User talk:Sir Joseph

I am: IN

This user previously used another account.

(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.)

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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia: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:[1] 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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)

Blocked

Edit warring to restore a topic ban vio when you are appealing the ban? Be serious. Antisemetic commentary nearly made it two weeks. You have been blocked before and know the drill. For the sake of clarity this is arbitration enforcement. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

huh? Could someone please explain why I was blocked? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

[2] and then not self-reverting following the explanation that talk pages are covered. nableezy - 22:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Bishonen already clarified that it was a misunderstanding. The ban said article not page at first, if spartaz would look at timestamps he'd see that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• SpartazPlease look at my page history where bishonen revered a comment about my talk page comments and supposed ban violations. You'll see the ban was modified by Coffee after my edits. Please unblock me.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
• I had already unblocked you when I edit conflicted with your message. I agree that the original restriction was defective and did not cover the talk page. Coffee That was pisspoor. Please note that should always refer to pages not articles as it is extremely rare that the real issue is not talk page behavior. I also consider myself trouted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

How is the edit claimed as the culprit above anti-semitic, anyway? LjL (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not, that was the supposed edit after a topic ban. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Is this a little off? Or am I reading too much into it? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&type=revision&diff=707673226? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your request that I stay off your talk page, request denied. I am not going to let you use this page as a place to attack me where I cannot respond. You have called me antisemetic. Please show, with diffs, which of my edits you are referring to, and exactly which words of mine that you claim are antisemitic. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

When did I call you antisemitic? Now get off my talk page, again. You don't like not being able to respond? How do I think I feel when you post your ramblings? You need to stop stalking me. That is your problem. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

As long as you talk about me here, I will reply here, so you might as well stop asking. You called my edits antisemitic here.[3]and Bishonen, one of our most respected admins, commented on it here.[4] --Guy Macon (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you not read? See what I wrote above. Last warning. I told you to stay off my talk page. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:USERTALK. You can't "ban" people from your talk page. We generally respect requests to stay off, when there is not a legitimate reason to come back. So, perhaps stop giving Guy Macon reasons to come back?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Spartaz Since you hatted some of the AE stuff, can you hat Guy Macon's list of diffs, since that is not part of the complaint since there was no violation of the block. I feel many people are reading His list of diffs and are thinking I violated the TBAN and that might be one reason why they are proposing a six month extension. Otherwise I have no other reason for it other than filing an AE appeal. Thanks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

You did vio the tban ("topic" still means topic, even though you got off on a technicality) and every time you mentioned Sanders and the Sanders article you continued to violate your topic ban. You seem reasonably intelligent, therefore, I find it dubious that you are still claiming to not understand what a tban really means. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

No, the ban notice on my page when it was first posted was defective. It was then modified. I've never been tban before and I read the notice. It specifically said article, and the notice said if it says article unless it says otherwise, it needs to say explicitly. Why do you think I was unblocked by Spartaz? Read above. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

You were unblocked because the blocking editor didn't pay attention to the chain of events and shouldn't have blocked you to begin with. It had nothing to do with what the admin imposing the tban did or didn't do. But, I have to say that while I generally will give editors benefit of the doubt (also known as AGF) when it comes to explanations, I don't believe your explanation that you didn't understand what a topic ban is and that it doesn't include the talk page. I don't believe you because you've been here a while and know how things work around here. I also don't believe you because, from the get-go, you have been looking for loopholes to get out of the tban and are blaming everyone and everything but yourself. In my extensive experience with human nature, people who do nothing for their defense other than look for loopholes and blame others are typically guilty. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

No, as I've said earlier, I've never been blocked before and the ban said article and I read the section and it said everything else must be said explicitly. And the whole point in blocking is to avoid disruption so why should it include a talk page and posting to the talk page is indeed what we want to encourage. So why should it be blocked? As for loopholes, you can disagree but if something is not illegal then it's legal. My defense was in my first paragraph. I satisfied to what I thought was the requirement for posting my edit why I felt my edit was not a violation and why I should not have been blocked. I certainly don't see a reason for a six month extension. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement word limit

Hi, Sir Joseph,
In the bright pink box at the top of the page you'll see Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. This word limit includes your responses to other editors and you've gone way, way over 500 words. Please adjust your statement and responses to meet this word limit in the next day. It's generally better for the author to edit their statement rather than have an arbitration clerk or admin do the editing for you. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

How am I to answer individuals if I have to keep to some limit when they can just continue and pile on? For some reason daring to appeal a block is now grounds for an extension and I don't think that's fair.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Liz I modified my section but I still don't know why they are talking about a six month ban. What did I do other than go to ae appeal? And also coffee is involved.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, I can't read the minds of other administrators but I'm guessing that some of them see disputes, identify an editor(s) they think is primarily responsible for the disruption and think if they remove him/her from the situation temporarily, the disruption will end. It's not the call I would make but I think I'm involved in this debate as I have expressed an opinion on how I think it should be resolved (accepting Sanders' self-identification that he is Jewish). I'm baffled why this has turned into such a big debate.

Thanks for modifying the length of your statement. Actually, appropriate word limits is a discussion that is currently being debated by the arbitrators but at this point, I think it's best to adhere to the guidelines. Any changes that might be made are at some point in the future and they might decide to stick with the guidelines as they are right now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Liz thank you for replying, firstly, Coffee posted in the uninvolved section if that means anything. So, what am I to do? Why should I be banned for six months? If you look at the ANI report Guy filed, others have pointed out a possible boomerang, or just pointed out his own actions, and I would ask to read the Encyclopedia Britannica free online for Sanders and see what it says, but again regardless, what policy did I violate to warrant an extension and if I do get a ban extension isn't that an overreach of admin powers? I'm just baffled and perplexed and perhaps that's why Malik said the things he said because quite frankly I'm at my wit's end at this point too. Coffee says I'm not dropping the stick, but that was yesterday at around 2 PM, even though yesterday at around 2 PM I wasn't technically banned from the talk page due to his faulty ban, All this was due to his faulty ban template. And editors here have to walk on eggshells around admins because they say the wrong thing some admins block them. But I don't deserve to be banned for six months, I didn't do anything to deserve it. If anything Guy should be blocked. Look at his edits. He makes up policy (not a .PDF file of unknown origin) and bullies other editors into following his way, he owns the page and doesn't let any other editors edit unless they follow his opinion. If people are worried about the reputation of Wikipedia, it's because of him, not because of Malik and myself. And you can still share that it would not be your call, that is allowed.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

If you think I have violated a Wikipedia policy or otherwise misbehaved, file a report at WP:ANI with your evidence, or stop posting accusations. I really don't want to have to go to ANI or AE again with you. Please stop this behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Planning to close your AE appeal

Please see see my proposed closure here. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The AE appeal is declined. Your one-week ban from the topic of Bernie Sanders on all pages of Wikipedia is still in force until 7 March. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

I'm hereby extending your current topic ban from Bernie Sanders and all related pages and discussions to six months, counting from 29 February. Your original one-week ban was for 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 extension is for that as well, plus for your battleground demeanour and repeated indications that you intend to continue the same behavior because you were right all along. That's why the ban needs to be longer. Note that you are not being "punished" for "daring to appeal" "like in Soviet Russia";[5] your repeating that over and over does not make it any truer. I have topic banned you to keep the topic of Bernie Sanders from disruption; not to punish you, and not because you appealed the original ban.

Note that the ban covers all discussion of Bernard Sanders and/or his Jewishness, on all pages. Please click on WP:TBAN and read what "topic banned" means. Feel free to appeal this ban, but it applies from now until it's lifted or expires. That means that in an appeal, in whatever forum, including my talkpage, you can freely discuss the reasons you were banned , but not go on and on about content, such as Bernie Sanders's Jewishness, because that is covered by the topic ban. You were banned for conduct, not for being either right or wrong about content, so continued arguing about it is irrelevant to the ban. Compare what you were told here by EdJohnston and Laser brain; I endorse everything they said there.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision. It has been recorded in the log of sanctions. 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. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | talk 09:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC).

Jimbo should have blocked you for longer. You are not an asset to this project.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

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.[6] 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.[7] 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:[8] 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.[9] --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)

Kendrick7

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

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