User talk:Sir Joseph: Difference between revisions

The below quote is from someone else: Anyone who complains of anti-Semitism, while silently ignoring the massive daily evidence of the humiliations, harassment and violence dealt out on a systematic basis in Gaza and the West Bank, is ranting hollowly to my ear.

Notice of ANI closure

Per this closure at ANI, you are topic-banned from the holocaust and from anti-Semitism, both broadly construed. This includes discussing the Holocaust and/or anti-Semitism as it pertains to other editors. Primefac (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Primefac, Can I ask you a question on your close and the ANI or will you block me? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:BANEX allows for asking clarifying questions. Primefac (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Primefac, firstly, your closing statement, at least to me, reads like you took TB and the support voters at face value ; "There were three main proposals made regarding Sir Joseph's behaviours" that is how I read it. Also, it's quite clear that most of the "support" voters were either "as pers" or did not read any of my statements or TB's DIFFS that show that there was no action necessary. As @Levivich:pointed out, based on lack of evidence of any problem regarding the Holocaust since the warning a month ago, before this spurious ANI report was filed (i.e., between Aug 18 and Sep 19, inclusive). To the extent there is a problem "in this thread", it was caused by the filing of this thread. No thread, no problem. I'm not down with sanctioning people for responding poorly to poor noticeboard reports. everyone else was misquoting and misusing the O3000 situation. So, I am asking you as the closing admin, because nobody in that thread, including admins, provided me with DIFFS of ongoing behavior that justify a TBAN, where are the DIFFS that justified the close? I've been told that "You've been given evidence, multiple times." But not once was I provided DIFFS of ongoing and NEW behavior that justified a TBAN.

Simonm223 for example says in his support statement that the O3000 that kicked off this mess.... but the O3000 dispute was a month and a half ago and was closed and clarified and I didn't have any posts or interaction with O3000 until TonyBallioni opened this ANI. As Levivich mentioned in his oppose, "No thread, no problem." The community got this one majorly wrong and you closed it for them. But you have a responsibility as the closer to show proof for your close, so as the admin, I am asking you to provide proof for the reasoning behind the TBAN.

Thank you. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The only way that your false accusations against me were "closed" was the four admins that criticized you, one admin that was criticized for not sanctioning you, and Bish finally stating that no one with any sense thinks I am a holocaust denier. Drop this crap and never mention me again. I could have brought up the timeline that shows, without question, that attaching me to a holocaust denial link was pure retribution for a completely irrelevant content dispute minutes before. I haven't done this as yet -- but the record remains. Please don't ever mention me, or holocaust denial, or Antisemitism again. O3000 (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

There you go again with your false accusations. I asked you to stay off my talk page. Not once did I accuse you of anything. You quoted something a month and a half ago. That issue was resolved. But the quote itself was bad. That is not up for dispute. That people think I said you said something is their reading comprehension issue. Not once in that ANI did I ever say anything negative about you. That is why I repeatedly asked for a DIFF and I am asking Primefac for a DIFF. And I am telling you again to stay off my talk page. I have the right to question and clarify my BAN and I choose to do so. You can take my page off your watchlist. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I have a right to respond to a post that uses my username three times. You don't like, it, stop using my username. O3000 (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

There were three proposals - two different tban options, and a site ban proposal. So yes, you read that entirely correctly.

Two of the examples provided by Tony (archived here) included posts from the same day that he filed at ANI. I do not believe (nor do I suspect the participants believed) that Tony filed at ANI solely due to the O3000 incident - as you say it was in the past, but it does support his case that this is an ongoing occurrence as opposed to a one-off issue.

As far as the close itself goes, I weighed the input of the participants and found that the consensus was with the TBAN posted here. If, as you say, the community "got it wrong," I do not see evidence of that, and you are welcome to contest the deletion at the appropriate venue. Primefac (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Primefac, you still haven't provided a diff. You said I posted on "the same day" but that's on Sandstein's talk page that he's trigger happy. Where's the "ongoing occurrence" as you say? And again, those examples from Tony are distorted quotes from me, something he accused me of doing. Also, Holocaust is usually capitalized. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

It's still the same day, regardless of where it was posted. The job of the closer is to read through the discussion interpret the will of the community; there were compelling arguments made on both sides but ultimately the decision ended up with those in favour of a restriction being placed.

Thank you for the note, though, I've updated the logs to have a capital H. Primefac (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Primefac, I understand that, but my comment about Sandstein was that he closes AE without admin input, certainly that is not an actionable event. I'm still waiting for DIFFS to disruptive edits to the mainspace that warrant a TBAN. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

TBANs don't have to be only predicated on mainspace disruptions. Primefac (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Primefac, I know, but they need to be predicated on some sort of disruption, and telling Sandstein that he closes AE actions without input from other admins is not a disruption and it most certainly doesn't have anything to do with the Holocaust or antisemitism. I will eagerly await the evidence of disruption via DIFFS. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

We're going around in circles, to the point where further conversation seems fruitless. If you wish to contest the topic ban, please make a post at WP:AN. Primefac (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Primefac, OK, but if you ever want to provide actual evidence via a DIFF, I'll be here. In the meanwhile, the evidence is clear that the TBAN is 100% unjustified and you closed it as such. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

My userpage

Hey Joe, you made some edits on my user page, which seem like an error and a revert. I am on my phone so I can't quite see the changes. So I am just make sure everything's fine.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

No reference to Hendrix intended.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Bolter21, yes, a fat finger edit via mobile. When you edit on a mobile phone the page doesn't fully load and then it kind of does the edit that you pressed even though you didn't mean to, so I reverted once I noticed, it should have warned me, but I think it slipped through the cracks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for violating your topic ban on antisemitism and the Holocaust, per this thread at ANI. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Yunshui ^雲_水 11:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Yunshui: you wrote that I am blocked for multiple violations, please clarify that it is only one violation. People here will come back to this edit and use it in the future. Thank you. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Interaction ban

Per this ANI discussion, you are subject to a one-way interaction ban with User:TonyBallioni . You may not

• edit TonyBallioni 's user and user talk pages.
• reply to TonyBallioni in discussions.
• make reference to or comment on TonyBallioni anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly.
• undo TonyBallioni 's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means.
• use the thanks extension to respond to TonyBallioni 's edits.

You may appeal this ban in the usual manner. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Yunshui, I wish to make it a two way IBAN. How can I do that? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

My reading of the situation is as follows: The ANI thread showed consensus for a one-way IBAN. There was no consensus for a two-way IBAN. Requesting that TonyBallioni be subjected to an interaction ban would likely be regarded by the community as a violation of the third element of your ban, above. If at some point you successfully appealed this interaction ban, you would then be able to comment on TonyBallioni again, and could request a two-way interaction ban at AN. However, as thing stand, you may only comment on this ban at AN in order to appeal against it; requesting the implementation of sanctions against TonyBallioni would be a violation of this ban. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Yunshui, I think that is extremely unfair. Also, do you think it's fair that the anyone at ANI can just propose a sanction that goes against the usual course of escalating blocks? The first violation of a TBAN is not one month but because that is what one person proposed that is what passed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

My opinions on the fairness or otherwise of the discussion have no bearing on its conclusion; neither do yours, I'm afraid. There is no hard-and-fast rule on how long an initial TBAN block should be, and - as was pointed out in the discussion - you have been blocked several times previously for behaviour that was directly related to the topic ban. You may appeal this block in the usual way, although I would urge caution if you choose to do so - making an unblock request that relies on the argument that "it's not fair" is very unlikely to be successful, and may result in the revocation of your talkpage access for the duration of the block as well. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Yunshui, Just to note, I have been blocked only once, and that was by Coffee. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I was about to apologise and strike part of my above comment, assuming that I had perhaps misread the block log, but as far as I can tell you have been blocked multiple times for related behaviours (ARBPIA and topic ban violations). My use of the word "several" is therefore justified, IMHO, although it really doesn't matter - again, the block and its length were decided by community consensus, not by me, so what I think about your block log and history isn't relevant at all. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I count eight blocks, not counting extensions. Two of those were done by Coffee (like that invalidates them or something) and one was overturned on appeal. As far as I can tell from the block log, with one possible exception, they were all for ARBPIA-related reasons and at least two were for personal attacks related to ARBPIA. GoldenRing (talk) 08:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

GoldenRing, and what does ARBPIA have to do with my current TBAN? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 12:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Yunshui, again, how is a tban on x related to y? Are you saying that if you ever violated a tban, the next time you get a tban, in any topic then it's not a first time violation? Or are you just conflating these two topic areas? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 12:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I lack either the time or the level of interest required to dig through all of the diffs leading up to your previous blocks, but a cursory review of your blocks from 2016 onwards seems to show that accusations of antisemitism have factored into at least some of them. If you had previously been t-banned from, say, editing pages related to armadillos, quantum physics or the Dutch Royal family, then I suspect the community would not have factored previous blocks into their decision, but since so many of your previous blocks seem to relate directly to Israel, Jewish public figures, and attacks on other editors, it's hardly surprising that they would have been taken into account. Again, though, this is not my decision - you could convince me 100% that you were entirely innocent and that the block was unjustified, and I still wouldn't unblock you, because the block was imposed by the community. You can appeal it if you wish, or not, but appealing to me directly is going to fall on deaf ears. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Yunshui, so prior blocks related to Israel are now related to this TBAN, is what you're saying? Thanks for confirming the irony of what many others pointed out. No further need to continue this conversation. It's clear you are not getting it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Sir Joseph, just for clarification (as I explained in the ANI thread), I chose one month in my proposal because you have several previous blocks for disruptive behavior when you were upset about this particular topic - thus it seemed the correct escalation short of a site ban (which was the other proposal on the table at the time). We don't generally block a user for violating one guideline, then reset the "block counter" to zero when they violate a different guideline under closely related circumstances. To be frank with you, it's clear you need some time away from the project. Please, just step away for a bit. Clearly you're not happy here right now, and trying to fight this out won't help you to be happy. Please focus on the things in your life that make you happy, and then come back with a clear head when the block has expired, I really think you'll feel better in the long run. I wish you the best. Waggie (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Waggie, that is exactly the issue. I have one block in this TBAN scope. Issued by Coffee in 2016. That is it. The legal threat was reversed and it wasn't a legal threat at all, and all other blocks were not in this area at all. They were in general editing or in ARBPIA. Or are you saying that ARBPIA is the same as this topic? That is what befuddles me. I want people to appreciate the irony here. I'm OK with leaving this site for a month, I'm just upset over the toxicity of ANI and how I was railroaded, IMO. Also, please stay off my talk page. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the irony, personally, or that you were railroaded. You comment that only one block is in the TBAN scope, but I count at least two prior to the current block (early 2016 and early 2019). Thank you for taking my advice and taking time off. I will henceforth respect your wish to "stay off [your] talk page", I was just trying to help clarify for you, I'm sorry that it's not welcome. Best wishes, Waggie (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, this is exactly what we call Wikilawyering. This is not a bureaucracy. You have a long history of disruptive conduct resulting in blocks. That you would somehow think that you can dictate which of that history the community is allowed to consider when sanctioning you is strange, to say the least. The fact that you think you can rail against the community and continue wasting editors' time, attacking people as "toxic", nitpicking details, demanding explanations and then banning people from your talk page when they provide them, is quite simply disruptive. The community has delivered a mandate for a one month block. You're arguing this block like it's just a routine technicality to enforce a TBAN. That's presumably why it doesn't make sense to you, but that's a problem. This isn't a routine technicality. It's a pretty severe preventative measure that we rarely see the community resort to. The community feels it needs to do this to protect the project from you. That should be a fairly loud and clear wake-up call that you actually need to make some serious changes, or you're going to end up site banned. What I'm seeing here is not you doing that, it's you continuing to cause disruption on this talk page, in direct violation of the community's intent to prevent that via a block. Your talk page access has been revoked, and your block length has been reset. I strongly encourage you to focus on what changes you need to make to avoid seeing a much longer block in the future. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia as a press source

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia as a press source. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)