User talk:Mbz1/special

1. 05:48, 23 December 2010 I made a single comment on an/i in a thread started by someone else.
2. 06:07, 23 December 2010 user:Daedalus969 started a new thread over my comment at an/i
3. 06:12, 23 December 2010 user:Daedalus969 canvased notified admin Gwen Gale to their AN/I thread
4. 07:01, 23 December 2010 Prodego warned me over Daedalus969's AN/I post on me. Prodego did not close the thread after they warned me.
5. 15:57, 23 (9 hours!!! after I was warned) user:tarc , with whom I was personally involved, and a few other users, most of whom were personally involved with me) started adding to the thread about me on AN/I [1]
6. At that point I felt threatened and filed SPI on Daedalus969 and user:Demiurge1000. This SPI was a mistake that was filed in a hurry, but it was not filed in a bad faith.
7. At that point The previously canvased notified administrator Gwen Gale blocked me for a week
8. The block quickly escalated to be indefinite, then my talk page access was removed
9. Gwen Gale, stated the conditions of my unblock that I agree do not post to AN/I, AN, AE and do not file SPI for 6 months. I of course was eager to get unblocked, and I agreed on the proposed editing restrictions, but I believe that neither the block itself, nor bans on the boards listed above were warranted.

If you are to look over my contributions for a few months preceding my block and bans, you would see that I hardly contributed to AN and AN/I. I did contribute to AE, but less than many other users.

Response

You have requested that I post my opinion on the above. If this page is not a desirable location, feel free to move this section.

1. I am unfamiliar with your editing history and with Daedalus' editing history, and so I can make no comment on who is wikistalking whom (or whatever the accusation that preceded the first interaction ban was).
2. That said, the interaction ban was mutual, and so my reading of that is that you and Daedalus are each responsible for causing mutual sanctions to be necessary. The interaction ban in my view was caused by a clash of personalities between you both—and not anything more sinister, such as stalking.
3. On a general note, I find it disappointing that two Wikipedia editors behave so unprofessionally as to warrant a formal interaction ban. In my mind, that kind of thing should be found in a nursery playground, not a formal online project. But I digress.
4. I will assume that your first edit (#1 in your above list) was the only recent edit you have made which could violate your interaction ban (had it still been in effect) or related at all to Daedalus.
5. The initial AE thread related to Daedalus' conduct and the value of his wider presence on Wikipedia. Your input as an editor who had had negative interactions with Daedalus was of value. Daedalus' complaint about your comment, presuming that my assumption in point #4 is correct, was therefore without merit.
6. Filing the SPI was foolish, because the perception then became that you were out to get Daedalus. His complaint about you became of merit once you filed the SPI.
7. Whilst his complaint had merit in light of the SPI, it still did not warrant an indefinite block. I disagree with the block and with the continuation of the ANI etc. restrictions. Those sanctions were not warranted—especially as, from what you have told me, I gather that your ~23 Dec 2010 comments were an isolated incident.
8. I find the accusation that the blocking administrator, Gwen Gale, is not uninvolved to be troubling, but make no comment on them because you have provided no substantiation.

I hope you find my comments useful in guiding whatever steps you take next to appeal the restrictions. You are free to link to these comments and/or reuse them, and to alert me to any unblock proceedings. Regards, AGK [•] 22:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for your review, AGK. I guess I have to clarify some points:

1. I did not say my blocking admin was involved. I said user:Daedalus969 canvased admin Gwen Gale to their AN/I thread. Why did I use the word "canvased"? Well, according to Wikipedia:Canvassing "Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner." is canvasing. This post by user:Daedalus969 is anything but neutral. I am not sure why user:Daedalus969 decided to notify this and only this particular admin, after the user opened a bogus AN/I thread. I am opened to suggestions, if my read of the policy is wrong.
2. Here's a thread to my and the user interaction ban. It was posted in March of 2010 for 3 months. So, when the user claimed that I "immediately jumped in in an issue" it was a false accusation. The interaction ban has expired in June. There are 6 months between June and December! No reasonable person could call 6 months "immediately" after interaction ban has expired, and yes, it was my very first interaction with that user after ban has expired.
3. I've agreed that filing SPI was silly. But it was not filed to get anybody. It was not filed in a bad faith. It was filed because I felt threatened, and tried to protect myself.
4. In general I agree with your general note on interaction bans about two editors, but sometimes it is the only way for an editor to get rid of wikihounds and trolls. You may see more what I mean from here and here

• Thank you again for your comments.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)