Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:19, 14 March 2016

I am: IN

This user previously used another account.

This is Sir Joseph's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 7 days

(I'll write back on my talk page, unless specifically request otherwise. Thanks! If I have previously requested that you not comment on my talk page, your comments may be summarily reverted without notice.)

Template:Archive box collapsible

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are hereby topic banned from editing any page relating to Bernie Sanders for 1 week.

You have been sanctioned for direct violation (addition of contentious content without firm consensus edit warring) of the discretionary sanctions already in effect at Bernie Sanders: "You must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before making any potentially contentious edits, must not engage in edit warring and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page."

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

From one person walking through the DS minefield to another, focus on conduct, not content. Only offer proof that you're right about the article if it's directly relevant to why you didn't do anything wrong (i.e. if you were accused of adding unverifiable content, show sources). Instead, explain why your actions aren't disruptive, etc. I had to dig through your statement to find anything that pertained to that. Good luck today, and, if not, good luck next week. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

You are in violation of your topic ban with this edit: See WP:TBAN. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

No, article means article, not talk page. And didn't I tell you to stay off my talk page? Sir Joseph 19:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

No, topic ban means topic ban: please click on the link. Coffee may have accidentally used the wrong word (article instead of page); I've alerted him. Bishonen | talk 19:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC).

I've updated the topic ban to reflect this. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Why would I be banned from editing the talk page? What purpose does that serve? Sir Joseph 19:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT: Some topic bans cover talk pages and some don't. Take it from me, though, this stuff isn't obvious unless you've spent months watching WP:AE.

As to why you were banned, you'd have to ask the admins for their reasoning (but let me warn you: they hate that), but did any part of the complaint against you involve talk page conduct? If it was only about the edits made to the article, then my guess is that topic bans are meant to be at least partially punitive. You're being punished, maybe as a deterrent against making edits similar to the one that inspired the ban in the future. Since your ban was for one week, it might be meant as a sort of time-out for you to cool down. I'm just guessing, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Right, because what better way to get consensus than to have one more person chased away. The whole point of Misplaced Pages is to use the talk page, if you're blocking someone from an article that is one thing but to ban someone from the talk page serves no purpose. Especially if I'm posting sources to back up my claims. I don't get it. And if there's one thing I learned on Misplaced Pages is never question admins, although I've never dealt with Coffee before but the fact that he modified the ban to add the talk page is bad, he could have left it the way it was. To spend some time to add in a talk page ban is just wrong.Sir Joseph 19:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Topic means topic. Talk pages are, of course, connected directly to the topic. 6k+ edits and you have to be told this? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

It was one thing when you were just WP:REHASHing the same comments over and over again, it's another thing when you've begun to now make veiled attacks at other editors and are claiming that they're backing some form of antisemitism. That sort of behavior is absolutely unacceptable no matter what the topic is. So the only reasonable course of action was to correctly clarify the ban so that you would be deterred from continuing to act in such a manner. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not the first one to bring up antisemitism on the talk page. Perhaps you're not sensitive to it but even an admin mentioned the word "troubling" in the RFC as well. Sir Joseph 20:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)At a guess, Sir Joseph, having this particular topic ban cover the talk page (but notice that topic bans normally do, per WP:TBAN, and I'm sure Coffee intended it from the start) serves the purpose of reigning in your relentless and exhausting rehashing of the same points and the same phrases ad nauseam on article talk; compare my comment at AE. Darkfrog, please stop trolling and fanning the flames at least until you have taken the time to click on WP:TBAN. I know it's hard; nobody likes to read what it says, it's much nicer to guess; but please click all the same. Bishonen | talk 19:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC).

That's not appropriate, Bishonen. Of course I've read TBAN. Informing another editor that there is an unwritten etiquette at WP:AE isn't trolling. Do you want him to annoy people unnecessarily? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course she doesn't want that, Darkfrog. I do think what she's trying to say, however, is that you should butt out and worry about your own current issues being discussed at AE. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about recommending you to click on WP:TBAN, Darkfrog24. I have now discovered that you have an appeal of your own at AE, where all the admins who have commented agree that you're having a lot of trouble understanding your own topic ban. So I'm sure you've read WP:TBAN. Maybe it isn't so easy to understand as I thought. However, I don't accept you as any kind of expert on appropriateness, after your foolish comments on this page. You had indeed much better butt out. Bishonen | talk 22:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC).

Dude, come on. That's not civil. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Acroterion Just out of curiosity, is the above comment appropriate in your opinion? Sir Joseph 06:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Darkfrog24's comment? I would like for Darkfrog to stay out of contentious areas so he doesn't cross the bounds of his own arbitration enforcement action. Acroterion (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

no, bishonen's comments.Sir Joseph 13:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I have the same advice for Darkfrog24 as Bishonen does. Please stop looking for ways to take umbrage. Acroterion (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

And yet I was blocked, why wasn't Bishonen given the advice by Coffee to not take umbrage? Sir Joseph 14:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd discourage discussing the edits and behaviour of a contributor who is no longer in a position to respond here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm obviously talking about bishonen. Sir Joseph 06:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you soliciting another editor to comment on a contributor? That would obviously not be a good idea, per Comment on content, not on the contributor. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

See also here (2nd entry) for an additional suggestion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

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

Request reason:

i don't see a personal attack.Sir Joseph 16:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I do. Acroterion (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

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.

• Comment AFAIK "his" in the unblock request is incorrect. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about Bishonen.Sir Joseph 16:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, understand it now, you seem to PA-ing any admin imposing a sanction separately. I'd kindly suggest to rethink your line of action here if you want to see any admin-imposed sanction undone. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

No, but a statement like that is not an attack and an involved admin should certainly have not taken action.Sir Joseph 16:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Still, I'd recommend to make your unblock any request for alleviating admin actions rather about the merits of the action than the merits of the person taking the action. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC); updated 17:07, 6 March 2016‎ (UTC)

ok. Sir Joseph 17:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• Re. "i don't see a personal attack." – I did, see my comment here – as it is a comment on the contributor (the TB-ing admin), without that comment having even the thinnest relation to the content (i.e. your TB and the reasons for it) it doesn't pass the WP:NPA policy which has "Comment on content, not on the contributor" as a principle that explains the concept very well. As said it could be explained by some sort of frustration over being TBd, in that case just remove the PA comment, and consider committing to not repeating, and I think you'll have a much better chance of an admin unblocking you. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You stated, "Jimbo should have blocked you for longer. You are not an asset to this project." You don't think that's a personal attack and are now claiming that you didn't direct it at Bishonen? Wow. You are either outright lying or are completely out of touch with how what you say affects others. In either case, improvement needs to be made and some introspection accomplished. Hopefully, the next 24 hours blocked will do that for you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC) I've seen far worse get nothing. Why do admins very special treatment? Sir Joseph 17:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and all that, don't think that will work very well here if you want to find an admin to unblock you. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

bidhonen and coffee both allowed someone to call someone a troll, both worse than what I said. But because I said this to an admin I get blocked? I've had enough.Sir Joseph 17:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You are not allowed to edit Misplaced Pages while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.  — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:Z7

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

Request reason:

i didn't make a legal threat. Sir Joseph 18:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Accept reason:

After discussion, Sir Joseph has removed the threat. The block has been returned to its previous status: blocked until 1617, 7 March 2016 for making personal attacks. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• It's reasonable to perceive a statement that you will notify the ADL as a threat of imminent legal action. If you want to withdraw the statement, that is acceptable. And I will return the block to its previous 24 hour status from the WP:NPA violation. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll withdraw if you want, but legal threat usually means law suit, not the media.Sir Joseph 18:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The Anti-Defamation League is not a media organization, they specialize in civil rights law, and as such my previous comment stands. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This indef is a good block based on the fact that the ADL is not a media organization (as SJ is claiming) but, as Coffee pointed out, is a civil rights legal advocate with their own set of lawyers and more lawyers to take legal action in cases where anti-Semitism is suspected and/or sufficient evidence exists to prove a complainant's case. It seems to me that the Wikimedia Foundation would be a perfect target for a suit as would a Misplaced Pages editor who is not anonymous (as in the case of Guy Macon, as he pointed out days ago and above). Further, I find it very hard to believe that SJ believes the ADL to be just a media organization -- another editor made a threat to go to the press a few days ago, and SJ was involved in that incident. If he wanted to take up that same mantle, he could have. But he did not, he upped the ante to a civil rights legal/advocacy organization. Because of that, and a few other implausible explanations he's given in the last few days, I simply don't buy it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

ok, I take back what I said. But can I ask why I get blocked while others don't even get a warning? You yourself posted in an ae request too close without action.Sir Joseph 18:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You'll need to either strike the threat, or delete it for the block to be removed. Once that's done we can discuss other items. (I'll note that I think you're taking my administrative actions way too personally, I have no vendetta against you or anyone else for that matter, you should just try to heed the advice made at AE and elsewhere and I think you'd find less issues working with others here. No one is trying to "win" or make you "lose" here.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I edit Israeli/Palestinian history, and I hardly ever agree with Sir Joseph. BUT: I don´t think "Informing ADL" (where I assume ADL is the Anti-Defamation League) can reconsidered a "legal threat". Seriously. Huldra (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC) (PS: and I am *very* aware of ADL´s activities Huldra (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC))

I don't know whether it is, but it's funny that with the "new" wording of WP:NLT, claiming that you'll "inform" an organization of something (no matter what they do in response, if anything) can get you blocked, but actually suing a Misplaced Pages editor for something that happened on Misplaced Pages won't. LjL (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Huldra: Per WP:LEGALTHREAT: "For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous," that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue, even if that is not your intention." - Aside from the fact that the ADL has a team of lawyers at their disposal, their very name has "Defamatory" in it. On that basis alone it is considered a legal threat per policy, and per policy blocks must be made in these cases. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Coffee I can only assume you don´t know very much of ADL. I *do* know of them, (and I am not sympathetic to their activities, to put it very diplomatically), but I cannot think of any case during the 10 years I have been editing in the Israel/Palestine area that ADL has sued anyone, the name "Defamatory" in it, or not. It is simply not the way they work. And from their WP-page, it seems as if most lawsuits have been agains them.... (There are other pro-Israeli organisations which specialise in lawsuits; say, if anyone had said "I´m informing Shurat HaDin" I think you would have been justified in blocking them for WP:LEGALTHREAT.) (That ADL has a team of lawyers at their disposal is not an argument; I assume that e.g. WMF has the same. And hopefully nobody would be blocked for stating that they will "inform WMF".) Huldra (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Your analogy is flawed. The WMF doesn't exist to advocate for legal action to be taken in the case of defamation. The ADL does. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I don´t agree that ADL exist for that purpose. In practise, these days ADL are mostly concerned with labelling each and every criticism of Israel as "anti-semitic". (Ok, I don´t think Sir Joseph will agree with this description of ADL ;P) They don´t take anyone to court for it (perhaps because they know they cannot win? The right of "free speech" is *very* strong in the US.)

If there is even a faint hope of succeeding in a lawsuit, then Shurat HaDin steps in (Even suing Jimmy Carter!!). Seriously, I would like some clarification on this. If someone said "I am notifying (insert pro-Palestinian organisation here)", would they be indef. blocked, too? Huldra (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• I have now removed those words. Sir Joseph 18:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you, I will now return the block to its previous status. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• • • can you now please answer two questions? 1. Why did you vote to close the other ae with no action when this got a block? 2. What should I think when guy macon says all I edit is Jews, Jews, and more Jews and he wants me topic banned from that?Sir Joseph 19:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
      • since he's not answering, is it just me? Is saying all I edit "Jews, Jews, and more Jews" a little troubling? Spartaz? Can I ask you, since coffee seems to have disappeared even though he said he would answer my questions, but forget that. I just want to know about what guy Macon is saying. I find it distasteful. Sir Joseph 21:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) Apologies for disappearing... All of this was at rather bad timing today, as I had already made plans to go out with my fiancee to a few places (which is why I went offline for a bit). An Arbitrator already commented on Guy Macon's comment at ARCA, and he thankfully refactored that comment. As to why you got served an AE action, that was due to the constant battleground mentality you were showing regarding a rather (from an uninvolved participant looking on this from the outside, without a vested interest in either side) ridiculously mundane debate regarding the particular semantics of Sander's ethnicity vs. religion. I hold no opinion on whether or not it should be one way or the other or any at all, but it was fully known that it was obviously contentious for whatever reason. The reason for it being contentious is of no concern, what is of concern is that it is contentious. As to why you were blocked, the other editor had stated that they were going to the media... that isn't something we have any policy against. You, on the other hand, stated you were going to inform the ADL. The ADL, regardless of how anyone sees the group, is not a media organization and has a full team of lawyers at their disposal. And as I stated previously, the very word "Defamation" is in their name... and as per WP:LEGALTHREAT what is considered to be a threat can be "if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous," as any editor or administrator "might interpret this as a threat to sue, even if that is not your intention". The purpose of blocking users who make legal threats is not to punish them or to prevent article subjects or their representatives from having bad content fixed, but to prevent legal threats being posted on Misplaced Pages which can cause damage to the project as outlined in WP:NLT. - At any rate I do appreciate that you decided to remove the threat (whether intended to be legal in nature or not), as it prevents this situation from escalating to a point of no return. I do hope you realize that none of this is personal, and that none of my (or any of the other mryiad of admins who've participated in the AE results) actions are meant to "punish" you. I'm just fulfilling my duties, in my position as an administrator, to ensure the minimization of disruption on this site. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

"Jews, Jews and more Jews.." Not the wisest or most empathetic comment I have seen on WP, let's just say that. Irondome (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• Why does the block say 16:17 if the original block says 11:17? That is more than 24 hours? Coffee Sir Joseph 05:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • According to your block log the initial 24 hour block was placed at 16:17 6 March 2016, which means it was/is scheduled to expire at 16:17 7 March 2016. Perhaps you have local time settings in your preferences? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Coffee I guess we'll find out. Now could you answer my question I asked here, as you said you would. One questions was why did you block me when the other AE you voted to close with no action, (not only did you ignore the attack you voted to close with no action). The other question is moot at this point since Guy refactored his comments but they were extremely distasteful.
      • I already did that above diff. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

And could you also ask Guy to remove my old username I assume it is against policy to reveal prior names on Misplaced Pages. Furthermore, he is still posting I called him an antisemite and I did no such thing, and it is getting tiresome. He continues to beat this horse and is trying to get everyone against me. I did not call him any names. And I do not appreciate it. I do not appreciate him revealing my old name. He is hounding me, he even posted a month or so back that he will hound me and he has done so. Sir Joseph 05:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• As anyone can go back in your contribution history and see your old username, Guy Macon is not even bordering on violating any known policy (including WP:CLEANSTART, WP:VANISH, and WP:OUTING) by noting what your username once was. As far as hounding accusations go, if you can show solid proof (with diffs) that Macon stated he was planning on violating Misplaced Pages's policy on WP:HOUNDING, then once your block expires I would recommend opening a thread on ANI. As far as the antisemite remark goes... I will note that you while you avoided directly stating that others were antisemitic, you have definitively - without question - alluded to that being the case (especially with comments like "see what some editors will go to just to make sure he's not Jewish" and "Guy Macon and his followers owning the page and not allowing Bernie's Jewishness to be included", which basically claim that there is some form of discrimination happening here due to Macon and others discriminating against Jews - selective discrimination is of course one of the definitions of antisemitism). But, regardless, at this point (as long as you're not continuing to claim Macon is somehow discriminating against you, or anyone else for that matter, based on religion or ethnicity) I see no reason for Guy Macon to continue to comment here while the ban is in effect. If however, you do continue to accuse Macon of acting against policy or otherwise bring that user up, then they are breaking no policy by responding to you here. With that being said, there are still options for an interaction ban between the two of you if things continue to get out of hand (of course you could both agree to one on your own, without outside implementation, as well) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm talking about what I said to bishonen. That should not have gotten me blocked. Someone called someone else a troll and that gets no action but I wrote something against an admin and I get blocked?Sir Joseph 12:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

ADL

According to its Web site,

The Anti-Defamation League was founded in 1913 "to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all." Now the nation's premier civil rights/human relations agency, ADL fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all.

If any editor believes that Misplaced Pages is being used to defame the Jewish people, then surely they are entitled to inform the ADL, or anyone else, of that opinion. Similarly, if Misplaced Pages were to be used to threaten workers wishing to join a union, an editor would be free to contact the NLRB -- and in fact taking action against that editor might expose the project to liability. Misplaced Pages editors do not take an oath of silence, and Misplaced Pages is neither Fight Club nor a Secret Society. An editor is free complain of Misplaced Pages to the ADL, the NAACP, the ACLU, the NOW, or their mother. It is in fact my opinion that the discussion here -- and the imposition of a block for stating an intent to contact the ADL -- ought to be brought to the attention of that organization. In my opinion, it would be prudent and just for the blocking administrator to initiate the contact, so I omit to indicate any intent to do so myself. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

"An editor is free complain of Misplaced Pages to the ADL, the NAACP, the ACLU, the NOW, or their mother." An editor is also free to seek legal action against Misplaced Pages. Per policy, however, editors are not free to make legal threats in Misplaced Pages unambiguously, ambiguously, or in the manner in which SJ made his threat. As it was already pointed out above by Coffee, per WP:LEGALTHREAT: "For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous," that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue, even if that is not your intention." -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

An editor was actually not free to take legal action against Misplaced Pages (or, especially, an editor) for things that had taken place on Misplaced Pages without risking a block on Misplaced Pages... until WP:NLT was semi-silently changed in late 2015 to seemingly allow that. LjL (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

If an editor has gone to the effort of bringing suit against the WMF, then I seriously doubt they will be at all worried about or surprised if their account is blocked. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Please read again the "or, especially, an editor" part: I'm not at all concentrating on suits against the WMF. Before, the policy said that editors involved in legal action for something that took place on Misplaced Pages would need to resolve the legal action before being able to edit Misplaced Pages again; now, it just says that any threats should be retracted, regardless of any actual legal action that's taking place, which is considered unimportant by the current policy. LjL (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

MarkBernstein: The point of WP:THREAT is not to protect Misplaced Pages from legal action or media exposure. Please take a look at chilling effect. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The chances of him reporting this to ADL would result in a legal threat agains anyone, is, IMHO, equal to 0,00. Please find anyone who edits in the Israel/Palestine area (and hence knows ADL) who disagree. Huldra (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Huldra, that's not the point. Please see Curly Turkey's comment above. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Huldra: The indentation suggests you're responding to me. If that's the case, then I think you've badly misread what I wrote. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Chilling effect is not a WP policy. IMO, to be blocked for violating Misplaced Pages:No legal threats, there should be a chance, (larger than 0,00) that the "threat" actually would result in a "legal threat". Huldra (talk) 23:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Huldra, I think you need to slow down and digest what I've written. "Chilling effect is not a WP policy" is a nonsense response. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Please, stop this. No legal threat was made, and in point of fact, if a person who believes herself to be harassed says "I am going to consult an anti-harassment organization" and is sanctioned for saying so, then Misplaced Pages has indeed been taken over by the advocates of harassment. A chilling effect on he use of Misplaced Pages as a tool of harassment or of anti-semitixm is congruent with policy; if it were not, our legal and ethical obligation would require that policy by changed, MarkBernstein (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

wouldn't revealing a prior username be against policy as Guy Macon just did to me in his statement? Sir Joseph 00:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

No. You applied for a new name under our Misplaced Pages:Changing username policy. If you had wanted to keep your activities made under your former username secret, you should have followed the instructions and abided by the restrictions listed at Misplaced Pages:Clean start. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Antisemitism should not be tolerated, but neither should the threat of reporting someone as an antisemite, used as a tool to silence other viewpoints. If there's actual antisemitism, report away—there's no Wikipolicy to stop that. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon has yet once again stated I called him anti-Semitic. Why is this allowed? Why isn't he blocked? Why are his comments allowed to stand? I never once called him that, and it's behaviors like this that is uncalled for, in addition to revealing my prior username.Sir Joseph 01:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

You called my edits antisemetic here: Your continued accusations on your talk page while declining requests to go to WP:ANI and present evidence have crossed the line into harassment with the comment you placed on the top of your talk page here. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

you're a bully and you need to stop. I never called you any names and I told you to stay off my page.You're the one harassing me and stalking me and revealing prior username.Sir Joseph 01:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry SJ. I'm reading this but I can't help but laugh my ass off. I don't have much of a fondness for you but it's very clear that you intended no legal threat by "informing the ADL." I'm not sure the context of what lead you to offer this comment but it would certainly be apt to go ahead and inform them now. Again it is clear, and just straight common sense, that you intended no legal threat. We have an ethical discussion about chilling effects while a block was used to have a chilling effect.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I love you too. And feel free to comment about my block where the comment belongs, if you wish. As for contacting the ADL, do you really think it would do any good? Look at the ARBCOM or AE people? They are clueless. They don't understand anything so like a good person I'll just behave and follow orders. Sir Joseph 15:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't review the situation. I don't know why you were going to the ADL in the first place. Being familiar with the ADL and having common sense I know it wasn't a legal threat. If you legitimately thought there was a reason to go to the ADL in the first place then there is a reason now. This ban looks incompetent at a glance. It looks like an attempt to silence you at a glance. I could look at it further but I don't actually care. But if my summation is correct there is plenty the ADL can do from a PR perspective. And Misplaced Pages doesn't need Admins silencing dissent.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, if all of you, including MarkBernstein feels it prudent, feel free to do what you feel prudent. I am not in the mood to be blocked again but I will be prudent. Sir Joseph 03:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Mocking the incompetency of the block was all that I felt was prudent. I have done so.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• An interesting read: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/08/opinion/an-anti-semitism-of-the-left.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0 Sir Joseph 04:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Kendrick7

Kendrick7 I'm currently blocked from editing Misplaced Pages due to a block by Coffee. Sir Joseph 21:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Until tomorrow? You'll live. :) Soon we can all get back to being happy clams. -- Kendrick7 22:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1st century

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1st century. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the ] or ]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" ). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

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

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard Someone posted an AE appeal and one of the commenters posted that he violated 1RR because of DS. I then posted a comment that just because of the DS doesn't mean that there is 1RR restriction. ARBPIA has a 1RR notice but not all DS has 1RR. Coffee then blocked me for violating my topic ban. I have no idea what I did wrong. I did not violate any topic ban. I just made a comment about DS and how not every DS has a 1RR. I wasn't discussing the block. I was just saying that not every DS has a 1 RR rule.Sir Joseph 20:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline - The block has already expired -- GB fan 11:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

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.

The AE thread was in regards to the article Bernie Sanders, and you knew it. You just made sure to not use the name of the article in your edit about the sanctions in place at the article. Perhaps you need to re-read your topic ban. (Also note, no admin can unblock you as this is an Arbitration Enforcement block.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about any article. DS doesn't mention 1RR like ARBPIA does and I just asked a question. You really need to ease up on blocking especially while involved in an appeal. You are really abusing your admin privileges. Sir Joseph 20:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, I have tried to help you as much as I can. But, if you want to dig your own grave, then feel free to do so. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

How is saying you are abusing your admin privileges digging my own grave? I did not deserve a block. The nice thing to do would have been to notify me that you thought my post violated a topic ban. You have been on a blocking spree and you also should not be blocking me. It is indeed inappropriate while you are involved with an appeal. Furthermore, posting to an AE board is not violating a topic ban. I don't see it. How is that violating a topic ban? Sir Joseph 20:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Drmies,Gamaliel, Spartaz, Liz, DGG, Can you please comment on this? Coffee has now blocked me I think a total of three times, including for the ADL mention. Firstly, I do not think he should be blocking me. He is too involved and he should be getting someone else if I really need it. That being said, I don't think I did anything wrong here. I really honestly don't. I clarified something. I noticed that with ARBPIA there is a big 1RR on the talk pages and with all other DS notices that doesn't always mean 1RR. I never mentioned any other topics, I mentioned DS. I don't deserve a block and I think Coffee is abusing his tools and I also think threatening me with digging my own grave merely for posting my opinion that I think he's abusing the tools is not right either. Again, what am I to thing with all this petty blocking? Sir Joseph 20:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Coffee As you can see from the TBAN page, what I did was not part of the ban anyway. So I ask you to unblock me so I don't have to file yet another appeal.

Exceptions to limited bans Shortcut: WP:BANEX CLARIFICATION IS OK TO DISCUSS Sir Joseph 20:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

This block seems gratuitous. Bans in the main-space don't normally extend to commenting on a talk page. Can anyone explain to me what exactly is going on here? -- Kendrick7 23:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Bans in the mainspace do not apply to things that are not mainspace, but this was not a talk page. It wasn't article space--it was an Arby page, in a case on the topic that Sir Joseph was topic-banned from that wasn't about Sir Joseph at all, so I don't see how BANEX applies here. "Skirting around" is a wonderful American expression and I think it applies here. Sorry Sir Joseph--I really think you should choose the higher road here. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Bans in the mainspace"? Are you looking at Coffee's original one-week ban, Kendrick7 and Drmies? Because that's not what's operative here. I placed a six-month ban a few days later, following an AE discussion. Here it is. I tried to word it carefully so as to be a true topic ban which ruled out all commentary on Bernie Sanders on all pages and gave Sir J clear lines of demarcation to stay within. I also tried, but failed, to put it into the classic "yellow box" — I'm not very good with boxes, and maybe that's why you didn't notice it. I believe it's a properly formed ban nevertheless. Logged here. And considering Sir Joseph's comment, there can be no doubt that he read it. IMO this ban certainly covers commenting on somebody else's topic or page ban from Bernie Sanders, in any venue. I know you have lots of other interests on the encyclopedia, Sir Joseph. You'll do yourself a favour if you just leave Bernie Sanders alone for the next six months. Bishonen | talk 02:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC).

IMO, @Bishonen: extending a mainspace topic ban to include talk pages -- which are, after all, just talk -- let alone tangentially related pages in user space is completely unprecedented, and unsupported by any policy which I've ever been made aware of. Were I made aware of any such policy, I'd make every effort to change it. Schoolyard bullying against an editor who is otherwise in good standing is not what this project is about. -- Kendrick7 03:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• Bishonen, I wasn't looking at anything--I was only taking up the questions. I know there's a topic ban, and topic bans are project-wide. Sir Joseph, please take heed of Bishonen's words. Kendrick, I always appreciate a good advocate, but it's misplaced here--note that there is no "mainspace topic ban" here, and "schoolyard bullying", please. This isn't a schoolyard until you make it so, and if you think that the ban was bullying, take it up elsewhere, lest I charge you with bullying poor Bish and her -zilla. 03:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Drmies (talk)

• I question the Hokey ADL no legal threats ban. Anyone doing any actual due diligence could see there was no legal threat. I don't actually know about the situation for the other topic ban. You mention 3. I can't comment on that one. This one is completely legit and there's much of a question there, honestly Sir Joseph. The links Bishonen provide actually are very clear on what your topic ban was and I can't really see much of a reason that Coffee shouldn't have blocked you. Here's the thing that you really need to consider, though I'm sure one of these admins can explain it with more grace. These blocks and bans are not punitive. They are meant to end disruption.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• Even if the block were justified, I question the wisdom of Coffee handing it down given that the offending comment (presumably this one ) is a challenge of an action Coffee made. Calidum ¤ 05:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• The block is justified; it didn't take special tirritation from one person applied to another to make it happen. Drmies (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't comment on the topic, or on the appeal, I was replying to a comment. I was commenting on the statement that a1rr is a DS violation. That is all I wrote.

What about the very specific explanatory comments stating "this ban certainly covers commenting on somebody else's topic or page ban from Bernie Sanders, in any venue" is eluding you? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

firstly, what part of stay off my page don't you understand? Second, that's an explanation from Bishonen written well after my comments. If you comment again on my talk page I'm not going to revert or ignore, I will warn you and seek admin action. Sir Joseph 01:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Bishonen here's what you wrote up above:Note that the ban covers all discussion of Bernard Sanders and/or his Jewishness, on all pages

I did not comment on any of that.So how is what I wrote a violation of my ban? Sir Joseph 01:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• In addition, nobody copied over my appeal to the proper channels. Regardless of the outcome, it is inappropriate to have an AE appeal on my talk page. If someone were blocked from Misplaced Pages and you say post "copy to AE" then you should post to AE. Sir Joseph 04:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I've gone ahead and reverted Coffee's attempt to silence you on the WP:AE page. As far as I'm concerned, and what with the inability of other editors above to provide the policy rationale I requested, you should feel free to edit there and ignore such Stalinesque attempts to prevent it. -- Kendrick7 05:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but I don't want Coffee to block me yet again. I think 4 times is enough for one person to get blocked by one person. And it's funny you mention Stalineque. Read my TBAN notice that Bishonen put on my page. I used the word "Soviet" so I guess we're not too far off. And notice how my appeal was supposed to be copied to the AE page so more people could have commented on it and made official. And notice how Coffee still doesn't think he acted inappropriate, whether his blocking is correct or not, it's inappropriate for him to do the blocking as someone involved in an appeal. Sir Joseph 05:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's, of course, not a matter of life and death, and we probably shouldn't trivialize that. Still, I don't know if, per Drmies, I was advocating for you so much as I'd be worried I could be next if this sort of thing were allowed to go quietly; this was clearly WP:JANITORial overreach. Like Donald Trump, I can't recall an admin admitting they ever were wrong about anything, but, in the same way that I don't think topic bans apply to backroom squabbles, backroom squabbles aren't the purpose of Misplaced Pages. As far as we are able, let's both get back to writing an encyclopedia. (The amount of words I've wasted arguing on ArbCom back in the day could fill a small novella, and for what?) -- Kendrick7 06:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. And I agree with you about TBANS. Even if someone was disruptive, most disruptive people are disruptive to the article not to the talk page or to their talk page or to noticeboards or AE pages or whatever. It most certainly is Soviet style governing and it does harm the encyclopedia that people can't discuss things openly for fear of being banned or blocked for longer. I am pissed because I am a big believer in doing the right thing and justice and all that. And I feel wronged, but I also don't want to be blocked and I know that since this is not a democracy I won't have any recourse so I have to swallow and get on with it. Admins are too powerful, they don't have to follow their own rules, they are the ones usually being the most uncivil towards other editors and getting away with it and when brought before ARBCOM, they just get a slap on the wrist. I guess I can go back to editing "Jews, Jews and more Jews." Sir Joseph 06:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Response to your question to me above, Sir Joseph: To violate the ban, you don't have to use the actual name "Bernie Sanders". It just has to be clear that the context where you comment is the context of Bernie Sanders. Discussion on AE (or in any venue) of somebody else's topic or page ban from Bernie Sanders is such a context, and you're expected to avoid it. Compare, for the nth time, WP:TBAN: For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", they are not only forbidden to edit the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as for instance a deletion discussion concerning an article about a meteorologist. "A deletion discussion concerning an article about a meteorologist" is a pretty good analogy to "an AE discussion concerning a ban of a user from editing Bernie Sanders". You tested the boundaries, and only got 31 hours. I hope for the next six months you will spend more time and energy on contributing to the encyclopedia in other subject areas. Bishonen | talk 08:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC).

Arbitration amendment request archived

Hi Sir Joseph. The American politics arbitration amendment request of 6 March 2016, which you were listed as a party to, has been declined by the Arbitration Committee and archived to the relevant case talk page. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)