User talk:Y26Z3

Link
Quick link, Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Personal attacks
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Lusitanic. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - SudoGhost 03:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012
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. SudoGhost 03:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - SudoGhost 04:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. v/r - TP 04:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Contacting a lawyer with respect to the actions or edits of other users on Wikipedia is indeed a legal threat. As mentioned above, you are free to contact counsel, but so long as legal threats against Wikipedia or its editors is outstanding you will not be permitted to aggravate the situation by editing here. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 05:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

"I'm going to talk to a lawyer about this. This seems to violate some ethnic/racial issues" is a blatant legal threat. If you've got concerns about alleged "ethnic/racial issues", then discuss it dispassionately with other editors. And if you want to have a chance to get unblocked, you must disavow and recant your intention to contact a lawyer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's a discussion of the term "Lusitania" and related terms: It appears the term "Lusitanian" refers to an ancient people, whereas "Lusitanic" refers to a cultural heritage. To put it another way, there are no "Lusitanians" out there, but there are people of "Lusitanic" heritage. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The user's recent sockpuppetry after the account was blocked, combined with a severe WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude and gross incivility should be taken into consideration. The user was blocked to prevent disruption to Wikipedia, and I don't think disruption would cease if the user were to be unblocked; they've already demonstrated this with their block evasion. - SudoGhost 03:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Y26Z3, do you understand WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA? Do you agree not to edit logged out, or to evade blocks? - The Bushranger One ping only 06:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Where are citations for your claim that "Lusitanic" is somehow broadly known as suggesting "Lucifer" + "Satan"? I daresay the term is not "broadly" known at all. Most folks likely have never heard the term at all, much less jumped to that conclusion. If the average citizen heard your preferred alternative, "Lusitanians", they would probably think it refers to the crew and passengers of the Lusitania. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do I need to convince Baseball Bugs of anything, or is AFD done by a completely different set of people? I might just get someone else to nominate the article for deletion while we deliberate. After this experience, someone would have to convince me to spend time editing on Wikipedia or I would have to have a complete change of heart. Again, I still appreciate what the administrators and productive contributors do here. (Y26Z3 (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC))
 * As I suspected, you have no source. That "Lucifer-Satanic" stuff is your own personal invention. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I will not be available to converse with you on this page unless you in any way affect the AFD process. Please verifiably state whether you affect the AFD process. Thank you, (Y26Z3 (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC))
 * Articles for Deletion are open to discussion from any user (at least users that aren't blocked or banned), so if I were to decide to comment there, then the answer to your question would be YES. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please verifiably state whether you affect the AFD process. Thank you, (Y26Z3 (talk) 04:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC))
 * Meaning what, beyond what I already told you? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, I will not be available to converse with you on this page as of this time unless there is verification of your statement. Good night, (Y26Z3 (talk) 04:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC))
 * What would verify it for you? Maybe this recent AFD, in which I participated, and in which most of the participants were non-admins. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment to admin: Whoever declines the most recent unblock request might also want to fully-protect the talk page, as it's clear the editor is unwilling to address the reasons he was blocked and is now basically just engaging in circular arguments. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, I am afraid I do not know what you are referring to. I was blocked for "making legal threats or taking legal action". You have not addressed a question or statement about that. Again, good night, (Y26Z3 (talk) 05:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC))
 * The question you asked me was whether I affect the AFD (Articles for Deletion) process. As I showed you via that link, the answer can be YES. I say "can be" because they don't credit individual contributors with "tipping the scales", but merely decide on whether to keep or delete, based on the totality of the comments. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Concerning "SudoGhost is insignificant in this matter and the user should use their brain cells": it's generally not a good idea to say "I did not attack the user" and then immediately follow it up with another personal attack. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done.  Please read WP:CIVIL. - SudoGhost 15:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The plain-English translate of such a comment is, "Please keep me blocked!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Note to reviewing admin: Please be see Sockpuppet investigations/Y26Z3 before acting on any unblock request. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom unblock appeal
The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered the user's appeal and has declined to unblock at this time. After six months of not editing Wikipedia under any account including IP accounts the user may again apply to have the block reviewed.

For the Arbitration Committee.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  20:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)