User talk:James "J.J." Evans, Jr.
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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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:
I'm not seeing how any of that still warrants a permanent block, as set down by the guidelines in Wikipedia:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE 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 WP:GF. 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: Guy for some reason deciding I was (talk) 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 Wikipedia.
Decline reason:
What edits would you make if unblocked? I'm disinclined to unblock you if all that's going to happen is a continuation of the drama we've seen so far. PhilKnight (talk) 19:47, 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:
PhilKnight (talk) I would continue making edits that contribute to wikipedia as I've done so previously. I don't know why there's a suspicion that there will be a continuation of the drama, as I've said before it's been dead and buried. This is why I feel that this block is being served as a punishment instead of preventative meaasure - I was told to back off and back down, and I have fully complied without argument. Then out of the blue I'm blocked as if this is still an ongoing matter and accused of legal threats because of administrators misinterpreting what random people write on my talk page. Even now I'm subject to admin discussion because another admin misinterpreted the comments of another user on my page and somehow thinks that they're related to me( see discussion here Something Awful by TheFarix, who is posting the bizarre comment out of context to lend credence to his misinterpretation of them). This block is entirely needless, and I'm not sure why there's such a hesitation to undo it or the willingness to admit that there's obviously been a mistake by Guy in interpretation of what is happening on this talk page, which I have yet to receive an apology for and at this point certainly don't expect. Supporting evidence for this can be seen at the sockpuppet investigation which I was never notified about here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/James_"J.J."_Evans,_Jr. . As this entire process has shown, there's already administrators out there who are more than willing to shut down my account and uphold that based on, so I really don't get what the big scare is over unblocking me and allowing me to continue contributing to wikipedia when the matter is firmly settled.
Decline reason:
Given that you made not a single helpful edit for almost three years, and that you have made more edits, on more pages, related to and stirring this drama, I think we can do without your contributions in the future, particularly since you're still spending your unblock requests to accuse everybody else of misconduct instead of addressing the issues with your own edits. Huon (talk) 00:59, 8 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:
Huon (talk) I addressed my issues. I said that it was done and admitted it was inappropriate. I admitted error on behalf of the BLP issue and said it was dropedp. I'm not sure exactly what more you want from me? Again, I've been in compliance with all the policy. Regarding accusing others of misconduct, well, let's talk about the situation.Guy mucked up reading what was going on this page and blocked me partially based on that. He has yet to actually address this despite me repeatedly tagging him and petitioning. Are you going to honestly tell me that you don't think any of that was hasty or misconduct in any way?
Decline reason:
Looking at your edit history, I don't see how your ability to edit Wikipedia benefits the project in any way. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:25, 8 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.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia: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
[edit]
Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia 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 [expletive] 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. Wikipedia 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)
- 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)
- I want to clarify this because there seems to be some confusion. TheFarix, the above person is NOT related to me and they are NOT claiming to be related to me, I think they're claiming to be related to (talk). Feel free to double check the IP addresses, but this whole thing has escalated because several people are misreading what random unrelated users are written and attributing them to me. I did not make the edit by 84.51.131.252 (talk), and I have no knowledge of who 46.208.117.56 (talk) is or why they are posting here beyond they're claiming a relationship to 84.51.131.252 (talk).James "J.J." Evans, Jr. (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 87.114.135.71 (talk) 07:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.