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

[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

This post has been edited by mbz1: Tue 28th February 2012, 2:40am

[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: Tue 28th February 2012, 3:51am

[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: Tue 28th February 2012, 8:49pm

[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: Tue 28th February 2012, 1:59pm

[Fusion]

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

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

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
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: Tue 28th February 2012, 4:03pm

[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.

This post has been edited by mbz1: Tue 28th February 2012, 6:37pm

[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: Tue 28th February 2012, 7:09pm

[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?

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: Tue 28th February 2012, 10:55pm

[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.