User talk:Y26Z3

Is it against the law of Wikipedia to talk to a lawyer about a potential issue with an article? There is no legal threat. I see nothing wrong with talking to lawyer about it. Y26Z3 (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Telling editors that they may be breaking the law and that you will discuss the issue with a lawyer is a completely unnecessary thing to say that also produces a chilling effect on anyone arguing against you. You are free to talk to a lawyer about the issue, but you are not free to edit Wikipedia at the same time. Regardless, I'm not going to unblock you so you can continue to edit war and insult other editors over keeping your original research in the article. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I had no intention of producing a chilling effect; I had the intention of saying that I was going to talk to a lawyer for the best for the world, including Wikipedia. Blocking me isn't going to change anything, although I think you should unblock me because there was nothing that could fall under legal threat. Perhaps it wasn't polite enough, but it seems to be more of a legal problem. Either way, I wish you the best. Y26Z3 (talk) 05:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:NLT is a bright-line policy. As long as your statement remains active that you will speak to a lawyer about the article, you are prohibited from editing Wikipedia. In order to be unblocked you must clearly and unambiguously retract any and all statements that state or imply that you might puruse, or consider pursuing, legal action of any sort with regards to Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to pursue, or consider pursuing, legal action of any sort with regards to Wikipedia and I never was. To clarify, I wanted to talk with a lawyer regarding whether that page has posted inappropriate or offensive material on ethnic/racial borderlines or culturally offensive material. Doesn't that constitute a legal problem and not a legal threat? In other words, I offered a legal problem, I did not threaten anyone; I would appreciate it if you respected the fact that I did not threaten anyone. Y26Z3 (talk) 06:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Essentially, any "talking to lawyers" has that chilling effect that has already been mentioned, even if it isn't actually a legal threat, and Wikipedia does not allow people to edit while they are pursuing any legal avenues regarding Wikipedia content. Once you have completed your legal consultations, and if there are no negative outcomes for Wikipedia, please ask again and I expect you will be unblocked quickly. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I plan to start an AFD and will not talk with a lawyer. However, I think that every article should have the right to exist, but the majority viewpoint should always be expressed; but, in this case, "lusitanic" could simply be deleted since lusitanians could cover what I believe the article "lusitanic" attempts to express in a manner that is not offensive and/or inappropriate. Thank you, Y26Z3 (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Who you talk to in real life is clearly up to you. But until you give a clear and unambiguous undertaking that you have no intention of instuting any form of legal proceeding against wikipedia or any editors or employees thereof, you are not going to be unblocked. The sockpuppetry issue and the disruption claim will have to be addressed subsequently.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I respect the administrators of Wikipedia and I think that Wikipedia is a wonderful invention and tool. The power of Wikipedia touches the lives of every person with the ability to promote a free flow of knowledge that transfers instantaneously at the click of a button or two. If Wikipedia is used correctly it can contribute to a better world. However, when it is used incorrectly, specifically in this case, it can potentially lead to undesirable outcomes. In English, "lusitanic" seems to be a combination of satanic and Lucifer. Furthermore, it draws undesired, inappropriate, and offensive comparisons and contrasts. As I was a relatively new member, with only a few months or so under my belt, I was not familiar with all of the editing techniques and requests to administrators that are available. I apologize, I should have taken other steps as we have previously discussed. At this point in time, I will not be taking any sort of legal action or legal counsel. I think that SudoGhost has made several false allegations. First, I did not attack the user. SudoGhost is insignificant in this matter and the user should use their brain cells. I am really trying to be less than harsh and cold, which many serious academics that contribute to encyclopedias are. Second, I have not exactly made a legal threat, although I have said that I will talk about the issue with a professional that knows the matter better (which I have recanted because it places such a chilling effect on Wikipedia). As far as socketpuppetry goes, I have not committed that. Disruptive behavior? Decide for yourself. We need to forget about our pride and do what is right. I am willing to forgive and forget and I hope that SudoGhost has the maturity to do the same. To restate, at this point in time and hopefully ever, I have no intention of instuting any form of legal proceeding against wikipedia or any editors or employees thereof. Thank you again, Y26Z3 (talk) 01:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I am declining this request with a considerable degree of reluctance, as you have clearly retracted the apparent legal threat (which seems to me to have been a misunderstanding anyway), and the "personal attack" was probably just an unfortunate choice of words, without being intended as an attack. However, in assessing the unblock request I have to consider not just the question "has the user addressed the issues which led immediately to the block?" to which the answer is clearly "yes", but also the question "would unblocking this user be to the advantage of the project?" to which the answer is "no". Your editing has been contentious, aggressive, and uncooperative. You have persisted in trying to force through a view which clearly has no support, and is against unambiguous consensus. Baseball Bugs appears to be perfectly right in saying (above) "That 'Lucifer-Satanic' stuff is your own personal invention." As long as you take the line that because you personally don't like something it has to go, and as long as you are willing to pursue that line so belligerently in the face of consensus, your editing will be obstructive, whether you intend it to be or not. You have said "We need to forget about our pride and do what is right". In a collaborative project it is sometimes necessary to forget one's pride and accept consensus for what one personally believes is wrong. In such a case, the thing to do is to walk away from the issue, and move on, not to keep plugging away at the same point. If you can indicate that you understand and accept that, then I see no reason why you should not be unblocked, and become a constructive editor of Wikipedia. However, as long as it seems that your intention is to continue in the same way as before, unblocking you would merely waste yet more of the time of editors who have already wasted too much time on this one issue, and almost certainly not achieve anything else, not even the changes that you are seeking. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Admittedly, I went about conversing the issue with other editors in the wrong way and, again, at the time I was not aware of all the editing techniques and requests to administrators that are available. It really could have been addressed more dispassionately and I am regretful that it was not, as this has spun out of control into a time wasting vacuum for many people. Lusitanic, lucifer, and satanic is said on this internet message board, http://www.iwsti.com/forums/off-topic/47599-ethnic-background-sti-owners-10.html, showing that it is not just my invention, and the internet message board is actually perhaps the most verifiable source that has presented the use of the word, "lusitanic". As editors, we need to address whether the article is inherently racist and what could be done to improve it or change it. I understand your discretion at unblocking me because of my previous edits, which have been heated. However, there is no reason that we cannot discuss this dispassionately and come to a proper conclusion, and the best conclusion. Thank you for your considerate responses, Y26Z3 (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

If you truly believe that a single joking comment on a forum dedicated to one specific car is in any way a reliable source, much less a Wikipedia WP:RS, your competence must be called into question here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

An objective of racism can be to demonize, or dehumanize, that group of people. The link shows that it is not of my invention. I suppose I could publish my own work on how and why lusitanic should not be used. There have not been any reliable sources presented showing, or stating, that "lusitanic" is a word. Specifically what about my competence must be called into question? That was not exactly a considerate response, but thank you for addressing your raising concerns with me. Y26Z3 (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Procedural decline - no reason for unblock given. As I understand you were originally blocked for making a legal threat, you will not be unblocked until any litigation is over or you withdraw your issue. WilliamH (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no intention of instituting any form of legal proceeding against wikipedia or any editors or employees. Peace be with you, Y26Z3 (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Per the below-referenced SPI. And per the fact that your narrative has become tiresome, I am cutting off your talk page access, something that should have been done several unblock requests ago. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)