Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:24, 7 March 2015

James "J.J." Evans, Jr. (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

For some reason completely unknown to me, Guy thinks I am sockpuppeting my own Talk page and making legal threats against myself. The comment left by the IP address threatening implicit legal action against me is not me, and I have no idea why Guy thinks it is. The issues with the something awful page have been resolved, so I'm unsure why JzG feels the need to storm onto my talk page and accuse me of making legal threats while logged out as well as block me. And as far as I know, discussing policy with an administrator as well as requesting they not use profanity on my talk page is not against wikipedia policy. I'm not sure why I'm being punished for any of this.

Decline reason:

You are blocked for well more than just the things on this talk page. Please address the BLP concerns which far outweigh anything else on this page. only (talk) 04:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

James "J.J." Evans, Jr. (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

only, what do you want me to address? I made a single revert on the page that concerned the BLP 'issue' because I agreed with the original editor. It was disputed on the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page and I took no further action regarding it when the decision was handed down. The situation grew heated and I returned a snarky comment with one of my own. If this isn't about the alleged legal threats which I clearly didn't make/were erroneously attributed to me than then why am I being punished and banished from wikipedia over a single revert without being given the benefit of WP:GF when I've complied with every administrator handed down decision regarding it? According to Misplaced Pages:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE, blocks are not meant to be punitive and are to be preventive, yet since the decisions have been handed down I have been in complete with compliance on them. So I'm a little lost as to exactly what grounds I'm being blocked from wikipedia and why I need to be put on trial when I haven't violated any policy beyond having the audacity to ask an administrator to respect me and not use profanity aimed at me?

Decline reason:

You were reverted twice and asked to raise the issue on the talkpage. Your response was to assume bad-faith from the start and accuse Golbez of having a COI. You showed a serious lack of good faith towards others in the ANI thread and on the talkpage, and after seeing that combined with the BLP issues I have to agree with the blocking admin. Bjelleklang - talk 13:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

James "J.J." Evans, Jr. (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I'm not seeing how any of that still warrants a permanent block, as set down by the guidelines in ] From my end it seems like this is entirely meant to be punitive. None of the reverts I made justified a block, since they were clearly made in ]. Accusing someone of having a COI is not grounds for blocking, and accusing Golbez of having a COI was a fair assessment of the situation, as he has admitted to belonging to Something awful and been involved in the situation over the years. Other editors agreed with me on that and added the template. Yes, I did not assume good faith of Golbez and I still believe there is a conflict of interest. Once again though, nowhere is that against the rules or the spirit. I'm free to have my own opinions on the matter. Regarding a lack of "good faith towards others", it was again towards Golbez who became flippant and dismissive towards me for putting the word harassment. I don't particularly think it was relevant to the discussion at hand and a ploy to gain sympathy. As far as the status of the block, from what I can tell it was put in for two major reasons: ] for some reason deciding I was (]) on this talk page and making legal threats (it's pretty clearly not), and for having a strong disagreement toward another user who is also an editor. The first is erroneous and a false basis for my block. Upholding this block that was made on an false basis just because you feel it's ok because I assumed bad faith on the part of another administrator is ridiculous and reeks of administrators trying to save face with their friends. For the second point, the matter was dropped and behind us entirely. An irate administrator swooping in and throwing down a punitive block because I had the audacity to question whether or not a editor had a conflict of interest and return their flippant attitude (yes, Golbez displayed a flippant and disrespectful attitude towards myself and others as well) is vengeful and again shows off the cronyism that is occurring rather than any actual interest in preserving Misplaced Pages. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I'm not seeing how any of that still warrants a permanent block, as set down by the guidelines in ] From my end it seems like this is entirely meant to be punitive. None of the reverts I made justified a block, since they were clearly made in ]. Accusing someone of having a COI is not grounds for blocking, and accusing Golbez of having a COI was a fair assessment of the situation, as he has admitted to belonging to Something awful and been involved in the situation over the years. Other editors agreed with me on that and added the template. Yes, I did not assume good faith of Golbez and I still believe there is a conflict of interest. Once again though, nowhere is that against the rules or the spirit. I'm free to have my own opinions on the matter. Regarding a lack of "good faith towards others", it was again towards Golbez who became flippant and dismissive towards me for putting the word harassment. I don't particularly think it was relevant to the discussion at hand and a ploy to gain sympathy. As far as the status of the block, from what I can tell it was put in for two major reasons: ] for some reason deciding I was (]) on this talk page and making legal threats (it's pretty clearly not), and for having a strong disagreement toward another user who is also an editor. The first is erroneous and a false basis for my block. Upholding this block that was made on an false basis just because you feel it's ok because I assumed bad faith on the part of another administrator is ridiculous and reeks of administrators trying to save face with their friends. For the second point, the matter was dropped and behind us entirely. An irate administrator swooping in and throwing down a punitive block because I had the audacity to question whether or not a editor had a conflict of interest and return their flippant attitude (yes, Golbez displayed a flippant and disrespectful attitude towards myself and others as well) is vengeful and again shows off the cronyism that is occurring rather than any actual interest in preserving Misplaced Pages. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I'm not seeing how any of that still warrants a permanent block, as set down by the guidelines in ] From my end it seems like this is entirely meant to be punitive. None of the reverts I made justified a block, since they were clearly made in ]. Accusing someone of having a COI is not grounds for blocking, and accusing Golbez of having a COI was a fair assessment of the situation, as he has admitted to belonging to Something awful and been involved in the situation over the years. Other editors agreed with me on that and added the template. Yes, I did not assume good faith of Golbez and I still believe there is a conflict of interest. Once again though, nowhere is that against the rules or the spirit. I'm free to have my own opinions on the matter. Regarding a lack of "good faith towards others", it was again towards Golbez who became flippant and dismissive towards me for putting the word harassment. I don't particularly think it was relevant to the discussion at hand and a ploy to gain sympathy. As far as the status of the block, from what I can tell it was put in for two major reasons: ] for some reason deciding I was (]) on this talk page and making legal threats (it's pretty clearly not), and for having a strong disagreement toward another user who is also an editor. The first is erroneous and a false basis for my block. Upholding this block that was made on an false basis just because you feel it's ok because I assumed bad faith on the part of another administrator is ridiculous and reeks of administrators trying to save face with their friends. For the second point, the matter was dropped and behind us entirely. An irate administrator swooping in and throwing down a punitive block because I had the audacity to question whether or not a editor had a conflict of interest and return their flippant attitude (yes, Golbez displayed a flippant and disrespectful attitude towards myself and others as well) is vengeful and again shows off the cronyism that is occurring rather than any actual interest in preserving Misplaced Pages. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Something Awful. Thank you. --Golbez (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Misplaced Pages prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing edits potentially compromise that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. I removed a totally remark you made at ANI. Please refrain from such commentary in the future. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I addressed your comment on your talk page but will leave a reminder here. Please do not curse at me on my talk page. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative environment made up by diverse people, and not all of us appreciate being spoken to like you're a rowdy sailor on shore leave. If you feel you are unable to communicate without cursing at other editors, might I suggest that you Take A Break and try Cooling Down. James "J.J." Evans, Jr. (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Whatever. Talk like that again and I will block you. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

If you don't like swearing on your talk page you're more than welcome to leave a polite general message at the top. However if you talk to people like that again you might end up in prison for harassment, Ill have no problem giving evidence. 84.51.131.252 (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• The content you added to Something Awful (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a gross violation of our policy on living individuals. People have been banned for less. Arguing with the admins is a remarkably poor choice under the circumstances. Assuming the IP is you is also an implicit legal threat. I think you can have an indefinite timeout. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It was my little sister who made the edit James didnt. Guy is such an idiot! By the way Im not James. but I live in the same house as the above IP. I saw her do it myself! 46.208.117.56 (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock