User talk:Unomi/Archive/2011Jan

Suggestion

Dear Unomi, I am sure you meant only good when you posted on MBZ1's talk page. But I think you should not do that again; moreover, the best would be to self-revert. Mbz1 has been repeatedly advised to stay away from people she had problems in the past. I think this includes you. But she can't do that if you post on her talk page, discuss her case with other editors (even with the best intentions), etc. I know you just want to help, but this is counter-productive as it may provoke her to respond etc. You know how these things develop. May I kindly advise you to stay away and move on. I am sure you can do million other useful contributions to the project. Cheers and Happy New Year! - BorisG (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

On your suggestion I would have self-reverted, but I see it is already removed. un☯mi 21:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that. All the best! - BorisG (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with BorisG... I too think it might be good if you could give Mbz1 some space at this point. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 05:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I will refrain from posting to her talkpage unless otherwise required by community standards. I certainly didn't mean answering her request for help with archiving as a provocation, her response to that assistance did provoke a comment though. un☯mi 06:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely don't think that offering to help would be considered provocation by any reasonable outsider. I was disappointed to learn of Mbz1's response and told them so. But perhaps it's best to just voluntarily separate... ++Lar: t/c 15:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you ever leave me alone? Don't you understand that I do not care about neither your "positive" comments about me nor about your negative comments about me, nor about your "help" that every reasonable outsider would take as a provocation, if this outsider is to examine the history of your hounding of me. Don't you understand that you should stop hounding me at last? Even my so called "mentor", who came out screaming and ranting at my talk page suggested us to "voluntarily separate". I agree. I hope you do to. I hope this will be the end of this. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Another editor was confused as to how and why the credits got changed around - so I looked through the page edits and told them, it was certainly not hounding. Happy New Year! :) un☯mi 19:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Agree, this one edit by itself cannot be considered a hounding, it just added to everything else. I am glad you agreed that everything else was hounding.

Mbz1 (talk) is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. I love you, unomi, but may we please love each other from the distance from now on. The love from the distance is usually stronger, you know--Mbz1 (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

--Mbz1 (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC) Not after that lies and trolling.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Neither lies nor trolling, also I already ate the cookies, not sure you really want them back in the state they are in now. un☯mi 14:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least you have some sense of humor :-)

You wrote: "Almost all the articles you create crawl through AfD..."(Highlighted by me). Isn't this a lie or a "big lie" as Arabs would have said? And, if your a long and false post about me personally that has nothing to do with the current DR is not a trolling, what is? --Mbz1 (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

(: Thank you for the cookies :) un☯mi 20:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

So far it looks like this. It might be a good idea to disengage until it looks like this. Happy New Year! Biophys (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Israel apartheid analogy article revert

I would like to ask you to undo your revert of my editing, and noting the explanations supplied on the talk page, to discuss what you are unhappy with rather than summarily reverting. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not summarily revert, I will be happy to explain further on talk as my ES seems not to have sufficed. un☯mi 14:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Reformat?

I appreciate your clarification just now, but the indentation comes out a little "off" in my browser, which makes it hard to read. I don't want to try to reformat it myself, because I'm not sure exactly what to group with what. Would you mind having a look? Many thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, again, Unomi! Sorry if I appeared to take credit for your review of the very problematic source Mbz1 offered, Living in the Times of the Signs, to support her Blame Israel first article. I appreciate your digging to discover that, and have since made a proper acknowledgment of your effort... Btw, given her peevish and wholly gratuitous accusations of "trolling", maybe those were Trollhouse Cookies she gave you? Heh. Okay, lame, but I hope it made you smile anyway: I owe you some return, at least, for the great belly laugh your reply to her demand for them back afforded me. Also, good on you for just ignoring her petulance. It takes restraint and maturity not to respond in that kind of situation with counter-accusations, and I honor you for it. Thanks, and best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure

You are invited to participate in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure which is expected to close in a little over a week. If you have received this message, it is because it appears that you participated in the 2009 AC RfC, and your contributions indicate that you are currently active on Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blame Israel first

This has now been closed as delete; thank you for your analysis of the sources being used to argue that a non-synth, non-POV was possible with editing, and that it was not a coatrack; they were very helpful in my weighing up of consensus and evidence. Keep up the good work, dude. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you have second, can you comment on this issue? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_A._Falk#Lead_section I'm trying to determine if there is consensus for that lead or not. Thanks. BernieW650 (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

May I please ask you to reconsider?

unomi,

1. you alleged that my discussion with AGK concerning my block was private. No, they were not Please see here; here and here
2. Gwen Gale was aware about my communications with AGK, and she agreed to lift my bans because of these communications.
3. I am not so sure Gwen Gale likes this matter to be brought to AN. She was canvased to AN/I thread and ended up blocking me. AN that you are about to start might end up in wp:boomerang for her.
4. You are deeply involved with me in a very negative way. You were asked by at least 2 editors to give me some space. Your perusing this matter doe not look good.

Also I will appreciate, if you are to stop adding the word "drama" to the list of my bans. They are silly enough without your addition. Besides I am afraid that you are the one that instead of building encyclopedia is looking for a new drama. Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1,

1. They were private to the degree that no one seemed to have taken notice of them - to my mind, the action that was undertaken demands wider input than actually took place.
2. I think that you are missing the mark when you say that she lifted the ban because of those discussions, in truth - I am more concerned that you did not see fit to tell AGK that Gwen had lifted them - I would imagine that the outcome would have been different.
3. I am not so sure that you should go around slinging mud - you have tried to get the canvassing accusation stick for months to no avail, if you truly believe that this is the case then take it to an appropriate forum.
4. Your actions demand involvement Mbz1, from me and from everyone.

Your sanctions were precisely imposed due to the impression that you needlessly incited drama, nonetheless, I will try to stick to the wording used by imposing admins. un☯mi 21:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

unomi, as usually you have demonstrated an absolute inability to assume a good faith.

I repeatedly asked an admin to tell me, if my understanding of canvasing is wrong, and repeatedly offered to apologize to Gwen as soon as I am explained what I got wrong, but the admin did not tell me to apologize, and refused to act when was repeatedly asked to clarify his responses to me. I did not take the canvasing incident to "an appropriate forum" because making wp:drama is not mine specialty, it is yours,unomi.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1 - by not taking your concerns to a proper venue for resolution, and instead bringing it up repeatedly, ad nauseam, *is* contributing to drama - put up or shut up - don't keep whining about it in your admin-shopping sprees. I'll ask Ed Johnston if he would like to add his input here. I think I have generally been fair towards you Mbz1, I have given you credit where I deemed it due and critiqued where I deemed it necessary - obviously everyone has a point where patience wears thin, so with time my language grows stronger and my responses more terse, I would urge you to reflect on how your behavior has contributed to that. un☯mi 22:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

unomi, I repeat one more time you are unable to assume good faith. I have never done "admin-shopping sprees". Stop making false accusations! I discussed my block with Ed only in connection to his comment on AE concerning me. I did not do it to "punish" Gwen, I did it to clarify my blocks with Ed, the blocks that resulted in a harsher sanction during AE request. You said your language is becoming stronger, no, not stronger, louder, you are simply screaming.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Annotation of block log for Mbz1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Recently, the block log of Mbz1 was annotated with: 22:21, 25 May 2011 AGK (talk | contribs) blocked Mbz1 (talk | contribs) (autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 1 second ‎ ((Log note, by request of Mbz1) The two preceding blocks were subsequently disputed, and have the opposition of at least this administrator.) [1], concerns were raised regarding the process and manner of the log commentary[2][3][4] - my understanding of a summary, on the basis of AGK's statements[5]:

• AGK did not consult with anyone except Mbz1 regarding the annotation.
• AGK would, faced with the same situation in the future, seek a full review.
• AGK cannot revdel the annotation himself as he fears it would be tantamount to redacting unfavorable data.

Please note that I am not seeking any action towards AGK, and I am not trying to make a case that he acted in anything but good faith, however, I do believe that he made an error in judgement - which he seems to acknowledge, but is unable to take corrective action upon, himself.

The discussions leading to the sanctions of Mbz1 spread out over several talk pages including: [6] and [7]. The sanction in question was lifted by the imposing administrator the 27th of March[8], it is possible that the block log should indicate that - however, I feel that anything to the effect that the ban was disputed or opposed etc, should spring from a discussion that has wider community input that what has transpired here.

The first step, given the limited input the block log annotation process had, the concerns subsequently raised and the amount of community input which went into the initial blocks, AGKs concerns regarding his own actions and his stated stance: So if any of my admin actions are overturned, I will not consider such an action to be a "Wheel War", but rather an attempt to improve Wikipedia.[9] Is to have the block log commentary removed, I urge the first editor with the capacity to take such corrective action.

Should the community feel that a block log annotation is warranted then that should spring from a discussion in a thread separate from this one. Note: I am notifying all editors that I am aware of participating in discussions regarding the sanctions, should I have left anyone out - please feel free un☯mi 21:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

users notified
Beeblebrox AGK EdJohnston

I may jump the gun and find for a review myself tomorrow morning. I have no preference as to whether you want to wait for me to do that or proceed yourself. The wording here seems fair, though. Btw, is it just me or does your signature change colour a lot? Have you randomised the font colour or something? AGK [•] 23:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for considering doing that, I would certainly feel more comfortable (and much happier) if you initiated the review. My signature is at [10] - an extended exercise in working with templates, I had plans to extend the range of it, as it is currently limited to the numeric portion of the hexadecimal code, which is kinda dull ;) but work has kept me extremely busy the last months (and it would likely be a poor use of time anyway). I will hold off with the AN for a few days unless you desire otherwise. Best, un☯mi 23:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not find the language to be exactly fair.

I did cc to AGK at least one my response to Beeblebrox's email. So to say AGK consulted only with me is not exactly right.

I believe this request should also be mentioned. As you see I asked Beeblebrox to oversight AGK correction block, and he said it was not possible for him to do so. I notified AGK about this thread. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, from that thread it seems like the 3 of us agree about the block log annotation being removed / reviewed / replaced. Lets stop fighting about it and get it done. I am not particularly concerned about the wording of the review request - however I do strongly believe that emphasis should be returning to the 'pre-annotated' log as a starting point. un☯mi 02:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocks in December 2010 of User:Mbz1

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block log of Mbz1 regarding the December 2010 block of User:Mbz1. Thank you. AGK [•] 11:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)