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.

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)

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.

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)

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.

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?

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

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.

... 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.

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)

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.

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.

Another notable saying was made by Risker http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=479421656

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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)

mbz1, why did you request that your User pages be blanked?

I explained it above, but here's one more time.

Is my explanation satisfactory?

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 miss Moulton. This calls for an Ozymandias parody.

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.

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.

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

I must have missed that, arg. Wow 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.

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.

Hopefully mbz1 is feeling a little better by now.

I just looked at Tarc's reply you linked there, and he is actually supporting you if you read carefully! "{{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."

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.

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?

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)

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.