User talk:Sir Joseph/Archive 5

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

March 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

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).

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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 17:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action (action here). If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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.[1] It seems to me that the Wikimedia Foundation would be a perfect target for a suit as would a Wikipedia 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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia editor for something that happened on Wikipedia 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia 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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia. 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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia'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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia editors do not take an oath of silence, and Wikipedia is neither Fight Club nor a Secret Society. An editor is free complain of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia to the ADL, the NAACP, the ACLU, the NOW, or their mother." An editor is also free to seek legal action against Wikipedia. Per policy, however, editors are not free to make legal threats in Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia (or, especially, an editor) for things that had taken place on Wikipedia without risking a block on Wikipedia... 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 Wikipedia would need to resolve the legal action before being able to edit Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia has indeed been taken over by the advocates of harassment. A chilling effect on he use of Wikipedia 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 ^(talk) 00:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

No. You applied for a new name under our Wikipedia:Changing username policy.[2] 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 Wikipedia: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 ^(talk) 01:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

You called my edits antisemetic here:[3] 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.[4] --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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 04:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating your topic ban, when you commented on a discussion related to the article Bernie Sanders (dancing around the topic you were banned from by not naming what you're discussing is not acceptable behavior, and does not prevent you from being blocked) on the page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

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 [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. 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" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

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).

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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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^talk 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,[5] 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^talk 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 [6]) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia and you say post "copy to AE" then you should post to AE. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 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^talk 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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia. 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^talk 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 ^(talk) 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)

Stop edit warring at Tefillin

[7] Chesdovi (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

You are allowed to revert a TBANNED user. That is not edit warring. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Arab-Israel conflict is the area of my TB, not Judaism. Some Jews may wish to smuggle explosives in their tefilin to bomb the Dome of the Rock, but that does not preclude me from editing this page. That would be too broad. Back to munching on my Israeli Cherry tomatoes, if that's allowed. Maybe I'll take a slice of Palestinian citron instead. Chesdovi (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

New cat

What kind of category is this? Yoninah (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks like a category ripe for a CFD. But I don't think I'm the one to do it. I'm already under the microscope with my AE. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I requested a speedy. Looks like attack page material to me. Scr★pIron^IV 20:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Legacy of George Washington

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Legacy of George Washington. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Not covered by TB

Why do you keep reverting my edits under the dubious excuse "TBAN editor". I am not (yet?) topic banned from editing here, or at Western Wall, Women of the Wall or Tefillin. I'm banned from the conflict zone, and the Yishuv template is not one of them. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe Palestinian Wine is covered by the TBAN. As you were advised to do on your talk page, you should stop editing in that area until it is clarified. You are only hurting yourself. If you want, you can insert the Tzfat entry but the Wine entry is under TBAN. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

1. Where was it agreed that Palestinian Wine is covered by the TB? 2. Why is Jewish textile industry in 16th century Safed not covered by the TB? 3. Is it that you find the word "Palestinian" offensive and therefore conflict related? Chesdovi (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

1) Discussing your TBAN is a violation of your TBAN. 2) You know very well that you created your Palestinian Wine article to push your POV. and thanks for alerting me to the article, I thought it was an old one. You need to stop editing or you will end up being banned or blocked. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

"Discussing your TBAN is a violation of your TBAN." LOL. No it isn't; don't be absurd @Chesdovi: -- Kendrick7^talk 06:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It depends. The way the bureaucracy works, you might be able to ask questions to the banning admin. But discussing a TBAN while using the subject of the TBAN is a violation of the TBAN. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

But you agree that this is Kafkaesque, right? Such insanity isn't the purpose of the project per WP:BURO. Or maybe I'm the crazy one? I'll redouble my efforts to fix the policy page if you'll tell me I'm sane. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

"IP editors not allowed to edit here"?

Hi. You recently reverted a change to the Aliyah article, using "IP editors not allowed to edit here." as your edit summary. While I agree this individual's edit was questionable, and that his/her edit summary "use English" was not helpful, I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy that would have prohibited this particular person from editing this particular article (or articles in general) solely on the grounds that he/she was not using an account. Can you elaborate? Thanks. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Certain topics or pages have ARBCOM enforced restrictions, broadly construed. In my opinion, the page fell into that arena. You can look at the notice template for more info: Template:Ds/alert. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I see — you're referring to the "General Prohibition" remedy of the ARBPIA3 case (WP:ARBPIA3). Fair enough. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Great Job Dealing with a disruptive user

I am not much on Wikipedia but I think you should take a look at VanEman's history of dumping lengthy negative material on informational articles of religious Jews in order to promote certain agendas. Aside from WP:RECENT he chooses very specific controversial details out of thousands years of history and articles on the subject. You have done a great job cleaning up and if you have time I think you should take a look at the edit history of this user. Caseeart (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I am trying now to clean up at least some of the edits. The more I look into this - the more I see that an indefinite ban is the correct way to solve this issue. Caseeart (talk) 06:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Order of approximation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Order of approximation. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Sir Joseph again. Thank you.

Note: Your topic ban about Bernie Sanders does not apply to responding to an ANI report saying that you are exhibiting the same behavior that got you topic banned on that page. You are allowed to defend yourself. If anyone tells you differently, refer them to me. ---Guy Macon (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pantomime

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pantomime. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lower Merion Library System, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Overdrive. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Gamaliel and others arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by May 2, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. This notification is being sent to those listed on the case notification list. If you do not wish to recieve further notifications, you are welcome to opt-out on that page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Mondoweiss

This is a capture of the source specified at the time the edit was made.[8] The content was added on 2012-03-14 and the capture is for 2012-02-29. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think we have to go by what they say now. The claim is they do this because of X, but they DID it possibly because of X, but that source and claim is outdated. So in a new edition of the encyclopedia, it would not say it. That is one of the things of a fluid encyclopedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable argument for the lead. Whether the content of the article body should somehow capture the history and evolution of things like this is debatable - perhaps in an ideal world it would - but I agree that the very fact that the statement is no longer part of the current site is the key point. Having said that, the removal is inconsistent with the statement "we have to go by what they say now" because information was removed along with the source rather than updated based on the cited source. You can see that the lead no longer complies with WP:V, whereas in 2012 it did. That should be fixed at some point. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Please don't badger the opposers at the Stanley Milgram RfC

Part of the reason you were topic banned from Bernie Sanders was that you kept hinting that people who opposed including religion in that infobox had something against Jews. You're doing it again at Stanley Milgram, where you're suggesting in the RFC that an editor "[has] something against people labeled as Jews". If you think it's safe to behave that way in this instance because Milgram is not a living person, you're mistaken. You can be sanctioned for disruption of any page, discretionary sanctions or no discretionary sanctions. Bishonen | talk 19:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC).

I asked a question to show me the policy, and I haven't gotten any response yet when I or Bus Stop reply, we're told to drop the stick. I won't post in the vote section, but I have every right to ask for the policy that says if you want to be labeled Jewish, you need to be a PRACTICING Jew. I've never seen that anywhere. Milgram is not the same as Sanders, he wasn't ethnically or culturally Jewish at all. A member of a Temple, someone who had a bris and had his sons circumcised, someone who had a Jewish marriage ceremony, is not merely a cultural Jew. Why can't I request someone to actually show me the policy that says Milgram isn't Jewish enough? And if he's not, what is considered Jewish enough? Are we now going to be the religion police? Judaism is not like Christianity and we ought not to impose the latter's standards of belief on to the former. User:Bus_stop displayed a list of 20 or so people with different religions, yet it's Milgram that is facing scrutiny. Again, we don't go into someone's bedroom and determine belief. Milgram clearly passes the smell test to be labeled Jewish. Then comes the question of is that notable enough to be included in the infobox. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Some of our exchanges are more farfetched than others. Sundayclose will say "The responsibility to provide a source that Milgram practiced Judaism is on those who wish to add that to the infobox." I respond "from where do you derive that a Jew must 'practice Judaism' (in order to add his religion to the Infobox)? Is this found in policy?" Sundayclose responds "The policy (determined by consensus) is that Wikipedia needs a source that the person identifies with and subscribes to the religion". I respond "I asked you if this is found in policy. You have not linked to a policy." Sundayclose responds "Already asked and answered. Read all discussion above. Drop the stick. GOTO 10." A conversation of that nature is sure to be nonproductive. The RfC is only productive if the participants engage in the sort of dialogue in which both sides are forthcoming with their arguments. If I am asked a question, I try to respond in a way that moves the discussion further forward. And I don't make jokes to try to make fun of the other person. What is "GOTO 10"? Bus stop (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

This reminds me that I should have saved a letter I needed that said "I am a practicing Jew." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Bishonen, please see the first survey response in that thread and see the first person to respond to a survey. Hint, it wasn't myself or Bus stop. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, can you please tell me why I'm now most likely going to be subjected to a ban on Jews or religion? It is disgusting what is going on. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for wearing out editors' patience and bludgeoning them into the ground with your relentless repetitions and exhausting WP:IDHT issues in regard to the religion parameter in biography infoboxes. People need a rest. Your recent comments on my page are the last straw. Just two recent examples of your refusal or inability (I honestly don't know which it is) to listen to what other people say: I referred here to the ANI thread "Sir Joseph again" which had been closed because the OP Guy Macon stated that it could be closed as "Sir Joseph appears to have dropped the stick". A generous gesture on GM's part, I thought, less generously answered by SJ with "Support but suggest an admin admonish Guy Macon for his behavior". I mentioned this on my page in response to a somewhat despairing note from User:Coffee. You read some of my post, I guess — maybe every other word — did you read the ANI in question at all? — because you answered with stunning irrelevance: "Bishonen, do you see the problem with Guy asking me to drop the stick? I could very well ask him to drop the stick." Guy hadn't asked you to drop the stick; I hadn't said Guy had asked you to drop the stick; to the contrary, I had mentioned Guy SAID YOU HAD DROPPED THE STICK. Quite different, a lot nicer. It's hard to convey with just a couple of examples how exhausting the persistent misreadings and the consequent barking up the wrong tree are, but here's another one from the same day (today): Guy Macon asks you repeatedly (and surely reasonably) in this discussion for an "exact quote that you think supports your claim that "You can be a member of the Jewish religion without being religious or practicing Judaism" please"[9] and gets only an evasive complaint about personal attacks;[10] he asks again and again and gets nothing relevant — not even a straightforward refusal to answer. I don't know if you fail to notice the question, or just prefer to ignore it. The AGF option is to assume the first alternative, but it wears thin. You'll notice GM is losing his temper in the discussion. It would be better if he didn't, but I find it hard to blame him; he'd have to be a saint or Newyorkbrad to keep it. Please note that I have given two details out of many many examples; please don't take a notion that I've blocked you specifically for those particular details. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 22:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

user:Jimmy Wales, as I told you, I've now been blocked.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

bishonen, it's guy who continues to fail to provide sources, even Jimmy fwiw mentioned it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo said no such thing. As it says in Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem, "Nobody likes to be misquoted, and Jimbo is no exception to that." Also see Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo.

As for your refusal to provide sources and your claim that I need to provide a source, WP:V is crystal clear; I don't need to cite a source for leaving the infobox religion parameter blank. You need to cite a source for your claims that various people are members of a religion. Also, repeatedly pinging Jimbo while refusing to change or even acknowledge your behavior is a really bad idea. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Why are you harassing me? User:Bishonen, PLEASE DO SOMETHING. I have asked Guy to stop posting on my page and he just won't let it go. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

this is an unfair block. I've repeatedly asked guy for sources and got no reply. I've also done nothing wrong Sir Joseph (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This has been going on for some time. Multiple admins warned you that you were being disruptive. You have been unable or unwilling to recognize your disruption. This block is preventative. Your request for unblock does not address the reasons for the block. HighInBC 23:00, 4 May 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

User:HighInBC,I ask you to reconsider. The block from Bishonen is clearly one sided. In the ANI that was a week or so ago, many of the commenters found fault with Guy. In addition, Bishonen says I was bludgeoning, but I was just responding to Guy Macon. She then says I ignored or didn't respond to Guy except for a response to a personal attack, but that is precisely why I stopped responding. Every time I would respond, Guy would ignore my, and User:Bus stop's edits and just repeat his claim, so I gave up. I responded to him when he called me dimwitted, and I just asked him to strikeout that comment. I didn't respond in kind. It is not bludgeoning to participate on the talk page, and it's not bludgeoning to ask for cites. If you look at the page, every time I ask for something I get a "asked and answered" I never get the actual policy to work with. I ask you to reconsider the request and take everything in total, not just what Bishonen wrote. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I have to agree with the general tenor of WP:IDHT. WP:BURDEN has been raised. You should know that the burden of evidence rests with the editor who wants content included - in this case, who wants Milgram's religion noted as Jewish. Thus there's a material difference between Guy asking you for a reference to support that claim and you asking others for a reference that contradicts it. Also, policies were cited on that page in abundance. It seems you genuinely don't understand the issue here - which is a good reason to WP:DROPTHESTICK, accept that community consensus disagrees with you and avoid this issue, not to keep debating it over and over again. Huon (talk) 02:08, 5 May 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.

I am not going to decline your unblock request a second time. If you don't like my review you can wait for another admin to review this. I really recommend you take a different tactic than denying that you did anything wrong. WP:IDHT is mentioned in the block rational, and you are pretty much not hearing it still. HighInBC 01:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

and yet I'm the only one getting blocked? IDHT goes both ways. A personal attack is what I responded to and I stopped responding to anything else especially because there's no point. Bishonen was responding to something hours after the fact. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

You have been here for 10 years, you have been blocked before. You should know about WP:NOTTHEM, if not I suggest you read the entire page. HighInBC 01:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I am aware of that but it's not just that. What exactly did I do wrong? Bludgeoning is not what I did. I responded to comments and I asked queries. When I stopped getting a real response, I stopped responding. I ask you to please read the talk page and even the ANI linked by Bishonen. On her talk page I already said I won't do what Coffee was complaining about and I stopped. So I'm not sure what else is the reason. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Bishonen posts this "Guy Macon asks you repeatedly (and surely reasonably) in this discussion for an "exact quote that you think supports your claim that "You can be a member of the Jewish religion without being religious or practicing Judaism" please"[1] and gets only an evasive complaint about personal attacks;[2] he asks again and again and gets nothing relevant — not even a straightforward refusal to answer. I don't know if you fail to notice the question, or just prefer to ignore it." and fails to mention that this is after days of User:Bus stop and I asking him to provide a source for his claim. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

user:Huon, it was included previously, it was then removed and the discussion ensued. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what "it" is, but if there was a source confirming that Milgram was Jewish by religion (as opposed to by culture or ethnicity, which was not at issue), it would have been easy to present it after being asked for it repeatedly. This isn't such a source, by the way - at least not the way it's cited. Huon (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

There were multiple edits "proving" he was Jewish religously and then Guy makes up another policy trying to use Christian theology as a requirement for Jews. This is a content dispute that I stopped responding to, and had no business being blocked. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

What part of I and User:Bus stop DID PROVIDE PROOF is not coming through? Every time we brought proof Guy would make up a policy and when I and BS asked for the policy he would not respond. I also ask User:Huon if he read the talk page and the timeline of the edits. I haven't edited in violation of any so called policy in hours after Coffee and Bishonen warned me. Then Bishonen wakes up and decides to block me. And while I understand not to ask of other people, it is fair to ask why Guy Macon got away with the personal attack, even though Bishonen and Coffee were aware of it and why he is also getting away with behavior that I got blocked for. He is bludgeoning same as me and doing so in a condescending way where I and Bus Stop are just asking for the policy. I bring proof and it's ignored. Please read the full RFC and the comments above it. Basically any proof I bring, Guy throws out, but when he brings something we are to accept him at his word adn when I ask fo the link, I don't get one and I just get some snark. That is not fair. User:Ravpapa tried to explain it to him and he still didn't respond to any proofs. That is why I stopped responding. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I read quite a bit of the talk page and saw no proof for Milgram's religion. Would you mind providing the diff for the edit where you provided it? Please note that we're at precisely the same point as on the article talk page: Others say they don't see the sources, and you say they are - somewhere else, without clarifying what you refer to. Please be specific instead. If this vagueness continues, I'm of a mind to revoke talk page access since you obviously are unable to understand the issues. Huon (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Huon I think you're misreading. Firstly, I stopped my editing on that page after being warned. In addition, I have tried to get sources and when that failed I stopped responding because there would be no point in continuing.. I would like to be unblocked and what I can ask is that I will stay away from the Milgram page for the remainder of the one week, but I would like to continue editing Wikipedia and I do find it harsh that Coffee said to the effect that none of my edits are good. I understand the block but you also need to understand that what Bishonen wrote is one sided. One of the things I found is that it's hard to defend yourself without being told to drop the stick. I have already dropped the stick. I do have other areas to edit and I would like to get back to that. Thank you. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

I would like to be unblocked and what I can ask is that I will stay away from the Milgram page for the remainder of the one week, but I would like to continue editing Wikipedia. One of the things I found is that it's hard to defend yourself without being told to drop the stick. I have already dropped the stick. I do have other areas to edit and I would like to get back to that. Thank you. I think this is reasonable especially considering the sensitivity of the subject and everyone involved. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I wish we could believe you, but considering your pattern of disruptive behavior (and the fact that you were doing so on three high-profile politicians' articles in the middle of a heated election cycle) I think it would be foolish of us to. I suggest you sit the week out and reflect on how you got here, and how you won't in the future put yourself in this place. If you begin to act the same way once the block expires, expect an ArbCom case to be opened. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:03, 5 May 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.

So you are either unwilling or unable to, on request, point out the proof you claimed above in all-caps to have provided. Now you claim that you "have tried to get sources and when that failed I stopped responding". Given that some of your last edits before this block were still to the Milgram talk page where you complain to Jimmy Wales that people won't be satisfied by the evidence you now say you couldn't find, this latest account of yours seems contradicted by the facts. I do not think that returning to the talk page after a week is a good idea. Huon (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Huon,That's not what I said. If you look at the talk page, you will see myself and User:Bus stop asking for proof and all we get is "asked and answered" and that is why I stopped responding and that is why I told Guy the same thing when he asked for proof, I already provided it to him. I can go through the diffs where I asked but it will be hard since there was so much comments, but all you have to do is read the talk page and see where I and BS continued to ask for a source. I'm dropping the stick for whatever that means, I don't care anymore, it's not worth getting heated up about, but I would like to continue to edit. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

That is not what happened. You asked for a link to a policy. It (WP:V) was given to you repeatedly. Bus Stop asked for a citation showing that Milgram was not a member of Judaism. He was (again repeatedly) referred to WP:PROVEIT. Furthermore, even if you are correct and I have improperly refused to provide a citation, that does not excuse your saying (loudly and often) that you have a source for Milgram's religion and then waving your hands when asked to provide it.

Please note that removing a comment from your own talk page is allowed, but will be considered evidence that you have read the comment in future ANI or Arbcom cases involving your behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

What part of stop hounding me and stop following me and stop commenting on my talk page don't you understand? You need to drop the stick already. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Request denied. You are not allowed to make accusations against me on your talk page (You have used the word "Guy" 20 times on this page already) and then order me not to respond. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Bishonen,Coffee,User:HighInBC, I was blocked for posting on the Hillary page a request for notability of her religion. Guy Macon has now posted on Hillary Clinton and other pages a request for notability. I note that this is the same thing I've done, yet I get blocked. I hope you don't wish to impose a double standard and will see fit to look at his edits to almost 30 presidential candidates and do the right thing. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

That is no why you were blocked. Nobody gets blocked for just posting a request for notability. You were blocked for the sum of your behaviour over a extended length of time. You not getting this is why your unblock requests are being declined. HighInBC 16:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Jimmy, I would appreciate you commenting on the unfair block and double standard. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The reason you say you were blocked bears zero resemblance to the reason given in the blocking comment or the three(!) declined unblocks. If you show no understanding of what you did wrong or why you were blocked, how can we have any confidence that you will change your behavior? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

STOP BULLYING AND HARASSING ME. What part of "stay off my page" don't you understand? User:Coffee,User:Bishonen, PLEASE do something about this. How many times can I ask someone to stay off my page? His response has nothing to do with him and he is just doing this to bully and harass me. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Apology

Sir Joseph mentions "A personal attack" above. I did become frustrated and I did engage in a personal attack. That was wrong. I apologize to Sir Joseph for my harsh words. Sorry about that. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

And yet Coffee nor Bishonen warned you or blocked you for that personal attack. Jimmy here's yet another double standard. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

As for warning, chances are that they simply failed to notice, Certainly neither Coffee nor Bishonen have any problem with warning me if they notice me doing something wrong, and I always welcome such warnings, take them to heart, and use them as valuable feeedback so I can change my behavior. You might want to try doing that some time and seeing how well it works out for you.

As for blocking, per WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE, Blocks should be preventative, not punitive. Yes, I lost my temper when faced with your continued misbehavior, but as soon as I realized my mistake I apologized to you (I regally am genuinely regretful for not remaining civil) and made a commitment not to do it again. You, on the other hand, refuse to accept the warnings given you or any any way consider the possibility that any of this might be your fault. Your comment above is a good example of this: You were warned by at least two Wikipedia administrators (maybe more - those are just the ones I noticed), blocked by a third, and your multiple block appeals were rejected by a fourth, fifth and sixth administrator. I don't know how familiar you are with how admins work, but they have no problem at all with disagreeing if they think a block wasn't justified. And yet you appear to expect Jimbo to disagree with all six of administrators and support your continued misbehavior.

To answer your usual canned response ahead of time, no, you cannot keep me off your talk page while at the same time posting accusations against me on your talk page. Stop talking about me and I will have no reason to respond. Also, you are free to delete this, but doing so will be considered evidence that you have read it when this ends up at ANI or Arbcom. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Stay off my page. Asking why you weren't blocked is no reason to have you post on my page. You are stoking the flames and harassing me. What part of my comment was an accusation? You did attack me and I asked why you weren't blocked. Nothing there was attacking you or making accusation, so stay off my page. (For the record, I have emails from admins disagreeing with the block.) Bishonen can you please clarify if this behavior is allowed here? See Wikipedia:Harassment Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion

Sir Joseph has e-mailed me (and I would suppose Coffee and HIB too) with the same request for a block of Guy Macon for "the same thing I've done" as he has placed above. I told him the two cases were chalk and cheese. Sir Joseph, if you don't rethink your approach, it's my belief that you're headed for an indef. Here's a serious suggestion for what you might do before that happens: some admins are willing to place self-requested blocks. You could do worse than to apply for such a block, to help you disengage from Wikipedia, do other things for a month or two, and then come back refreshed. Bishonen | talk 16:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC).

For what it is worth I didn't get an e-mail. Sir Joseph we block for preventative reasons. Since Macon has recognized their personal attack and apologized for it there is no reason for a block. As for also requesting evidence about something, that is not why you were blocked nor will we block them for that. I really suggest you just wait out the block and quietly begin avoiding the people, subjects, and situations that resulted in this block. A great start would be to stop worrying about Macon getting blocked. HighInBC 16:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that if I comment on this, I'm going to be told I'm not dropping the stick, when all I want to do is point out some issues. 1) I was blocked after I posted a message on the HC and Biden talk page asking for notability for religion. 2) I was blocked a while ago for a personal attack against Bishonen where I can probably guarantee she couldn't care less about it. For "1" I was participating on the talk page of Milgram and should not be a cause for a block. I didn't edit the page while discussing and was pointing out the difference and why I thought I was correct. For the record, I have received emails from a few editors basically saying they agree with me, including a few admins as well who did not agree with my block. Lastly, it is Guy Macon who is following me. I don't have him or his talk page on my watchlist and if you go to Coffee's page, you'll see where TParis came to the same conclusion, GM was supposed to take me off his watchlist, yet right after I edit Milgram, he shows up. My block is only for another two days so I don't care about that but I do care about double standards. Guy edits as though Wiki is his and not everyone's and that should not be allowed. He should stop following me, take me off his watchlist as he was supposed to do. It's a very bad environment where every edit I do is hounded by him. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC) (I didn't necessarily mean about the NPA, but his pasting his question on a bunch of politicians, that seems to me the same thing I did.)

Bishonen, can you please warn/block Chesdovi. I have asked him repeatedly to stop posting on my talk page and I keep reverting him. I do not want to deal with him. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Bishonen: Sir Joseph emailed me as well asking if I would block Guy Macon for this edit (which is clearly a non-disruptive comment and does not compare to Sir Joseph's behavior). I did not reply offline as I want this on the record. - To me this is just further evidence that either Sir Joseph lacks the competency to understand how he's violating policy or is simply refusing to open his ears. Either way, I see no indication he intends to end/improve his disruptive behavior after the block expires. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Not to continue this but my comment on the HC page was almost exactly the same as Guy's comment. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Your comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton [11] was a cut-and-paste copy of my comment on Talk:Richard Nixon [12] The problem is that I was actually looking for a citation while in the subsequent discussion you made it abundantly clear that you don't give a fig about whether the Cinton infobox is properly sourced but instead want to continue your ongoing disruptive behavior at the Stanley Milgram page on the far-more visible Hillary Clinton page. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, what part of stay off my page don't you get? I wasn't talking to you. You are not to watch my page. User:Coffee/User:Bishonen/User:HighInBC please ask him yet again to cease following me and commenting on my page, especially when I wasn't directing any question to him. This is most certainly harassment and not dropping sticks. I don't see a need for him to keep hounding me, please do something about it. See Wikipedia:Harassment , I have asked him many times to stop posting and following me yet he refuses. I consider this bullying behavior and needs to stop. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Request denied. You are not allowed to accuse someone of misbehavior and call for them to be blocked and then demand that they not be allowed to respond. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

STOP HARASSING ME. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for Help

Sir Joseph, if in my early history I edited a section that was later deemed to be forbidden because of 500/30, and a page that I created or edits that I made were deleted, would my Contributions History also be deleted, or will that remain? In other words, should my entire editing history appear regardless of what transpires with those edits? Also, may I edit in Israel's history if it does not have to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict before I complete the 500/30? Thank you. ～～～～ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwillkane (talk • contribs) 00:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

If your edits are reverted, they still show up in the history, for what it's worth. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Please deal with Guy Macon

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I have posted many times to have Guy Macon stop posting on my page. He continues to post and claims that if I post about him, he's allowed to post on my page. Yet he continues to post even when it doesn't concern him. He is not supposed to have my page on his watchlist and I have told him many times to stop commenting. I feel this is harassment and intimidation and I feel bullied. I don't want a block or anything but please do something. Either warn him or let him know he's not an admin and I don't need to be policed by him. I feel extremely intimidated and bullied now. Can you also protect my talk page for 12 hours so nobody can edit it? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, you keep mentioning User:Guy Macon. Nevertheless, Guy, while I don't think you're violating any actual rules, you need to consider that Sir Joseph is confined to this page — not for much longer now, but right now he is. Hmm, protect this page? Why not, since SJ requests it. Page fully protected for 12 hours. Now only admins can edit it, and they'll have little reason to. Bishonen | talk 21:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC).

Thank you. I am hoping to put all this behind me. That is why I don't want to deal with anyone or anything in that topic. That is why I agreed to the unofficial IBAN. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)