Moving to resolve thisEdit
I have been off wiki for a while and also have real life issues which prevent me from doing what I want to do on wiki & elsewhere. However I think it is appropriate to try and resolve this issue although given the user's last edit that may no longer be relevant. My views have always been that - vandals and those blocked by the Foundation excepted - users should be able to continue to have access to Meta.
It is clear from previous events that the majority of the community see that en wp will not allow consideration of issues there to be raised here and so the problem is what we should be allowing Meta usage for. To me simple voting in matters that are cross wiki by their nature should not cause any controversy. I think it would be helpful if this user were to state clearly what they intend to do with access to Meta which will prevent the possibility of any future lack of clarity/misunderstandings assuming they wish to do so. Once that is done and the community have a chance to see that and consider it we can try and move this to a close. --Herby talk thyme 07:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- "This user" has been unfairly blocked for over a month. Nobody, but "this user" would have been blocked for a single second over the comments "this user" made.
- "This user's" unblock request was declined by an involved admin right after that admin got engaged in edit warring with "this user".
- "This user" unblock request was supported by a few numbers of the community. There was a strong consensus for unblock, so the community has spoken.
- "This user" has no problem to apologize, if this user did something wrong. This is not the case. This user has nothing to apologize for.
- That's why according to all of the above "this user" should be unblocked without any preconditions and without any request to clarify what "this user" is going to do with to do "with access to Meta". After all "this user" as any other user for this matter could be blocked at any time, if something inappropriate is done.
- As of right now
"this user"this human being is being bullied and harassed at this site, that is why this user unblock is needed more for the sake of the community than for "this user".
- Actually I came here to say thank you to the people who supported my unblock, and to say sorry to them for my post before this post.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- I am saddened by your reaction, saddened because I used to know you as an honest and unafraid person and as a fair admin. What did you expect me to say? What was you did not like from what I said? I said I have been unfairly blocked for over a months, and I have been unfairly blocked for over a month, I said my unblock was declined by an involved admin, and it was declined by an involved admin, I said there is a strong consensus for the unblock, and there's a strong consensus for the unblock. So, what was untrue from what I said? These are just rhetorical questions. I know "you have more than enough to do anyway"...
- If I were to choose between being a bully or to be bullied myself, I would have chosen to be bullied myself. Being bullied is horrible but at least I could live in peace with myself, and IMO people who see a person being bullied, have means to stop it but because of some kind of politics have chosen to do nothing are as guilty as bullies themselves. A bullied human being should be helped. Everything else could wait. And with this I unwatched Wikipedia. Do as you wish.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Almost a year has passed since my RFC was deleted and I was banned from Wikipedia. More than 6 months passed since I was blocked from Meta. It's OK. I do not mind being blocked/banned or whatever. There's only one thing that bothers me, and bothers me a lot. It is that my ban calls "community ban", that my blocking admin Mathonius here on Meta blocked me because wikipedia community had enough of her behaviour and decided to block her indefinitely. Before I start I'd like to point out that I am writing this not to stir up an old conflict, but only to defend my actions and to explain why my ban should not be called community ban.
So, let's start with my "behaviour", the one that the alleged community had enough of. What exactly did I do? My alleged "crime" was filing RFC concerning Gwen Gale on Meta versus filing it on English Wikipedia. Another alleged crime was harassing Gwen Gale. So let's take a look at both of these allegations: filing RFC on Meta and harassing Gwen Gale.
Filing RFC on MetaEdit
I did it on Meta because I was blocked on Wikipedia by my own request.
Harassing Gwen GaleEdit
In my RFC I stated that Gwen Gale bullied many editors including 16 years old kid to the extend he felt as killing himself. Of course the RFC itself was deleted, but I still have some proves that my statements were The Truth, The Whole Truth and nothing but the Truth, and had nothing to do with the harassment.
The first prove that my RFC was legitimate comes from an employee of the WMF. Philippe (WMF) writes: "you were not ignored. You were heard, and listened to, but I am not at liberty to say what, if any, action was taken. " Of course this statement is very vague as practically everything that comes from the WMF, but, if Philippe (WMF) wrote that he's not at liberty to say what actions were taken,you'd better believe some actions were taken. It could not have been otherwise, not after a bullied 16-years old kid sustained irreversible emotional damage here ,on Wikipedia only because the arbcom ignored my requests as then arbitrator Elen of the Roads admitted in a few places: " But equally, there never was an RfC, there never was a massive Arbcom investigation. Everyone Mbz1 mailed it to looked at it and said "can't see it myself" and left it at that, often I suspect without emailing their response back to Mbz1." If my RFC were a harassment would have Philippe (WMF) make that statement?
But the biggest living prove of the legitimacy of my RFC is provided by ... Gwen Gale herself. Maybe some of you remember that in my RFC I have never asked to sanction Gwen Gale. I only asked her to acknowledge there's a problem with her using the tools and fix her behavior, and she did!
I am very happy and very proud to report that for the last year Gwen Gale has not imposed any bad or even half-bad block, and, if it is not enough, please see her response to a request to block a user: ":I understand, meanwhile, I don't feel ok about doing anything that might be taken as an admin action or warning in topic areas dealing with music. Other than dealing with straightforward stuff like 3rr and vandalism". WOW! Gwen Gale doesn't feel OK to block when involved!
By request I could provide many more proves that my RFC was not a harassment, and I did provide at least one on-wiki diff for each and every statement I made.
When somebody is discussed for such a harsh punishment as the community ban, at the very least this somebody should be given an opportunity to defend himself/herself, should he not? I was denied this opportunity. By the time of my ban's discussion I was blocked, and my talk page access was removed. Where else, but on Wikipedia something like this could have happened? I did find another place with such practices. It was described in 1984 by George Orwell: "A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge-hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic." "vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture", what a great description of my community ban proceeding! Why am I believing so? Decide for yourself. By the time of my ban, I've already been indefinitely blocked by the arbitration committee. There was not a chance I'd be unblocked by any admin. There's was not a chance of any harm to Wikipedia. Why that ban was needed? Simply "to torture, to smash faces" like George Orwell correctly noticed.
It is so easy to lie about a person, who is not allowed to say a word in her deference, is it not? I was lied about a lot on all Wikipedia projects, including Meta, and because all statements I make I support with diffs please let me please provide some to support this statement too:
- "on Commons, the one project where you were truly productive". It is untrue. Here are only some DYK I wrote on English Wikipedia, including the most popular ever, and a few more popular DYK. Of course there are 50+ features pictures I uploaded to Wikipedia.
- "They are no longer making any contributions to this site that have any value". There, on Commons the user that stated that lie was corrected by another user:" Given that you overlooked an FP in the most recent contributions it would perhaps be a good idea to retract that part of your report? And I am sorry, but the first paragraph screams "citation needed" for about every four words following the introductiry appraising lines. "Relentless crusade"?, "stirring up trouble"?, "sad, pathetic, hopeless attempt to whine and cry"? You are using a lot of very loaded negative words in that paragraph without a single dif of reference to evidence, while asking to ban on of the most productive creators of featured and highly valuable pictures on this site. This is a serious matter, and I think it is to be expected to do your homework. Be factual, show diffs, do not impose your own interpretation on other users, but let them desice themselves from the evidence."
- You all know how I "like" tarc and how tarc "likes" me, but even tarc felt as correcting at least one lie in my community ban description, then there were more fixes.
- Sadly I myself lied about my contributions here on Meta. I gave in to bullying and agreed that my contributions here, on Meta were not productive. It was a lie. My contribution on Meta were the most productive of all my contributions to all Wikipedia projects. My RFC made a difference as I explained and proved above.
So, why did I provide a few diffs with the lies told about me? Only because there were not a single word of truth said by the supporters of my community ban, not a single word! It was exactly like in this video. I am not a witch. A bunch of witch-hunters who dare to call themselves the Wikipedia community dressed me like a witch.
I am a little bit sadden that I was mistaking about a few users here on Meta who I believed to be honest and unafraid. Anyway...
After my RFC and the evens that followed I had a choice to make: to remain a Wikipedian or to remain a human. I've chosen to remain a human, and it feels great! --Mbz1 (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but you're still a human obsessed with the minutiae of the many, many cases brought against you, rather than one willing to look at your own behavior. You didn't get banned across multiple wiki-sites because of anyone's behavior except your own. JD Turk (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
JD Turkanonymous wikihound. I see you created an account here to continue hounding me across the projects, and you know what I do not even mind talking to you, but with one condition: you sign your posts , no not with your real name, but with your wikipedia user name. I know you have at least one, probably more than one accounts. Before you are honest enough to sign your posts with your wikipedia user name (names) please stay off this talk page because I hold wikihounds as the most worthless bullies that are destroying wikipedia. Mbz1 (talk) 06:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Dear Mbz1, your harassment, stalking, and attempted bullying of Gwen Gale did not produce a single desired result. The RfC was deleted, you were banned, and it has had no effect on Gwen's activities whatsoever, as she never did a thing wrong in the first place. The Wikimedia community as a while has decided that you are simply a nuisance, and that we are better off without your presence. Delete this after you have read it, please. Tarc (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Dear tarc, and, dear everybody, what I will write below has nothing to do with trying to stir up an old conflict. What I will write below will be written in my defense and in case somebody will find himself in a similar situation.
- Tarc, don't you think that your
wordstrolling would have had much more weight, if it were supported with some kind of evidences. For example you write: "as she never did a thing wrong in the first place". Really? My RFC recounted dozens of situation when Gwen Gale did wrong. I will not of course repeat everything, but just a few:
- On 26 April 2009 Gwen Gale blocked user Funguy06 with the edit summary "(Vandalism-only account: no meaningfully encyclopedic edits)". In her block message she provided neither differences to support the block, nor an explanation how to request an unblock. The user who started contributing to wikipedia in 2006 was blocked over this 2009 edit for "vandalism only". But please see the article. Funguy06 did not vandalize the article.He made a good faith, encyclopedic edit. As a result of the block the user is gone. He did not even bother to write an unblock request. Please, tarc, explain how this block is not "a thing wrong".
- User Nextbook was blocked at 20:56, 9 November 2011 after Gwen Gale was edit warring with him. Gwen Gale claimed BLP. Another admin questioned the block, saying in particular "I don't think BLP concerns are a carte blanche for disregarding AGF like this and especially not BITE since we can't expect newcomers to understand these complex policies within their first 10 edits. I would appreciate if you would be more polite and welcoming towards new editors in the future, and not be as quick with the block-hammer, if you feel you don't have the patience for giving adequate explanations to a newcomer feel free to contact me and I'll gladly take over", but Gwen failed to clarify her position.
- Here's an analysis of the situation with this user:
- 1. A new editor made a few contributions.
- 2. He is warned he has to use sources.
- 3. So in his next two edits he tries to use sources.In this edit he provides not just one, but three sources almost for every sentence he adds, but he does it like this "(Marks, "Lost Paradise", page 292.) " because he is not sure what is the right way to list references. In his next and the last edit he inserts the external link to the article in Guardian, which of course is a reliable source.
- 4. The user is blocked and never returns. Please, tarc, explain how this block is not "a thing wrong".
- A side note on the situation #2. Users, who supported my ban have never read my RFC, but Philip from WMF did. How do I know? Well, the situation I described above was at the very end of my RFC, and here what Philip from WMF wrote about this back then:
- "Really? w:User:Nextbook is the example you want to use? I agree with that block, 100%. Philippe (WMF) 04:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)"
- So it is logically to assume that Philip from WMF read the whole RFC, and was very happy, when at the end he found a block he agreed with 100%. I explained to |Philippe (WMF) in both RFC and at his talk page why this block was a very bad block, and asked him, if he still agrees with the block 100%. He's never responded. Also Philip from WMF was involved with the kid who felt as killing himself after being bullied by gwen gale, the kid I warned about before that latest episode happened. Philip from WMF read what the kid wrote to gwen: "You are the bad guys and the members are playing a sick game, a game to try to stay away from you bullies." and "I literally just might kill myself." and " I will kill myself tonight and it is all your fault." Yet Philippe (WMF) has never showed up at my community ban discussion to stop two minutes of hate, to tell these grimacing, screaming lunatics, that all situations described in my RFC were presented with on wiki diffs and had merit. I do not know why he did not. Was it a cowardness, dishonesty or both?
- Exactly at the same time, when I was being accused in harassing Gwen Gale the professor Timothy Messer-Kruse shared his experience in editing Wikipedia in The chronicle of higher education. In particular he recalled part of his exchange with Gwen Gale:"Explain to me, then, how a 'minority' source with facts on its side would ever appear against a wrong 'majority' one?" I asked the Wiki-gatekeeper. He responded, "You're more than welcome to discuss reliable sources here, that's what the talk page is for. However, you might want to have a quick look at Wikipedia's civility policy."
The complete conversation is preserved here:
|“||Fine. I see I will have to fight these battles one at a time. I will start with the most obvious. Here is a "majority" source, indeed the most often-cited source for information on Haymarket there is, Paul Avrich, The Haymarket Tragedy: from page 190: "Spies had heard that two men had been killed, apparently the correct number, but when he picked up the Daily News, the paper reported six deaths." So, it should be evident that this authoratitive source also agrees the proper number should be TWO. As for you claim about Wikipedia's policy, your characterization of it is absurd, especially if the "majority" source that is cited can be shown to be factually wrong. Explain to me, then, how a "minority" source with facts on its side would ever appear against a wrong "majority" one?MesserKruse (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Gwen Gale was also the one who "welcomed" the professor to Wikipedia:
- Here's a post at Gwen's talk page concerning her involvement in the matter:
"Hello. I just want to point out that I recently read an article in the chronicle here: http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/ and it describes what amounts to an edit war that you were engaged in. I looked at the page and discussion in question, and it seems to me that you are boorish and a bully. I would like to suggest that you tone down your air of self-righteous authority, in order to encourage a more civil atmosphere on Wikipedia. It's especially ironic that when presented with what seems to be a very civil point by (presumably) the author of the blog, you ignored the substance of his argument and instead groundlessly accused him of being uncivil himself. If you're going to wear that hat of uncontested arbitrator of *TRUTH*, it would be helpful if you at least justified your claims in detail to those who go to the trouble of trying to actually discuss the truth in a balanced fashion using reliable sources. As it stands, you arbitrarily call seemingly reliable sources "unreliable", and other sources that support your preferred narrative "reliable," and this makes you an awful bully. Please consider changing your behavior and attitudes. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashwinr (talk • contribs) 17:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)" See, tarc, another user who I am sure had no idea about my RFC came to Gwen's talk and called her "boorish and a bully".
- So as you could see gwen gale bullied newbies and established users, anonymous wikipedians and the world known expert. Any more examples? I believe it is enough.
- So, dear tarc, if somebody as you say I am a "nuisance", it means I did lots of good for wikipedia, and with this,tarc, would you please stay off my talk page and allow me to enjoy my banning from this inmates run asylum?
- Everybody, I'd like to explain to you, in case it was not clear after my initial post, that I did not post here to establish my guilt or innocence. It is not my goal. My goal was and is to try to make you to understand that regardless of my guilt or innocence no person should be treated as I was. I was not able to say a single word in my defense during so called community ban discussion. Why? What these grimacing screaming lunatics who supported my ban were afraid of? Were they afraid of the truth? Don't you understand that every person has a right to defend himself no matter what this person did. I was denied that right, denied by cowardly witch-hunters. As I mentioned above I write this for myself, but mostly for others, who undoubtedly will find themselves in a similar situation. Mbz1 (talk) 06:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
And now let's have a laughEdit
A friend emailed me these links, concerning one of the users who supported my ban: The user was blocked because the blocking admin believed the account was hacked. How come that an experienced admin Bwilkins blocked another experienced admin as a "compromised account"? Well, he explained the block at AN "user Beeblebrox and his talkpage are on my watchlist. Having viewed the most recent series of edits to his talkpage, including the final one with the edit summary "FUCK OFF YOU PETTY FASCIST IDIOT", I have blocked Beeblebrox indefinitely as a possibly compromised account. This spate of behaviours does not appear to be consistent with Beeb's usual behaviour. Does anyone think we need an emergency desysop?" The whole ordeal was very funny on many levels. Hasn't Bwilkins known that it was how Beeblebrox usually speaks? But the fumiest part was that, when the community made sure the account was not comprised Beeblebrox was promptly unblocked. Mathonius, Beeblebrox , is one of the users who "got enough of my behavior",and please do not even start me on others. Mbz1 (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Tarc defends WikipediaEdit
A few days ago somebody sent me a link, and ever since I could not stop laughing. So I thought maybe sharing it here would help me to stop laughing, really.The thing is that probably not the whole community, Mathonius, "got enough of my behavior" and somebody added me to en:Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. And here's the diff that made me laugh "Undid revision 562740460 by Ottawahitech (talk) - Not only no but hell effing N-O. Mbz was banned by Arbcom for repeated harassment of admins." Tarc, if I was not blocked, I would have given you a barnstar for defending Wikipedia from collapsing. Really you deserve one: First you hounded me all over the project, then you supported my ban, while I was not allowed to say a single word in my defense, and now you defended such an important article as en:Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians! Yours " Not only no but hell effing N-O" was so idiotic and so dramatic that I started laughing and was not able to stop ever since.
Your post was especially funny because unlike Mathonius who probably truly believes that on English Wikipedia a person gets community banned, when the community gets enough of this person's behavior, you Tarc, understand what community bans are about very well:"What this sort of thing comes down to is how many supporters you can line up vs. how many opponents they can line up. It's like World of Warcraft, sometimes there's just too many orcs and not enough humans."
On the other hand your post reminded to me what Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger said about this kind of behavior:
|“||"This sort of thing amuses me. I have no idea about the merits of mbz1's case against the administrator, or the case against mbz1 for bringing the case, although I have my suspicions. But is it really possible for anybody in his right mind to get all broken up about being kicked out of the Wikipedia insane asylum? I mean, they're so ridiculously self-important, when they aren't acting like trolls, and show no sense of grace, humanity, or even style. Admins and even rank-and-file contributors go around making high-sounding declarations and announcements, as if they were government officials dispensing court orders."||”|
p.s. Mathonius, I fully expect that after this post you will remain true to yourself, which means to remain "so ridiculously self-important, when you aren't acting like a troll, and show no sense of grace, humanity, or even style", and remove my talk page access.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)