User talk:AlabasterKnight

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. --Lerdthenerd (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Lerdthenerd (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

March 2011
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action, as you did at Villains and Vigilantes. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC) You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.


 * I think I have been clear about my involvement and spoke toward having no desire to be involved in further references in legal matters, not only in the spirit of Wiki rules, but also due to the wasted effort that would represent. I have never threatened Wikipedia or anyone affiliated with the organization. Of particular note is that the 'threat' which I was originally blocked was entirely directed at certain 'editors' who, with their agents were actually party to the formal legal action being reference in the pages, had at the time questionably participated in Wikipedia page editing despite their COI risk, and were named in real world proceedings for using Wikipedia to disparage my friend (NOT by me, I had nothing to do with it...). In conclusion, for my part, I'm no longer interested in anything related to those legal matters and wish to merely participate in the editing process to relate factual, unbiased information in the pages of which I have interest. That's all. Thank you so much for your time. AK AlabasterKnight (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

You are not permitted to remove declined unblock requests for your currently active block. You are allowed to create new unblock requests, as I see you have done above. :) --Yamla (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If you wish to make a new unblock request, you must first sign in. If this was you, you are free to reinsert that unblock request via copy and paste, once you have signed in. --Yamla (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Block unblock discussion
You are blocked for making legal threats. You cannot edit Wikipedia if there is legal action between you and Wikipedia or any of it's editors. To be unblocked, you must either withdraw the threat of legal action or tell us the matter has been concluded. I did not see you address this in your unblock request. Please read WP:NLT. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 22:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Non-admin comment: It's worth noting that it doesn't matter if it was in no way was it directed at the Wiki community or organization, rather one set representative posters who had altered our pages. Those posters are a part of our editing community. The same action would be taken if someone made legal threats towards you. Until those legal threats, or actions are unequivocally withdrawn or completed, and you can convince us that this won't happen again - it is unlikely that you will be unblocked. SQL Query me!  03:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * user reply: It's also worth noting that your comment is erroneous SQL. It was directed at one person who was altering your pages as the person who was opposing a party in my interest, who not only declared a fictional legal standing for himself, but whom was himself also a participant in that legal action regarding the products in question: An obvious bias you seem willing to overlook. Again, I am no longer affiliated with any of them, but do have an interest in the accuracy of information here - people out there read here and often, even though advised against it by academic leadership in the community, cite Wikipedia information as an appeal to authority. I am part of the Wiki community as much as anyone else; if the person to whom I was referring to was an editor who could post fiction with impunity, then why you don't grant me the courtesy of respect and restoration after these repeated communication escapes me. I have apologized for my offenses; I am beginning to think this is a carousel of the wiki clique stopping by to each take a turn kicking me in the gut.

EDIT: You do realize it has been nearly TEN years? Seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:981:3400:954:FF93:4D79:37C1 (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC) AlabasterKnight (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)AlabasterKnight — Berean Hunter   (talk)  20:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You do realize that you haven't followed the instructions given to you to retract the legal threat and give a solid guarantee that it will not happen again?
 * , the verbosity in the unblock requests notwithstanding, I'll accept that part--though why they can't just say "I will not make any more legal threats". However, the most recent unblock request was done in response to 's note about a COI, and the answer insufficient: they said "I only make twelve bucks per half year" or whatever, when their answer should indicate that they had a very good look at our COI policy and that they understand that COI is not necessarily a matter involving payment. AlabasterKnight, nothing will happen until you meet the requirements laid out in WP:DECLARE--and while you're at it, why can't you just say "I will not make any more legal threats"? Why is that so hard? Drmies (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * and Drmies; my reading of the unblock request where they said "Forward of this, I will refrain from speaking to legal action" is that this was a commitment not to make legal threats in the future. I'm not sure if my reading was correct or not, though, as this was contained in a very elaborate monologue with numerous modifiers preceding and following it. I defer to your judgment as to its sufficiency. Chetsford (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * user reply: I have indeed read your COI, and completely understand, thank you.

Listen, because I receive a royalties check (just got my semi-annual installment of $14 this time) for work I published through a man I have no other business associations with in my view doesn't subject me to "COI" anymore than you guys coming in here to gang block me when you are clearly users and editors of Wiki, is that not a similar conflict of interest where perhaps you're acting with undue bias based on your association, or if the scenario is incorrect, can I count on and trust your impartiality? My friendship with the principal at FGU has in fact declined over the years, we hardly talk and I refuse to do business with him. However, until someone comes forward to edit those pages with better facts, I seem to be the only one who cares about the job. No less than 6 ( I think more) editors have stopped by to weigh in on the various levels of acceptance and have by their varying, non-standardized opinions turned my talk page into a kangaroo court. Stuff like this: "and while you're at it, why can't you just say "I will not make any more legal threats"? Why is that so hard?" Why are you trying to compel me to certain speech after I already explained the matter? It's like trying to beat it out of me on the playground... Here ya go. User Chetsford already clear me on the subject of legal threats, and I have in fact read the COI disclosure at the link provided. Thank you. This is beyond getting ridiculous. AKAlabasterKnight (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "I receive a royalties check" -- This would, in my view, constitute a conflict of interest. The fact that the royalties check is rather small does not alleviate your burden under the COI guidelines which counsel us that (WP:COINOTBIAS): Determining that someone has a COI is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity. You note that you have read the COI guidelines, which is great. These things are usually resolved when the editor in question simply states that, not only have they read the guidelines, but they plan to adhere to them in a specified manner. This manner usually means (a) making an unambiguous statement committing oneself not to edit the pages in question, but rather to submit suggestions for proposed edits through the WP:EDITREQ system, and, (b) the posting of a COI disclosure. I think if you could just do those two things in a concise way your next unblock request would find a more favorable audience. Chetsford (talk) 07:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * AlabasterKnight, if you are going to yell at me, please read more carefully what I wrote. I did indeed wonder why you can't just say "I won't make any legal threats"--it seems kind of basic to me. But I did not compel you to say that; in fact, I said your fluffy and verbose statements sufficed for me. What I did say was that your conflict of interest needs to be declared (and that your conflict of interest, for me, does not depend on some payment--COIs aren't necessarily financial matters)--and yet here you are, still arguing, throwing around rather silly accusations. I do not see why anyone should spend any more time on this. You have made one ridiculous legal threat on an article talk page, and three unverified and poorly written comments inside article space. There is no net positive here. Drmies (talk) 13:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * user reply: Oh jeez, DRMIES, gimme a freakin' break. No one is "yelling", you might see a pro for that, and you're comments are exactly what is taking this out of proportion. Brevity? Ok-- I have read the COI, understand, and will try to maintain those rules to the best of my ability. I also understand that implying, stating or directing the idea of legal action is also against the rules. Thank you all for the guidance.

"I do not see why anyone should spend any more time on this." After ten years, and many "verbose" acts of contrition here, the "net positive" is that I won't have to talk to you again and have to pass the litmus tests and petri examinations of my words or intent. There's nothing silly here about calling you out on your power trip here on the interwebs. I have to go to work today ;) See y'all on the 40. AlabasterKnight (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)