User talk:YourPalJesus

Re:

Hello, YourPalJesus. You have new messages at Talk:List of people claimed to be Jesus.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tiderolls 03:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

Now you are editing disruptively. You raised an issue on Talk:List of people claimed to be Jesus that I addressed in good faith. Instead of responding you have insisted on engaging a single editor, both on the article talk and their user talk, regarding behavioral issues. Please strike your original post on the article talk page and move on to more constructive tasks. Tiderolls 04:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? The other editor you're discussing is trying to open ANI against me while I'm having a rational discussion and you come here with this? I'm discussing this with him because he's the one who's reverting without consensus. Your putting forth your opinion does not end the matter. No, I don't accept that. YourPalJesus (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for comment and I commented. You have not responded; instead you have gone off on some crusade-like tangent. It does make you appear to be trolling. If you are serious, leave the personal and return to the editorial. Tiderolls 04:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read my comment on the talk page. With the exception of questioning why thomson is opening admin comments against me, they all contain commentary on the subject matter. I"m really baffled as to why you're not bringing this up to him rather than me, since he's the one who's calling me a troll both in edit summaries and on the talk page. What gives? YourPalJesus (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What gives is you have about five minutes to either strike your original post at Talk:List of people claimed to be Jesus and disengage with User:Ian.thomson regarding behavior or I will block your account indefinitely. Tiderolls 04:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this kind of threat is appropriate, constructive or in the spirit of the admin bit on wikipedia. If you do this I'll certainly raise this issue further in other venues. YourPalJesus (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you find this venue acceptable? Tiderolls 04:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much more likely YourPalJesus (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll await your case there. Tiderolls 04:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that won't be necessary and that we can stick to discussing the issue on the article talk page, as I have always said. I really can't understand why you are resorting to these extreme threats. YourPalJesus (talk) 04:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Since it's become quite obvious that you're nothing more than a garden variety troll, I've decided to treat you like one and indefinitely block you. Should you want to appeal this block, you may use {{unblock}}, but read WP:GAB first. To other admins; I strongly recommend you review any unblock requests prepared to disable talkpage access. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

YourPalJesus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This block is REALLY dodgy. I'd dispute that I ever even trolled - one use accused me of this because of a content dispute. Misspelling aside, I tried to keep all of my arguments logical and civil, even when faced with threats of blocks and mockery from users. I'm totally baffled as to why this has lead to any kind of admonishment. And why am I blocked infinitely due to an administrator siding with that interpretation? The wikipedia death penalty is hardly appropriate even under those circumstances, and limits my ability to state my case. Please unblock.

Decline reason:

Nothing but pure trollery from this account. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Other admins should also see the comments left by Ian.thomson in the edit history, which this user seems to want to keep hidden. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second Note

Since I apparently need to worry about editors adding one-sided comments to this page while I'm not watching, I'd ask that any admin encountering this request actually review the history of the dispute rather than relying on whatever may be written here. Despite what Blade writes above, and we should consider his possible bias (he's the blocking admin and his comments in the ANI thread and elsewhere are revelatory), I know very well it's not "hidden". I just don't think it's true or relevant to my request. I'm again puzzled and to why things are being spun this way and so much effort is going into blocking me. Thanks again for your consideration. YourPalJesus (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can create a new section below with anything you'd like moved to ANI and I or someone else will do so for you. One thing you should understand about blocking on WP is that it's not punitive, blocks are meant to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. So if you really want to be unblocked you should ask what behavior you need to change to be unblocked and then you should agree to change that behavior (so long as it's within reason, of course). Sædon ^talk 05:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]