I have nothing to hide, do you? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif) And, if you do not want to publish it, then shut up.

I am not sure about barnstar gallery added after he was banned, maybe he does not want these himself, but how about using his old page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=474717749 (only remove "administrator" things, and add the template)?

BTW, AGK, I'd like to ask you please, how you got to this thread so quickly? Were you emailed about it? I am asking because a few months ago I made a comment about another arbitrator here on WR. Then I got a quite innocent email from him. He told me he was emailed about my post, and asked me to email him, if I am to post something about him ever again. Would you like me to email to you too? Oh, wait, I forgot you told me "never email to you again" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

I have already said I have no issue with his userpage.

Good grief, please don't e-mail me too (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

You did not respond my question, which was "how did you find out about the thread"?

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[Wikifan]

Wait.

You added a message on his talk page?

What kind of person does that?

Not the whole story. Mbz1 e-mails me and the committee's various mailing lists more frequently than probably any other editor, and all about basically the same issue. My annoyance at seeing yet another venue - my meta talk page, which I never use - being used for her agenda is not as misplaced as it may seem.

Publish all my emails, and all you responses! Publish emails members of govcom exchanged about me. Publish them either here or on wiki. Publish everything.
I have nothing to hide, do you? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

I am not sure about barnstar gallery added after he was banned, maybe he does not want these himself, but how about using his old page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=474717749 (only remove "administrator" things, and add the template)?

BTW, AGK, I'd like to ask you please, how you got to this thread so quickly? Were you emailed about it? I am asking because a few months ago I made a comment about another arbitrator here on WR. Then I got a quite innocent email from him. He told me he was emailed about my post, and asked me to email him, if I am to post something about him ever again. Would you like me to email to you too? Oh, wait, I forgot you told me "never email to you again" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

I have already said I have no issue with his userpage.

Good grief, please don't e-mail me too (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

You did not respond my question, which was "how did you find out about the thread"?

most admins involving in the enforcement process browse review. most won't come out unless they're called out but even then it is unlikely. thread already has 200 views and it's less than a day old. probably be 1,000 by friday.

people hate you mbz1.

[Tarc]

people hate you mbz1.

I feel a sad sort of pity, in a Dunning-Kruger kinda way.

[mbz1]

By the by, I may be a sitting arbitrator, but I was inactive on the TimidGuy case and I played no part in the decision-making process for the case.

Does it change anything?

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[Peter Damian]

My objection in this case was to the use of an invented barnstar gallery. The banned template was not replaced or added above Will Beback's previous userpage.

I see you circumvented your English Wikipedia block by adding a message on my Meta talk page. Please stop using other Wikimedia websites to participate in Wikipedia, at least until you're willing to act in that project's benefit.

By the by, I may be a sitting arbitrator, but I was inactive on the TimidGuy case and I played no part in the decision-making process for the case.

You haven't answered his question. His question wasn't why in this particular case. The question is why you engage in this barbaric practice in general. I'm tempted to say 'medieval' but medieval society was somewhat more civilised than Wikipedia, so I won't.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[mbz1]

My objection in this case was to the use of an invented barnstar gallery. The banned template was not replaced or added above Will Beback's previous userpage.

I see you circumvented your English Wikipedia block by adding a message on my Meta talk page. Please stop using other Wikimedia websites to participate in Wikipedia, at least until you're willing to act in that project's benefit.

By the by, I may be a sitting arbitrator, but I was inactive on the TimidGuy case and I played no part in the decision-making process for the case.

You haven't answered his question. His question wasn't why in this particular case. The question is why you engage in this barbaric practice in general. I'm tempted to say 'medieval' but medieval society was somewhat more civilised than Wikipedia, so I won't.

It is a punishment by shame, something like this:

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/No_hubo_remedio.jpg/434px-No_hubo_remedio.jpg)

[Peter Damian]

It is a punishment by shame, something like this:

As though not just the one enacting the ban, but everyone in the community must participate in the shaming of the one cast out, the common participation in his or her public humiliation justifying their action and cementing their self-solidarity.

I think this has all been said before many time by sociologists, historians, anthropologists etc.

[lilburne]

Has any one danced around WBB's latest talk page comments and striking them out?

[jd turk]

It is a punishment by shame...

I just don't see where the shame is, especially with someone like Mbz1 who claims to take so much pleasure and personal pride in being banned from Wikipedia.

Everyone who is banned has been so for long-term disagreements. No actual contributor gets banned straight off, there's a pattern there of conflict over a sustained period of time. If a user is determined to stick to their guns and fight for what they consider to be correct, they do so while realizing that the truth doesn't always win out, especially in a social network like Wikipedia.

No shame involved with it, you just wind up winning back your free time.

[mbz1]

Has any one danced around WBB's latest talk page comments and striking them out?

I do not think so. BTW Will got a special barnstar :-)

[mbz1]

It is a punishment by shame, something like this:

As though not just the one enacting the ban, but everyone in the community must participate in the shaming of the one cast out, the common participation in his or her public humiliation justifying their action and cementing their self-solidarity.

That's it. Thanks, Peter!

[Malik Shabazz]

people hate you mbz1.

why almost every time you open your mouth, you say something stupid?

Will somebody get these two a room?

[lonza leggiera]

A few days ago I told my friend that, when a user is banned from wikipedia, his user page is replaced with banned user template. She looked at me, and asked "why?" I was not able to explain to her "why" because a normal person will never be able to understand it anyway.

Even before I was banned, I observed how a "little shit" Daedalus969 (T-C-L-K-R-D) and other "little shits" were doing this, but today a sitting arbitrator AGK (T-C-L-K-R-D) did it too:
"banned means banned; barnstars, and his actual userpage, are in the history"
Why, AGK, did you do it? What is wrong, if below the banned user template there would be barnstars? What are you afraid of? Don't you understand how sick it looks to normal people?

And suddenly I realized that "the banned user template" is the only thing I'd like to be associated with me in the insane asylum that calls "wikipedia" http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...0&oldid=3513926.

By the by, I may be a sitting arbitrator, but I was inactive on the TimidGuy case and I played no part in the decision-making process for the case.

English isn't Mbz1's firsty language and I think that 'sitting' is a spelling mistake.

Thanks for catching it. What should it be?

I think this is a subtle joke on Lilburne's part. I believe he's suggesting that you might've omitted a 'h'.

[iii]

I see you circumvented your English Wikipedia block by adding a message on my Meta talk page. Please stop using other Wikimedia websites to participate in Wikipedia, at least until you're willing to act in that project's benefit.

Listen here, you sanctimonious little fuck: Who the flying fuck do you think you are telling another human being you've never met how they are or are not willing to act? Here, let me try to divine how you're "willing to act":

You have no empathy for human beings and generally have a hard time interacting with them in the real world so you are "willing to act" as an arrogant piece of shit proclaiming with certainty and idiotic self-assurance what the motivations are of any and all doubleplusungood nonpersons that you come across. Beyond your basement dwelling jack-off sessions playing Wikipedia, you have nothing to live for, and that causes you intense anxiety and an extreme "will to act" as a self-appointed guardian of the cult of which you're so happy to be a part. You're "willing to act" like a total schmuck because you think that your hard-fought attrition into some obscure cadre called the "Arbitration Committee" gives you a great responsibility as some Great Person on a popular internet site.

Well, you know what? You're nothing.

FUCK YOU.

If any member of the human race wants to use the perfectly legal means of fucking with Wikipedia because that website keeps more open doors and security holes in place than almost anywhere else of the world wide web, I encourage them to do so, if only to waste more of your miserable life's time so that we can ensure you'll stay locked in your basement and won't interact with the real world.

[RMHED]

Listen here, you sanctimonious little fuck: Who the flying fuck do you think... (extended diatribe redacted)

Mmmmm, I'm sensing some anger management issues here.

[jayvdb]

I actually hate that practice of putting those templates on user's pages. It is very unsavory. And in some cases (not nec this one) the glee with which people jump to slap it up there is plain ol' disgusting.

I think a note at the top of the userpage is useful, but the notice could be a lot less aggressive than it currently is, and their previous webpage doesnt need to be removed in the process. Discussion about this has erupted at Wikipedia_talk:BAN#User_pages.

[SB_Johnny]

Listen here, you sanctimonious little fuck: Who the flying fuck do you think you are telling another human being you've never met how they are or are not willing to act? Here, let me try to divine how you're "willing to act":

You have no empathy for human beings and generally have a hard time interacting with them in the real world so you are "willing to act" as an arrogant piece of shit proclaiming with certainty and idiotic self-assurance what the motivations are of any and all doubleplusungood nonpersons that you come across. Beyond your basement dwelling jack-off sessions playing Wikipedia, you have nothing to live for, and that causes you intense anxiety and an extreme "will to act" as a self-appointed guardian of the cult of which you're so happy to be a part. You're "willing to act" like a total schmuck because you think that your hard-fought attrition into some obscure cadre called the "Arbitration Committee" gives you a great responsibility as some Great Person on a popular internet site.

Well, you know what? You're nothing.

FUCK YOU.

If any member of the human race wants to use the perfectly legal means of fucking with Wikipedia because that website keeps more open doors and security holes in place than almost anywhere else of the world wide web, I encourage them to do so, if only to waste more of your miserable life's time so that we can ensure you'll stay locked in your basement and won't interact with the real world.

Wow. Welcome back to WR, Mr. AGK! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Mmmmm, I'm sensing some anger management issues here.

Ya think???

[Tarc]

I see you circumvented your English Wikipedia block by adding a message on my Meta talk page. Please stop using other Wikimedia websites to participate in Wikipedia, at least until you're willing to act in that project's benefit.

Listen here, you sanctimonious little fuck: Who the flying fuck do you think you are telling another human being you've never met how they are or are not willing to act? Here, let me try to divine how you're "willing to act":

You have no empathy for human beings and generally have a hard time interacting with them in the real world so you are "willing to act" as an arrogant piece of shit proclaiming with certainty and idiotic self-assurance what the motivations are of any and all doubleplusungood nonpersons that you come across. Beyond your basement dwelling jack-off sessions playing Wikipedia, you have nothing to live for, and that causes you intense anxiety and an extreme "will to act" as a self-appointed guardian of the cult of which you're so happy to be a part. You're "willing to act" like a total schmuck because you think that your hard-fought attrition into some obscure cadre called the "Arbitration Committee" gives you a great responsibility as some Great Person on a popular internet site.

Well, you know what? You're nothing.

FUCK YOU.

If any member of the human race wants to use the perfectly legal means of fucking with Wikipedia because that website keeps more open doors and security holes in place than almost anywhere else of the world wide web, I encourage them to do so, if only to waste more of your miserable life's time so that we can ensure you'll stay locked in your basement and won't interact with the real world.

I encourage such people to slit their wrists and save us from having to listen to their pedantic emo retardation. I will also point out that most movies with wrist-slitting do it completely wrong by showing the wound going across the wrist, when in reality you need to go up and down (i.e. inner-elbow-to-wrist) to get the preferred (i.e. dead) good result.

I am no fan of Wikipedia governance, but sometimes they do get it right; Mbz's ban was in all ways, shapes and forms correct.

This is a pathetic wastrel who in another time and place would've been shipped off to the gulag without a second thought.

This post has been edited by Tarc:

[RMHED]

I see you circumvented your English Wikipedia block by adding a message on my Meta talk page. Please stop using other Wikimedia websites to participate in Wikipedia, at least until you're willing to act in that project's benefit.

Listen here, you sanctimonious little fuck: Who the flying fuck do you think you are telling another human being you've never met how they are or are not willing to act? Here, let me try to divine how you're "willing to act":

You have no empathy for human beings and generally have a hard time interacting with them in the real world so you are "willing to act" as an arrogant piece of shit proclaiming with certainty and idiotic self-assurance what the motivations are of any and all doubleplusungood nonpersons that you come across. Beyond your basement dwelling jack-off sessions playing Wikipedia, you have nothing to live for, and that causes you intense anxiety and an extreme "will to act" as a self-appointed guardian of the cult of which you're so happy to be a part. You're "willing to act" like a total schmuck because you think that your hard-fought attrition into some obscure cadre called the "Arbitration Committee" gives you a great responsibility as some Great Person on a popular internet site.

Well, you know what? You're nothing.

FUCK YOU.

If any member of the human race wants to use the perfectly legal means of fucking with Wikipedia because that website keeps more open doors and security holes in place than almost anywhere else of the world wide web, I encourage them to do so, if only to waste more of your miserable life's time so that we can ensure you'll stay locked in your basement and won't interact with the real world.

I encourage such people to slit their wrists and save us from having to listen to their pedantic emo retardation. I will also point out that most movies with wrist-slitting do it completely wrong by showing the wound going across the wrist, when in reality you need to go up and down (i.e. inner-elbow-to-wrist) to get the preferred (i.e. dead) good result.

I am no fan of Wikipedia governance, but sometimes they do get it right; Mbz's ban was in all ways, shapes and forms correct.

This is a pathetic wastrel who in another time and place would've been shipped off to the gulag without a second thought.

I have a premonition that your children too will grow up to become "pathetic wastrels", with you as their father it really is inevitable.

[EricBarbour]

Listen here, you sanctimonious little fuck: Who the flying fuck do you think you are telling another human being you've never met how they are or are not willing to act? Here, let me try to divine how you're "willing to act":

You have no empathy for human beings and generally have a hard time interacting with them in the real world so you are "willing to act" as an arrogant piece of shit proclaiming with certainty and idiotic self-assurance what the motivations are of any and all doubleplusungood nonpersons that you come across. Beyond your basement dwelling jack-off sessions playing Wikipedia, you have nothing to live for, and that causes you intense anxiety and an extreme "will to act" as a self-appointed guardian of the cult of which you're so happy to be a part. You're "willing to act" like a total schmuck because you think that your hard-fought attrition into some obscure cadre called the "Arbitration Committee" gives you a great responsibility as some Great Person on a popular internet site.

Well, you know what? You're nothing.

FUCK YOU.

If any member of the human race wants to use the perfectly legal means of fucking with Wikipedia because that website keeps more open doors and security holes in place than almost anywhere else of the world wide web, I encourage them to do so, if only to waste more of your miserable life's time so that we can ensure you'll stay locked in your basement and won't interact with the real world.

Hear hear. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Although I might point out that Young Mr. Kelly is such an arrogant little twat, any criticism of him or
his methods or actions is a waste of breath/typing. People have tried--nothing gets thru.

[Tarc]

I have a premonition that your children too will grow up to become "pathetic wastrels", with you as their father it really is inevitable.

Ahh, the non sequitur, what the weak mind falls back when it has no other recourse.

[RMHED]

I have a premonition that your children too will grow up to become "pathetic wastrels", with you as their father it really is inevitable.

Ahh, the non sequitur, what the weak mind falls back when it has no other recourse.

Quite so. I'm an arse.

[Cedric]

I see you circumvented your English Wikipedia block by adding a message on my Meta talk page. Please stop using other Wikimedia websites to participate in Wikipedia, at least until you're willing to act in that project's benefit.

Listen here, you sanctimonious little fuck: Who the flying fuck do you think you are telling another human being you've never met how they are or are not willing to act? Here, let me try to divine how you're "willing to act":

You have no empathy for human beings and generally have a hard time interacting with them in the real world so you are "willing to act" as an arrogant piece of shit proclaiming with certainty and idiotic self-assurance what the motivations are of any and all doubleplusungood nonpersons that you come across. Beyond your basement dwelling jack-off sessions playing Wikipedia, you have nothing to live for, and that causes you intense anxiety and an extreme "will to act" as a self-appointed guardian of the cult of which you're so happy to be a part. You're "willing to act" like a total schmuck because you think that your hard-fought attrition into some obscure cadre called the "Arbitration Committee" gives you a great responsibility as some Great Person on a popular internet site.

Well, you know what? You're nothing.

FUCK YOU.

If any member of the human race wants to use the perfectly legal means of fucking with Wikipedia because that website keeps more open doors and security holes in place than almost anywhere else of the world wide web, I encourage them to do so, if only to waste more of your miserable life's time so that we can ensure you'll stay locked in your basement and won't interact with the real world.

I encourage such people to slit their wrists and save us from having to listen to their pedantic emo retardation. I will also point out that most movies with wrist-slitting do it completely wrong by showing the wound going across the wrist, when in reality you need to go up and down (i.e. inner-elbow-to-wrist) to get the preferred (i.e. dead) good result.

I am no fan of Wikipedia governance, but sometimes they do get it right; Mbz's ban was in all ways, shapes and forms correct.

This is a pathetic wastrel who in another time and place would've been shipped off to the gulag without a second thought.

That's our reporter Trolli Trollerson with his "View From Under The Bridge." Thank you, Trolli, and now back to the studio . . . .

[mbz1]

I see you circumvented your English Wikipedia block by adding a message on my Meta talk page. Please stop using other Wikimedia websites to participate in Wikipedia, at least until you're willing to act in that project's benefit.

Listen here, you sanctimonious little fuck: Who the flying fuck do you think you are telling another human being you've never met how they are or are not willing to act? Here, let me try to divine how you're "willing to act":

You have no empathy for human beings and generally have a hard time interacting with them in the real world so you are "willing to act" as an arrogant piece of shit proclaiming with certainty and idiotic self-assurance what the motivations are of any and all doubleplusungood nonpersons that you come across. Beyond your basement dwelling jack-off sessions playing Wikipedia, you have nothing to live for, and that causes you intense anxiety and an extreme "will to act" as a self-appointed guardian of the cult of which you're so happy to be a part. You're "willing to act" like a total schmuck because you think that your hard-fought attrition into some obscure cadre called the "Arbitration Committee" gives you a great responsibility as some Great Person on a popular internet site.

Well, you know what? You're nothing.

FUCK YOU.

If any member of the human race wants to use the perfectly legal means of fucking with Wikipedia because that website keeps more open doors and security holes in place than almost anywhere else of the world wide web, I encourage them to do so, if only to waste more of your miserable life's time so that we can ensure you'll stay locked in your basement and won't interact with the real world.

I encourage such people to slit their wrists and save us from having to listen to their pedantic emo retardation. I will also point out that most movies with wrist-slitting do it completely wrong by showing the wound going across the wrist, when in reality you need to go up and down (i.e. inner-elbow-to-wrist) to get the preferred (i.e. dead) good result.

I am no fan of Wikipedia governance, but sometimes they do get it right; Mbz's ban was in all ways, shapes and forms correct.

This is a pathetic wastrel who in another time and place would've been shipped off to the gulag without a second thought.

I have a premonition that your children too will grow up to become "pathetic wastrels", with you as their father it really is inevitable.

There is one unfortunate word that tarc used. This word is "gulag". tarc does not know the history, it does not know that the best of the best and the bravest of the bravest were sent to gulag. Wastrels were the guards and torturers there.
So, yes, if I lived in Stalin's Russia, I would have probably ended up in the Gulag, and as I am proud to be banned from wikipedia of tarcs, I would have been proud to be banned from Russia of stalins and into gulag. Besides I would have found myself in some great company,including Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[jd turk]

So, yes, if I lived in Stalin's Russia, I would have probably ended up in the Gulag, and as I am proud to be banned from wikipedia of tarcs, I would have been proud to be banned from Russia of stalins and into gulag.

No matter what you say to Mbz1, she's proud of it. Blocked, banned, sent to a gulag, excommunicated, ostracized, firing squad, whatever you can think of, she just keeps right on keeping on.

[mbz1]

Back to the topic of the thread this user who used to be an admin on a few wiki projects asked to lock his account himself. Nowhere, and I mean nowhere his user page was replaced with misleading template except of course English wikipedia, where a little shit Night Ranger  (T-C-L-K-R-D) did it.
This template is unneeded. Maybe somebody will be kind enough to undo the grave dancing.

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[Tarc]

So, yes, if I lived in Stalin's Russia, I would have probably ended up in the Gulag, and as I am proud to be banned from wikipedia of tarcs, I would have been proud to be banned from Russia of stalins and into gulag.

No matter what you say to Mbz1, she's proud of it. Blocked, banned, sent to a gulag, excommunicated, ostracized, firing squad, whatever you can think of, she just keeps right on keeping on.

Like a wise man once said about Dubya...he believes the same thing Wednesday that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday. Events can change; this man's beliefs never will.

PS: Mila, I used "gulag" on purpose. I have done my homework on you, but unlike OMG REDACTED OMG, I don't make a habit of making personal info public.

This post has been edited by Tarc:

[Michaeldsuarez]

Back to the topic of the thread this user who used to be an admin on a few wiki projects asked to lock his account himself. Nowhere, and I mean nowhere his user page was replaced with misleading template except of course English wikipedia, where a little shit Night Ranger  (T-C-L-K-R-D) did it.
This template is unneeded. Maybe somebody will be kind enough to undo the grave dancing.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Reques..._and_Beeblebrox

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...9880#My_request

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_req..._for_WizardOfOz

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...rdOfOz%40global

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Reques...User:WizardOfOz

Concerning the last link listed above, I don't agree with Mbz1's defense of WizardOfOz. WizardOfOz blocked Beeblebrox for the same reasons he blocked Abd:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...page=User%3AAbd

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...er%3ABeeblebrox

These blocks were acts of "kindness enforcement". "Kindness enforcement" is rampant on Meta:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Reques...10#Libel_on_RfA

WizardOfOz also blocked both of them indefinitely (i.e. you may only return once you yield and conform your behavior and beliefs to what we dictate), and he blocked both of their abilities to send Emails. WizardOfOz also blocked Beeblebrox's ability to reply on his or her talk page.

When someone dared criticize WizardOfOz and his or her blocks strongly and passionately, WizardOfOz decided to throw a temper tantrum. Sorry mbz1, but PeterSymonds doesn't owe WizardOfOz an apology.

Concerning Night_Ranger, he or she is obviously an obsessive, patrallor-type Wikipedian:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ns/Night_Ranger

[mbz1]

Back to the topic of the thread this user who used to be an admin on a few wiki projects asked to lock his account himself. Nowhere, and I mean nowhere his user page was replaced with misleading template except of course English wikipedia, where a little shit Night Ranger  (T-C-L-K-R-D) did it.
This template is unneeded. Maybe somebody will be kind enough to undo the grave dancing.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Reques..._and_Beeblebrox

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...9880#My_request

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_req..._for_WizardOfOz

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...rdOfOz%40global

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Reques...User:WizardOfOz

Concerning the last link listed above, I don't agree with Mbz1's defense of WizardOfOz. WizardOfOz blocked Beeblebrox for the same reasons he blocked Abd:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...page=User%3AAbd

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...er%3ABeeblebrox

These blocks were acts of "kindness enforcement". "Kindness enforcement" is rampant on Meta:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Reques...10#Libel_on_RfA

WizardOfOz also blocked both of them indefinitely (i.e. you may only return once you yield and conform your behavior and beliefs to what we dictate), and he blocked both of their abilities to send Emails. WizardOfOz also blocked Beeblebrox's ability to reply on his or her talk page.

When someone dared criticize WizardOfOz and his or her blocks strongly and passionately, WizardOfOz decided to throw a temper tantrum. Sorry mbz1, but PeterSymonds doesn't owe WizardOfOz an apology.

Concerning Night_Ranger, he or she is obviously an obsessive, patrallor-type Wikipedian:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ns/Night_Ranger

1.There was no policy about involved administrators on Meta, when the block was imposed.

2. The block was right. It is rather sad and strange, but User:Beeblebrox who is English Wikipedia admin and English Wikipedia oversighter is not stable enough to be allowed to contribute to Meta and here's why:

*a. http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...v&oldid=3419372 edit summary: "what an asshole"
*b. http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...v&oldid=3474645 edit summary: "the lunatics are running the asylum"
*c. http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...v&oldid=3475067 edit summary: "fuck this site and the abusive cowards that for the most part administrate it."
*d. http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...v&oldid=3473569 "go away now you abusive disgrace of an admin"

But this does not matter, if Wizard was right or wrong. He asked for a lock himself, and templating his user page under such circumstances is misleading.

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[Fusion]

PS: Mila, I used "gulag" on purpose. I have done my homework on you

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) Then it is extremely not excusable! Any idiot can (and does) make silly remarks from lack of information. But here we have someone making a shockingly bad remark with a cold heart. And he knew exactly what he was doing!

[mbz1]

PS: Mila, I used "gulag" on purpose. I have done my homework on you

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) Then it is extremely not excusable! Any idiot can (and does) make silly remarks from lack of information. But here we have someone making a shockingly bad remark with a cold heart. And he knew exactly what he was doing!

It is worse than that. Only now I realized how sick tarc is. It is clearly obsessed with me. It did its homework on me, found my personal info that somehow connects me to gulag, and used "gulag" in purpose (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)
Hey, sicko, I am giving you permission to reveal my personal info that connects me to gulag (I'd be very interested to know what it is)



This post has been edited by mbz1:

[Emperor]

Hey mbz1, I like your new sig.

Don't worry about Wikipedia. They are all sorts of silly.

[mbz1]

Hey mbz1, I like your new sig.

Don't worry about Wikipedia. They are all sorts of silly.

Thank you, but I cannot take credit for my new signature. I got it from here

The case is now over. The evidence is in, the closing arguments have been made, and the judgment is clear.

The modern notion of Encyclopaedia was a product of the Enlightenment and intended as an educational vehicle to raise the level of the masses. The Encyclopaedists included some of the greatest thinkers of their time. They valued, above all: knowledge, understanding, truth. The "scientific method" was based upon the same foundations: empirical knowledge, verifiability and careful reasoning. These were the ideals of the Enlightenment , together with a belief in justice in society.

Wikipedia is an embodiment of the opposite. It is a return to the Dark Ages, with an element of chaos that is greatly enhanced by the mass communications tools available in the internet. It involves a reduction of all genuine achievements to parity with the very basest, most primitive notions of the ignorant and undereducated. The encyclopaedists would never have proposed that their work was to be an equal collaboration of the ignorant and the educated. It was to be a vehicle for raising the former from their ignorance by making the most valuable achievements of human endeavor available to all.

Wikipedia, on the contrary, is the enshrinement of contempt for learning, knowledge and expertise. It is, for many, a diversionary hobby to which they are prepared devote a great portion of their time, as others do to computer based video games. Unfortunately, it has led also to an inner cult, shrouded in anonymity, with structures and processes of self-regulation that are woefully inadequate. Many of these tools and procedures are reminiscent, in parody, of those of the Inquisition: secret courts, an inner "elite" arbitrarily empowered to censor and exclude all those perceived as a threat to the adopted conventions of the cult; denunciations, character assassination, excommunication. An arbitrarily concocted "rulebook" and language rife with self-referential sanctimoniousness give a superficial illusion of order and good sense, but no such thing exists in practice.

It is truly a "Tyranny of the Ignorant". 24.202.238.172 (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC) (alias "R Physicisr")

[Emperor]

Read what others think. It might make you feel better.

Wikipedia Resignation Statements.

You might like White Guard in particular. Dude was interested in Russia, and really knew his stuff. He got sick of playing with Wikipedians relatively quickly.

[mbz1]

Read what others think. It might make you feel better.

Wikipedia Resignation Statements.

You might like White Guard in particular. Dude was interested in Russia, and really knew his stuff. He got sick of playing with Wikipedians relatively quickly.

Thank you for the links! It does help.

[Tarc]

Hey, sicko, I am giving you permission to reveal my personal info that connects me to gulag (I'd be very interested to know what it is)

It just meant that you're Russian. Nothing more insidious than that, sweetums.

[mbz1]

I think a note at the top of the userpage is useful, but the notice could be a lot less aggressive than it currently is, and their previous webpage doesnt need to be removed in the process. Discussion about this has erupted at Wikipedia_talk:BAN#User_pages.

It sure is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=479276746

Policy documents, and does not prescribe, common practice - so let's look at the typical approach to banned users' userpages. Virtually all userpages are replaced with the banned user template, and a small subset have the banned template added to the top of the userpage as it existed before the ban. There is no support among the community for listing a banned user's barnstar gallery under the banned template, as was done at [[User:Will Beback]]. There is no support for doing anything except: 1) replacing the whole talk page with the banned template; or 2) adding the banned template above the most recent userpage; or 3) adding the banned template above a leaving statement by the banned template. I am concerned that this thread would purport to be representative of the community's views when the majority of the community is not aware of this thread.....AGK [•] 10:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

AGK writes: "There is no support among the community for listing a banned user's barnstar gallery under the banned template". I wonder, if there is support among the community for listing a banned user's barnstar gallery above the banned template. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[mbz1]

When an editor is banned, some do not consider this editor to be a human any more.
On February 25,2012 my image was a picture of the day on English wikipedia ,but for the first time I was given no credit at my talk page.
Just think about this: my image is good enough to be displayed at Wikipedia's main page, but my talk page is not good enough to give me a credit for this.

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[Wikifan]

Just think about this: my image is good enough to be displayed at Wikipedia's main page, but my talk page is not good enough to give me a credit for this.

that is pretty shitty imo. how many editors manage to have featured pictures? that is a very meaningful contribution that transcends whatever bullshit i/p crap you've been a part of.

wikipedia community and global readers get access to your photos but you dont get credit for it. it's an injustice.

[Somey]

wikipedia community and global readers get access to your photos but you dont get credit for it. it's an injustice.

Is that even legal, under their (recently altered) content licensing scheme?

[Tarc]

wikipedia community and global readers get access to your photos but you dont get credit for it. it's an injustice.

Is that even legal, under their (recently altered) content licensing scheme?

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

She's credited on the file itself; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:360_degrees_fogbow.jpg

She's whining about not having a "we used your image at POTD" notification on her talk page.

[mbz1]

wikipedia community and global readers get access to your photos but you dont get credit for it. it's an injustice.

Is that even legal, under their (recently altered) content licensing scheme?

They did nothing illegal. The image, when displayed at the Main page, had my name on it. They only did not give me a credit at my talk page. The credit for POTD is like a credit for DYK, which is nice to have at one's talk page.
The POTD credit looks like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mbz..._notification_9
This particular one was the last POTD credit I got. It was posted at the day I was banned, and for the life of mine I cannot understand what wrong would it have been, if they posted the same message for February 25 POTD.

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[jd turk]

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.

[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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

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:
(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Banned_more_sprucy.png)

[Selina]

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

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

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

(IMG:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Kentwell_Scaresville.JPG) (IMG:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Hanging_of_William_Kidd.jpg) (IMG:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Gapestokk.jpg) (IMG:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Drei_Frauen_am_Pranger%2C_China%2C_Anonym%2C_um_1875.jpg) (IMG:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Boy_in_stocks_posing_for_photograph.jpg/300px-Boy_in_stocks_posing_for_photograph.jpg) (IMG:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/TitusOates-pilloried_300dpi.jpg/300px-TitusOates-pilloried_300dpi.jpg) (IMG:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/John-willie-girls-in-stocks.jpg) (IMG:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/P%C3%A8re_Peinard_-_Pilori.jpg/300px-P%C3%A8re_Peinard_-_Pilori.jpg) (IMG:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/Panzano_flickr07.jpg/300px-Panzano_flickr07.jpg) (IMG:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/Otto_-_BDSM_illustration_4.png/310px-Otto_-_BDSM_illustration_4.png)

[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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[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:

[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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

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:

[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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif) 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:

[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:

[mbz1]

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

I could ask for the account name to be changed, but it will not be granted. Banned users are not not allowed to change the name of the account. Besides it will be something like RTV, and IMO it will be kind of cowardly of me to ask for this.It will be as recognizing I've done something wrong, and want to hide behind a new name. And I have done nothing wrong. I am proud of what I have done, and if I knew in advance what wikisickos will do to me, I would have done it anyway.

Changing the name on my images... Well, it could be done even by myself. I am not blocked on Commons, at least not yet, but there are a thousand or so images. I have neither time nor strength to do it.

So, if everything that is left from my contributions on wikipedia is that badge of shame at my user page, so it be.

The only thinks that saddens me sometime is that even after I die, my Wikipedia user page will still have that template.

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[Emperor]

I miss Moulton. This calls for an Ozymandias parody.

[Zoloft]

I miss Moulton. This calls for an Ozymandias parody.

I placed a {{noindex}} tag at the top. Google be damned.

[Selina]

Changing the name on my images... Well, it could be done even by myself. I am not blocked on Commons, at least not yet, but there are a thousand or so images. I have neither time nor strength to do it.

You can do it (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) ask one of the bot people politely - wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JaGa seems a nice guy he runs the hugebig disambiguation one

and yeah........ I don't think it's really worth a parody tho, more poignant

(IMG:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/S_F-E-CAMERON_EGYPT_2005_RAMASEUM_01294.JPG/800px-S_F-E-CAMERON_EGYPT_2005_RAMASEUM_01294.JPG)

IN Egypt's sandy silence, all alone,
Stands a gigantic Leg, which far off throws
The only shadow that the Desert knows:—
"I am great OZYMANDIAS," saith the stone,
"The King of Kings; this mighty City shows
"The wonders of my hand."— The City's gone,—
Nought but the Leg remaining to disclose
The site of this forgotten Babylon.

We wonder,—and some Hunter may express
Wonder like ours, when thro' the wilderness
Where London stood, holding the Wolf in chace,
He meets some fragment huge, and stops to guess
What powerful but unrecorded race
Once dwelt in that annihilated place.
– Horace Smith.

(IMG:http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/6276/ozymandias2.jpg)
(via hero026.edublogs.org/ozymandias-analysis )


(IMG:http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/2923/ozymandias13.th.jpg)
(via junecaldwell.wordpress.com/2011/07/23/saturday-poem-6-ozymandias )




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

This post has been edited by Selina:

[Heat]

(IMG:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/S_F-E-CAMERON_EGYPT_2005_RAMASEUM_01294.JPG/800px-S_F-E-CAMERON_EGYPT_2005_RAMASEUM_01294.JPG)

I don't know why but that picture makes me think of Bedrock.

This post has been edited by Heat:

[EricBarbour]

Looks to me more like a stone monument to Jimbo Wales...."sorry, we tried to crowdsource the design, and this is what they made...."

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Selina]

(IMG:http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/4497/ozymandiasstatue2.jpg)

(IMG:http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/4369/ozymandiasbydarkqueenco.png) (IMG:http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/6944/ozymandias.jpg)
( ©DarkQueenComeToKrynn ) — douglaswhaley.blogspot.com/2010/10/when-atheists-die.html

(IMG:http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/2825/crawlingbydarkqueencome.png)
( ©DarkQueenComeToKrynn )

greenwake.keenspot.com/d/20120305.html
(IMG:http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/3083/greenwake20120305keensp.jpg)
( © Green Wake )

(The last one is "Nebuchadnezzar's Statue" [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] which is kinda interesting, I posted a reference to The Matrix earlier about the situation with homeless people being used as wi-fi spots) [/mythologygeekery (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)]
(I know, a bit offtopic, but too interesting not too)

[Emperor]

The only thinks that saddens me sometime is that even after I die, my Wikipedia user page will still have that template.

Hopefully mbz1 is feeling a little better by now.

[Selina]

I must have missed that, arg. Wow (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) I hope so, yeah.

They did get the template off her page, but I still think they should revdelete really, and remove the links to the banned profile from the images uploaded (I mean, if they're not deleted, they're positive contributions so there's no reason for there to be a big "this user got banned" statement a click away), it should be a matter of process for bots to do that when they ban someone under a real name probably, I dunno. Then again it kinda shows how messed up the system is that people who otherwise make huge contributions like her photography did get banned because of all the political drama that gets in the way and sucks people in.

[mbz1]

I must have missed that, arg. Wow (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) I hope so, yeah.

They did get the template off her page, but I still think they should revdelete really, and remove the links to the banned profile from the images uploaded (I mean, if they're not deleted, they're positive contributions so there's no reason for there to be a big "this user got banned" statement a click away), it should be a matter of process for bots to do that when they ban someone under a real name probably, I dunno. Then again it kinda shows how messed up the system is that people who otherwise make huge contributions like her photography did get banned because of all the political drama that gets in the way and sucks people in.

All my contributions were positive contributions only, and exposing a bully admin who bullied a 16 years old kid to the extend he wanted to commit a suicide was the most positive of all.

I emailed Jimbo and asked him to remove the template not only from my user page, but from user pages of another banned/blocked editors. In particular I mentioned Ottava Rima, Proofreader77 and Will Beback. I told Jimbo that these templates "demonstrate to the whole world that Wikipedia is an insane place." In my particular situation I did not mind the template, but I minded it was linked to a lynch mob's lynching. Sickos who banned me lied about me, and I hated these lies to be linked to from my user page.

[Ottava]

A few days ago I told my friend that, when a user is banned from wikipedia, his user page is replaced with banned user template. She looked at me, and asked "why?" I was not able to explain to her "why" because a normal person will never be able to understand it anyway.

Even before I was banned, I observed how a "little shit" Daedalus969 (T-C-L-K-R-D) and other "little shits" were doing this, but today a sitting arbitrator AGK (T-C-L-K-R-D) did it too:
"banned means banned; barnstars, and his actual userpage, are in the history"
Why, AGK, did you do it? What is wrong, if below the banned user template there would be barnstars? What are you afraid of? Don't you understand how sick it looks to normal people?

And suddenly I realized that "the banned user template" is the only thing I'd like to be associated with me in the insane asylum that calls "wikipedia" http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...0&oldid=3513926.

My objection in this case was to the use of an invented barnstar gallery. The banned template was not replaced or added above Will Beback's previous userpage.

I see you circumvented your English Wikipedia block by adding a message on my Meta talk page. Please stop using other Wikimedia websites to participate in Wikipedia, at least until you're willing to act in that project's benefit.

By the by, I may be a sitting arbitrator, but I was inactive on the TimidGuy case and I played no part in the decision-making process for the case.

AGK - on the matter - how do you feel about people editing my user page about TFAs, notices of FAs, DYKs, etc? Not "barnstars" of course but things dealing with content.

And technically, anyone can post on any other WMF wiki and you can't say no. Just because they are banned on en does not make them banned elsewhere. One of Meta's founding principles was to allow for people to still communicate when there were no other options (especially no neutral ones). You'll find a lot of backlash from communities like de if you tried to change that on Meta.

[mbz1]

The only thinks that saddens me sometime is that even after I die, my Wikipedia user page will still have that template.

Hopefully mbz1 is feeling a little better by now.

No, not really, somebody just emailed me this link, in which sicko tarc mentioned me in a thread about pedophiles!
It will never stop. I have been lynched more than a month ago, but sickos will never stop spreading their sick lies about me. I do not know how low these sickos could get knowing that a human being they torture cannot even respond!

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[Selina]

Ah I misunderstood that at first, but I get where you're coming from, he's saying the administrators were acting abusively by letting you appeal. What... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

This post has been edited by Selina:

[mbz1]

I just looked at Tarc's reply you linked there, and he is actually supporting you if you read carefully! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) "{{u|Mbz1}}'s RfC shenanigans at Meta, where Meta admins long uses to their cozy corner didn't like having a spotlight shined on their activities. Here, we have a collection of administrators and users who are used to doing things their own way and don't like the rest of us poking in."

No matter how I read it, it is attacking me and compares my situation to the situation of pedophiles, and their situation is better than mine, and it is what really makes me sick to my stomach.

Pedophiles are dangerous for the kids, but bullies with administrative tools are too.
I am Proud of my rfc. If I knew in advance, what sickos from govcom and sickos from drama boards would have done to me, I would have still submitted that rfc anyway , but it is hard to be lied about over, and over, and over again.

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[mbz1]

BTW the person, who emailed me the link called that link an irony, and it really is. Here's they explained why:

Tarc (who first nominated your RfC to be deleted on 7 Feb)
is saying on Jimbo's page (in the context of "Child protection")
that some people are sweeping things under the rug.

And what was your last information about Gwen Gale?
that she was bullying a minor - causing emotional harm.


Of course Tarc wants THAT swept under the rug.

So, the point isn't that someone is saying something bad about Mbz1.
The point is that the idiot saying something bad about Mbz1
is missing the point ...

Hence the irony.

And the bottom line that WMF wants to do nothing about either pedophiles, editing their sites, or about sick bullies with administrative tools, or about hard porno. They left to deal with these issues to anonymous volunteers!

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[Mooby]

Back to the topic of the thread this user who used to be an admin on a few wiki projects asked to lock his account himself. Nowhere, and I mean nowhere his user page was replaced with misleading template except of course English wikipedia, where a little shit Night Ranger  (T-C-L-K-R-D) did it.
This template is unneeded. Maybe somebody will be kind enough to undo the grave dancing.

Well I guess you don't have him to worry about any more. He just ragequit when someone removed the banned templates he'd been putting on user pages.

-Mooby

[Emperor]

Back to the topic of the thread this user who used to be an admin on a few wiki projects asked to lock his account himself. Nowhere, and I mean nowhere his user page was replaced with misleading template except of course English wikipedia, where a little shit Night Ranger  (T-C-L-K-R-D) did it.
This template is unneeded. Maybe somebody will be kind enough to undo the grave dancing.

Well I guess you don't have him to worry about any more. He just ragequit when someone removed the banned templates he'd been putting on user pages.

-Mooby

Odd. What is he, a fan of Throwing Muses?

[Proabivouac]

Mbz1, instead of moaning about the long since IDd Gwen Gale and your bans, why not join others in identifying Wikiland's administrators? That's the only thing that ever moves them. You can accomplish much more by accepting that you're on the outside and running with that. It means you have the freedom to act without regard to Wiki norms and power structures.

[mbz1]

Back to the topic of the thread this user who used to be an admin on a few wiki projects asked to lock his account himself. Nowhere, and I mean nowhere his user page was replaced with misleading template except of course English wikipedia, where a little shit Night Ranger  (T-C-L-K-R-D) did it.
This template is unneeded. Maybe somebody will be kind enough to undo the grave dancing.

Well I guess you don't have him to worry about any more. He just ragequit when someone removed the banned templates he'd been putting on user pages.

-Mooby

Odd. What is he, a fan of Throwing Muses?

This is even stranger and This one is too Ah, I see, it was a reaction to somebody threatening to take a favorite toy of the sicko away:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=481383746

Please stop adding tags to blocked users. It helps no one, and can cause problems. In particular, don't add tags that are incorrect, but even tags that are technically correct, like the one you added to [[User:DeFacto]], are not helpful. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 01:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[mbz1]

Mbz1, instead of moaning about the long since IDd Gwen Gale and your bans, why not join others in identifying Wikiland's administrators? That's the only thing that ever moves them. You can accomplish much more by accepting that you're on the outside and running with that. It means you have the freedom to act without regard to Wiki norms and power structures.

What does "IDd" means? And what do you mean under identifying Wikiland's administrators? Thanks.