User talk:Jayzel68/Wiki Hall of shame archive

Blocked for legal threat

Hi, I noticed you made a legal threat against another user on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore criticisms and misconceptions (diff). As stated in our policy called No Legal Threats, we ask that you refrain from editing Wikipedia while you consider legal action. I have blocked you indefinitely per this policy. If you retract the legal threat, you may be unblocked, but in the meantime, we are asking you not to edit while that threat is still active. Thank you. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I received your email. Please review the policy forbidding legal threats. If you retract the threat you made on that AfD, we can discuss unblocking you. Unfortunately, the policy states that users who make legal threats may be blocked indefinitely while the threats are still open. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though you're blocked, you can edit here on your own talk page. And that was not a "polite" complaint. It was a threat. Retract it and I'll unblock you. In the meantime, WP:NLT says you can't edit here. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are the thought police now. I say it wasn't a threat, but because you feel it was a threat I can be permanently blocked. --Jayzel 15:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel my bringing other admins into the discussion is a threat, that is your issue. Good day, --Jayzel 14:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to your threat on the AfD page. You can bring as many other admins into this as you'd like. BTW, do not edit my comments. You may respond as you wish, but leave my comments as is. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fact remains I have said I have never made a legal threat and if anyone perceived it as a legal threat they are mistaken. In fact, the person who made the complaint that I made a legal threat has a long history of conducting a smear compaign against me: [1]

Again, all you have to do is retract that legal threat and you can be unblocked. While the threat is open, you can't edit Wikipedia, per WP:NLT. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again, I am not retracting something I never did. This block is fraudulent and politically motivated. --Jayzel 16:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's neither. And you have no evidence of any political motivation, so I advise you to quit making that claim if you want to edit here. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wang Jun Picture

I propose deleting Wang Jun's image. The blurry picture policy (or general guideline) dictates that lowquality images are an aspect other editors cannot improve, and also harm Wikipedia's high standard academic image. PS. I suggested to Mr. Darcy for removal of your edit ban. LifeScience 07:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for assistance regarding my permanant blocking for a false claim of legal action. All I did was politely remind someone not to post false information about myself (that lbel is not acceptable here at wikipedia) and political opponents of mine have gotten me blocked. I have repeatedly informed the blockee, that in no way whatsoever was I even suggesting I was taking any legal action whatsoever, yet the blockee refuses to accept my comments. I have a long and productive history here at Wikipedia. This block against me is politically motivated. Thanks --Jayzel 15:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the statement is that it could be read by some people as being a legal threat. I do not doubt that you wrote it with good intentions rather than a genuine desire to sue someone, but it can be read both ways. All you need to do is explicitly say "I retract the statement...." to clarify what you meant, and I'm sure Mr. Darcy will unblock you. --h2g2bob 17:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just the fact you feel yourself my comment could be read in more than one way shows that my comment should be taken in GOOD FAITH and I shouldn't have been blocked. And the fact that I have publicly stated it wasn't intended as a legal threat and yet have remained blocked shows this is some kind of a political vendetta. --Jayzel 19:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political witch hunt

Do NOT blank comments on my page, Darcy. That is vandalism. This blocking is a political witch hunt. --Jayzel 16:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't really see how this is a political witch hunt or vandalism - Darcy removed some headers (diff), which looks to me like it's done in good faith. --h2g2bob 17:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Jayzel68, you need to retract the word "libel" in the above referenced comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore criticisms and misconceptions. Not only is that a mischaracterization of the comment from Derex, but as Mr. Darcy has correctly pointed out, the no legal threats policy forbids you from editing here if you make such threats. —Doug Bell ^talk 18:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you want to make an appeal of your block, instead of the {{helpme}} templates, you want to use the {{unblock}} template. —Doug Bell ^talk 18:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OH MY GOD. The definition of "libel" means to "make a false accusation against someone in a public forum". JiffyPop made a false accusation against me in a public place. It does not just refer to law. Read the dictionary. And I will repeat for the thousandth time, I WAS NOT MAKING A LEGAL THREAT. Get it through your skulls. If you would like, I retract the word "libel" and replace it with the word "lie" and "smear". I will not ever retract a "legal threat" that I never made. Frankly, this is sick. JiffyPop and Darcy can blank comments of mine with no adverse effect, Derex can go spewing lies that I am insane Clinton-hater and that I am accusing him of murdering people and merrily go on his way unencumbered, yet I simply use the word "libel" in response to someone lieing about me and I am permanently banned! UNFUCKING believable!--Jayzel 19:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm taking your comment above as a retraction of the work "libel" and unblocking you. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU! *KISS* :) --Jayzel 19:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be too happy. While I'm not reinstating the block, saying that other editors are "spewing lies" and making comments like "UNFUCKING believable" are not in general WP:CIVIL and can get you blocked. Furthermore, note that it is infix, so the correct form is "Unfuckingbelievable" one word. See Expletive infixation. JoshuaZ 21:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Selective inforcement around here is the norm, so I will ignore your harrassment. As for wanting to reinstate the previously fraudulent block, don't keep yourself up all night. Apparently, the statement that I was to be unlocked was a lie as I still am. (Opps, was that a personal attack????)--Jayzel 21:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be unblocked according to the block log, what block message precisely are you getting? You may be running into an autoblock problem. (Incidentally, if you believe that there is selective enforcement, accusing admins of harrassment may not be the bext move). JoshuaZ 21:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the block is a result of an autoblock. I don't understand why the autoblock is still in effect since the original block has been removed. However, at this point you'll need to get another admin to deal with the autoblock as I've recused myself from further action here. I really do suggest you take a more civil approach and assume some good faith. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I am sorry if I am coming across as angry, but there was no good faith shown towards me. I repeatedly said I did not mean to imply a legal threat, yet I was not taken at my word. I have been here for over a year making quality edits and to have my word just brushed aside and ignored is quite frustrating to say the least. --Jayzel 21:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the autoblock should be dealt with now. Let me know if you can't edit. JoshuaZ 01:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Jayzel 01:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]