User talk:Mabelina

January 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for exhausting the community's patience, see this ANI discussion. After nine time-limited blocks by six different admins in less than a year, I see no other recourse than indef. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | talk 08:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that if Bishonen had not blocked you, then I would have done so per no legal threats and your comments here Guy (Help!) 11:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Retired hurt

• @Miesianiacal: booted out for engaging in an MOS Discussion. No worries, too much jibber jabber, not enough attention to facts. So long and good luck.*
  @Bishonen and JzG/help:

Correction sub MOS (yet to be made)

• Matthew Festing (image caption) - accuracy is (or would be) better - the sort of issue which has been proclaimed as the reason for my fall out with the Wikipedia community: ie. he is not "Sir Matthew" but is Fra' Matthew Festing.
  PS. also unfortunately see Rhodes Must Fall (which doesn't look like doing so - in other words, how long does it have to take before all socialists are given a bad name by my being blocked too)?

Mabelina is / is not persona non grata

• It is dismaying that those who have achieved my downfall (without Wikipedia:Dispute resolution) are so immune from sanction themselves: Wikipedia:NOTHERE; unlike User:Anglicanus, User:Softlavender, User:Therequiembellishere etc (who are sensible enough not to raise their heads above the parapet at inopportune times).
  • Those apparatchiks campaigning to block me, probably care less about Wikipedia's accuracy of content (than driving through a politically-motivated Manual of Style), so who does one go to (when ex-communicated)..?

1RR

Mabelina, it's really a shame that it has come to this, but I am not surprised, though I will admit the indef block came sooner than I thought.

Now, there is a possible way back but it will mean changes on your part - and they will need to be real and genuine changes and they will need to be followed through with long-term action. I'm sure you'll understand that none of the advice below guarantees anything, because it will be up to others to make any judgements about your wikipedia future. However, this advice has come about as a result of some of the comments at the ANI discussion and subsequently, and is based on my own reading of our community guidelines as well as from the thoughts of other editors.

There is a possibility for you to appeal the block; as set out in the link in the red notice above. The way I see it you will need to do the following to have any chance of success:

• 1. Withdraw the supposed "legal threat" you made in the ANI discussion. I can appreciate that the word in question was unpleasant (though I would point out that none of those involved in the discussion on Wednesday night were the first to employ it), but it did not warrant the threats that followed. WP:NLT clearly states "Accordingly, statements made in anger or misjudgment should not be held against people once genuinely and credibly withdrawn" so if you were to accept that your statements in this regard were wrong, I would hope that a line could be drawn under that element of the discussion at least.

• 2. You will need to realise and accept that your behaviour on Wikipedia over the last year or so has been wrong. You have definitely not been blocked for engaging in a discussion on the MOS talk page. You are not being "hounded" by "MOS obsessives" as you frequently suggest. It is not "usual suspects" - it is a very large number of editors across several articles over a long period of time. The majority of those editors are good, experienced editors who clearly enjoy contributing to wikipedia and do not enjoy becoming embroiled in personal disputes. Your statements above do not help matters in this regard. The problems that you have caused are many and varied; they are not restricted to matters of MOS. There are matters of factual accuracy, consensual editing, edit warring and, yes, MOS (though I will say again MOS is itself a work of consensus so really style issues could just as easily fall under the "consensual editing" category). You have repeatedly failed to respect consensus, asserting time and again that you are right and everyone else is wrong. This is not the way to behave on this site.

A common feature I have noticed of disputes you have been involved in (at least where I have also been involved) has been a lack of clarity on the part of reliable sources (RS). A good example was on whether Corbyn was a Rt Hon in early October last year. The sources were saying different things, so as a community we needed to decide which sources we were going to go with. The community came to a decision, yet even after the decision was arrived at you kept arguing the toss and edit warring. Similarly with capitalisation of the word "ward" - RS use both UC and LC, so the community decision in these cases (as defined in the MOS) is to use LC. Again, you consistently failed to respect this, and carried on the argument for far longer than was necessary for a simple capitalisation issue. It should have been quite clear that once we had established varying practices across RS that the word should not be capitalised. A similar issue with the PC/Rt Hon debate - you have barely acknowledged any of the sources which do not back up your POV, you just kept going round in circles telling us that you were right and showing us sources which backed you up. No one was in any doubt that the style you were suggesting we use is in use in RS, it's just that there are other styles too. As a community we made a decision, and everyone should respect that. Personally, if I had my way, I would delete all postnominals and honorifics from wikipedia altogether, but that is not the community view, so I respect that I am in a minority on that; as should you.

So I would strongly suggest (if you want to edit again) a period of cool reflection on some of these issues, and if you were to appeal the block, make clear that you will respect the community decision, and will cease edit warring and become a collaborative editor like the majority of people on this site.

• 3. You need to let go of the notion that there is some great "conspiracy" against you - there really isn't. People dislike bad editing practice, it is not personal. If I was to start doing the same thing I would get the same treatment. You even make out that an edit conflict is part of a conspiracy - it is just something that happens. It has happened countless times to me when I have been having conversations with you. An acknowledgement that other users are not "out to get you" and are instead acting in good faith would I suggest help build some bridges.

I would suggest the above 3 issues are essential if you want to be unblocked, the next is not essential but will show good faith on your part and could make an unblock more likely:

• 4. You are aware of course of the three-revert rule (WP:3RR) which says you must not make more than 3 reverts of other users' edits within 24 hours (and of course a 4th revert just outside the 24-hour period can also count). Well, there is an analogous "one-revert-rule" (1RR) whereby you are not allowed to revert more than once in 24 hours. If you were to appeal your block, it might be that you could offer to be subject to a 1RR for a period of, say, a year, to show that you mean business.

If you were to come back and edit again, I would suggest you would need to be aware you would be very much "on license" and that any repetition of the behaviours that have led to your prior blocks (edit warring, incivility, factual inaccuracy, not respecting consensus, etc) would probably lead to a very swift re-blocking. What would this mean for your editing in future? I would suggest that you should probably not concern yourself with changing factually correct content that is already in wikipeda - even if you would personally prefer to see the information presented in a different way or in a different form of words. You would be far better sticking to adding new content, with appropriate reliable sources as defined at WP:RS. And make certain you were completely sure of the facts you are adding. You would also need to learn to accept that discussions may not go in your favour, and that when they don't you should either make edits as agreed by other editors, or simply walk away and move on to something else.

Now, as I said, none of this is guaranteed to work; someone else will make the decision. I would also suggest that now is not the time to be making an application to be un-blocked, and that a period of a few weeks away from wikipedia (yes, even away from your own talk page) would be of help. Let everyone - including yourself - cool off, reflect on what has happened and then, if you still want to come back after a short time away, make your application then. If you need it, the page about appealing blocks is WP:AAB.

Frinton100 (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Frinton100: thank you - I really appreciate your having given such time and thought to this. I shall cool off & should like to make helpful contributions to Wikipedia. I also withdraw legal sanction on my part over the use of ineducable and trust that such a phrase be used sparingly from now on. Many thanks again for putting such thought into your message above & I should like to rejoin the community before long. Best M Mabelina (talk) 02:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Frinton100 has no authority to make any of these decisions, and in my opinion has also no authority to give these pieces of advice. They are neither an admin nor an experienced editor (~3000 edits). Anyone with an indef block, especially someone who has been blocked 9 times in 7.5 months by 6 different admins, is expected to wait at least 6 months before attempting to regain editing rights on Wikipedia, per WP:STANDARDOFFER. Especially since this is in essence a WP:CIR block, and since the editor over the years has not gained any insight or understanding or competence. Softlavender (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The 1RR idea was actually mine. I'm not an admin, of course. But, Frinton raised the idea at the talk page of the admin who blocked Mabelina and s/he, Bishonen, suggested that Frinton suggest to Mabelina that he retract the legal threats and offer to abide by a 1RR restriction. Obviously if Mabelina did such a thing, it would have to be considered by the unblock request-reviewing admin, who would consider whether or not to raise it at AN/I, where it would be either accepted or rejected. Or the decision could be to tell Mabelina to come back in 6 months. So, I think the hostility toward Frinton is unfounded.

(Though, if Mabelina doesn't calm down here and now, all of us could well just walk away and leave him to his indef block.) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Miesianiacal only serves to muddy the waters even further here, please see below.

Okay, well, you've just lost me as a supporter of the 1RR idea to allow you back (even though it was mine to start with; what does that tell you about how you treat other editors?). My parting advice to you: sign your posts. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Losing your support could hardly be considered a big blow - Mabelina

Are you deliberately setting out to put all editors offside? AusLondonder (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@AusLondonder: no not all - sorry if it seemed that way - I thought my intervention in favour of Frinton100 was balanced & to be honest I was most pleased to see such a view. I can hardly hide my views about Miesianiacal, since frankly that is where pretty much all the problems emanate from, OStJ (can't believe he's an OStJ) - this won't repair - too many people have made their minds up. However, Miesianiacal should consider apologising. M Mabelina (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment2: @Softlavender: Frinton100 has every right to give whatever advice he/she feels fit, especially since it would appear to be sound & given that he/she has been much engaged in the run-up to this block. Perhaps User:Softlavender and others on Wiki should desist from being so bombastic - this certainly spoils what might have purported to be a consensus-type of operation. True colours, peut-être? Still I have Wiki's best interests at heart, so let's hope others can demonstrate the same.

PS. if you assume I should wish to rejoin your community under these circumstances, perhaps you should think again. If you also sincerely wish that Wikipedia can provide an authoritative account of as many subjects as it endeavours to cover, then how can this be achieved without welcoming volunteers who are "in the know"? Seems to be becoming more inward looking than outward facing, which is NOT a good sign.

User:Softlavender I feel any involved editor has the "authority" to offer advice. I don't see how that could be considered inappropriate. In my experience User:Frinton100 is a highly competent editor who always acts in good faith. AusLondonder (talk) 03:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Accusation of "being ineducable"

Please advise whether you think this is acceptable (if you know what it means)?

WP:SIG. The Oxford English Dictionary defines ineducable as "Considered incapable of being educated, especially (formerly) as a result of mental disability" AusLondonder (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

What I feel you have done wrong is edit-war against consensus. Jeremy Corbyn and the Privy Council, John Bickley, Paul Nuttall and Oldham West and Royton by-election are a few examples. AusLondonder (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I have apologised before about Jeremy Corbyn and the Privy Council, John Bickley, Paul Nuttall and the Oldham West and Royton by-election - however this matter has come to a head over MOS & styles in Infoboxes, which has resulted in my being blocked forever. It is as well therefore, maybe if Wiki likes to know about these things, that Miesianiacal & I had many rucks about the Order of Saint John (in much the same way as the argument about honours & styles). He claimed at that time to be an Officer of the Order of St John. I took his word. I am though. Now this problem has started up again & I am beginning to doubt his credentials. Anyway, the end result of this ruckus is that I have been blacklisted but nobody has questioned the basis of Miesianiacal's statements. If he is a confrère, I can scarcely believe it (and it is most definitely worth pouring through the thousands of interventions made by him to discover that mine now differ hardly at all from those adopted - I encountered similar confrontation from User:Miesianiacal back then as well). M Mabelina (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bishonen and JzG/help: I have now had sufficient time to look back at some other instances on the Admin board & I can see there are quite serious instances of downright rudeness, falsification, etc... as well as other unacceptable codes of practice. Given that the instigator of this current situation includes the use of defamatory and discriminatory language among other false claims, it is of utmost urgency to resolve the current situation. Wiki must have procedures as how to resolve such matters (which please advise promptly), because one alternative route could be very expensive & the other would be very embarrassing (re OStJ). I should like to avoid all this - so please have a think & respond constructively. I have much evidence which far from "wasting the community's time" will be a major wake up call to all concerned. Please copy those in Wikipedia whose attention is required and respond as a matter of urgency. Thanking you in advance for your co-operation. M Mabelina (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Take a deep breath

Mabelina, earlier today you had agreed with me that you would "cool off". Don't you think it's time to heed your own advice? MIESIANIACAL was, as mentioned above, the one who suggested the 1RR, so I think your comments are unjustified. While I appreciate you backing me up re. the comment from Softlavender, it wasn't needed; I am big enough to look after myself! All you have done is create more hostility and reduce the likelihood of your block being undone. I will hold my hands up and say that I was not aware of the 6 month guideline that Softlavender mentioned - I think the page that they linked to (WP:STANDARDOFFER should be very helpful to you and you should read and digest its contents. I would suggest that points 1 to 3 of my original post are what you need to do to meet clause 2 on that page ("Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban"). You need to be very careful that you "Don't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return" (clause 3 of STANDARDOFFER), so with that in mind I really do think it's time to sign off from this page for a few months and go and do something else. If you still want to come back to wikipedia further down the line, then you know what you need to do. Frinton100 (talk) 12:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Miesianiacal

@Miesianiacal: further to recent advice, please reconfirm your grade in the Order of St John of Jerusalem. Looking forward to hearing - many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• These discussions are over. No more rehashing of ANI. No more attacks. No more confrontations. No more advice. No more rebuttals to the advice. I've revoked your access to this page. You may use WP:UTRS to appeal.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I came here to tell Mabelina to stop pinging me. It looks like that's unnecessary now, thanks to your action, BBB23. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mabelina, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

 ‑ Iridescent 18:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Mabelina. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Antoine-François, marquis de Lambertye

Hello, Mabelina. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Antoine-François".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Philip Shelbourne

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Philip Shelbourne requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Claire Windsor (disambiguation)

The article Claire Windsor (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)