Jump to content

User talk:Sir Joseph/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 13

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

itn request

Im on a mobile right now, can you copy+paste my self revert comment back on to the page please? Thanks

Draft:Francisco_Reynés

Hi Sir Joseph, nice to meet you. I'm a "newcomer", and today I have created my first article, but it seems that it isn't accurate... I have checked and I have noticed that there are Spanish business executives that have an English article in Wikipedia (Ana Patricia Botín, José María Álvarez-Pallete, Borja Prado, etc...), and recently, Gas Natural Fenosa has appointed Francisco Reynés as the new Executive Chaiman so I think this could be significant and must be included in Wikipedia. Could you please help? Thank you in advance! --ImTheSpaceman (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImTheSpaceman (talk • contribs) 19:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

Hello Sir Joseph, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Notability
General notability guideline
Subject-specific guidelines
See also

ACTRIAL:

  • WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

  • Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

  • A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

  • There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing – new policy

  • Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

  • The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

  • Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
  • The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

United States recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel: Difference between revisions

Could you please restore the large amount of sourced content you just removed from the lede of the article without explanation? - none of it has anything to do with Erdogan and boycotts Seraphim System (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Done. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Brian Martin (social scientist)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Brian Martin (social scientist). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jabel Mukaber

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jabel Mukaber. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforceability of logged voluntary editing restrictions

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforceability of logged voluntary editing restrictions. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Sir Joseph, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

  • As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
  • Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar. Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: 100 review coin, 250 review coin, 500 review coin, 1000 review certificate.
  • Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:D. H. Lawrence

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:D. H. Lawrence. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Rosa parks middle name is Louise not Lee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalove23456 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Upper Kotmale Dam

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Upper Kotmale Dam. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Meaningful vote

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Meaningful vote. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

No words

I have no words other than I'm incredibly sorry. This has to be so deeply upsetting to you. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

It is deeply upsetting and more troubling as well. I am thinking of taking a Wikibreak because I know some admins will block me if I share my opinion. I will just echo Melanie and say "Shame on you" to those who don't see those comments as bad. Regardless of who said it or who implied it, those comments have no place on Wikipedia. I've been taught here that bringing a good faith report on possible antisemitism will not be tolerated and I will be sanctioned for it. I guess I need to know my place. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
It's warm. It's gooey. It's chocolatey. It's just what you need. – Lionel(talk) 03:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Francisco Reynés

Hi Sir Joseph! Some days ago, you declined this draft. I've been working on it... Could you review it? This businessman is important because he is Chairman and CEO of one of the top 2,000 public companies in the world by Forbes (#287), and the references show the subject's notability. Thank you!--ImTheSpaceman (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Richard B. Spencer

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Richard B. Spencer. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Adolf Hitler

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Adolf Hitler. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Marketing of electronic cigarettes

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Marketing of electronic cigarettes. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cranial electrotherapy stimulation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cranial electrotherapy stimulation. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Jewish religious terrorism

Hi. I think this could be relevant to you.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

Hey, Sir Joseph. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Steve Down

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Steve Down. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Bot request

I tried to fix a header in your recent bot request, but was reverted. I don't do thinkgs twice, - can you fix it, also in the table? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I fixed the spelling error but I think the table is generated automatically. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)

Hello Sir Joseph, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules
  • New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
  • Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
  • Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.
Editathons
  • Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.
The Signpost
  • The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Corbyn

Don't put this section back again [1] with those "sources". You'll be blocked for edit-warring to violate BLP if you do. Black Kite (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

the blog is a blog of the cst not a random unsourced blog, and why would the jc not be a valid source? Sir Joseph (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Erm, because they're sourcing "In 2010 Jeremy Corbyn was directly accused of enabling antisemitism." Where is that mentioned in any of those sources? Straightforward BLP violation. And if you try to twist those sources to mention that Corbyn was present at certain events where other people said certain things, you're going to get the same response. Simply, don't do it. Black Kite (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm asking about your edit summary where I read it as thejc not being a RS, regardless of what they post, not about this specific edit. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not saying thejc isn't a reliable source in general, I'm saying that particular link didn't source the attack on Corbyn - which it didn't. If I was unclear, I apologise. But you're an experienced enough editor that I think you understood what I meant. Black Kite (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Also, I've changed your edit on Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. The word "leading" even if sourced is still clearly POV, "most prominent" is WEASEL adds nothing as all three newspapers are mentioned. 00:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I put it back. Is not weasly to report what rs says and it adds greatly to the article, it's not just three papers, it's the three most prominent. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mohammad bin Salman

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mohammad bin Salman. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ernest Shackleton

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ernest Shackleton. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Novum Organum

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Novum Organum. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:RF resonant cavity thruster

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:RF resonant cavity thruster. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Fiscal blockade and economic sanctions on Gaza

Hi Sir Joseph, I noticed that you reverted my edits about the "fiscal blockade" of Gaza on the Economy of the State of Palestine and Blockade of the Gaza Strip pages (here and here) because they are WP:UNDUE and not in the scope of the article, respectively. That seems reasonable to me, my only question is where should we put information about the fiscal blockade of Gaza and the economic sanctions imposed on actors within Gaza (e.g. these 2015 U.S. sanctions, these 2018 Israeli sanctions, and these 2017 PA sanctions)? I see a page for the 2006–07 economic sanctions against the Palestinian National Authority and mentions of specific sanctions in other articles; is there a page for sanctions since 2011 or the fiscal blockade that I haven't found? Otherwise it seems like both would be best described as part of the blockade of Gaza. Thanks, --Chumash11 (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I am not sure how to answer. One issue is that in certain areas, while non-English sources are allowed, it's best to use English so that we can validate the source and claim. For this entry, I would suggest posting on the talk page a suggested edit and others can chime in and see if there are better sources or if the claim is RS and notable for inclusion. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Immigration and crime

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Immigration and crime. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Keith Ellison

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Keith Ellison. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018

Hello Sir Joseph, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.

Project news
As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.
Other
Moving to Draft and Page Mover
  • Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
  • If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
  • Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
  • The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
  • The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.
List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing

  • Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget.
  • In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions.
  • MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues.
  • User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page)
  • User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50).
  • User:Primefac/revdel.js(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you.
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link.
  • User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion.
  • User:Evad37/rater.js(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:RAS syndrome

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:RAS syndrome. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

ARCA closed

Hi Sir Joseph, the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration amendment request has been closed. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:RAS syndrome

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:RAS syndrome. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Joey Gibson (political activist)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Joey Gibson (political activist). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United Daughters of the Confederacy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United Daughters of the Confederacy. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Suicide

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Suicide. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Foursquare

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Foursquare. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ron DeSantis

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ron DeSantis. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Interface administrators

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Interface administrators. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.

Commented on his error talk page. חג שמח. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Same to you, I figured it was easier to indulge than to comment. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
In the short run, true. I think the "cite" param on the template may allow the Hebcal citation to be brought into the other footnote. But I can't really test that from my iPad (so easily), and probably won't bother until after Yom Tov. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, much easier to provide verifiable reliable sources than waste time and delude everyone that linking our readers (that's READERS, not editors) to two Wikipedia templates is sufficient. Heads up, I'll be noting each and every one of these issues as they arise, so unless you come up with a better solution, then this will be a recurring theme for you to complain about me complaining about. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you not in Breach of the 1RR rule on that page, even if you considered my edit was in error. ~ BOD ~ TALK 16:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

  • We do, but before the RfC was opened, it does look like there was something of a consensus to include it, (section above the RfC), so I'm not going to touch that (it would make me involved anyway). Black Kite (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Szlachta

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Szlachta. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Norsemen

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Norsemen. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sugar

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sugar. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:H-1B visa

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:H-1B visa. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Sir Joseph, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal
Project updates
  • ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
  • There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.
New scripts

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Help talk:IPA/Italian

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Help talk:IPA/Italian. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

613 commandments

Please be aware that I reported SheriffIsInTown at this WP:ANI section. Debresser (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Collaboration on Talmudic tractate articles

I have noticed that many of the articles on individual tractates in the Talmud are sorely in need of expansion and improvement. Examples of these poor articles include Gittin (tractate), Ketubot (tractate), and Makkot to name just a few. If you are willing to collaborate with me to help improve them, please let me know. Also, I kindly request that you bring this to the attention of other members of WikiProject Judaism, and WikiProject Books. Thank you - Alternate Side Parking (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Leo Tolstoy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Leo Tolstoy. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Sir Joseph,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW
  • Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.
If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.
We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.
With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Sir Joseph. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jackie Walker (activist)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jackie Walker (activist). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Michael Fassbender

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Michael Fassbender. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018

Hello Sir Joseph,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.


Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.


Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Notice

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/GiantSnowman. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 31, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 21:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi

You and I were both involved in a Talk Page conversation on the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez page. At times I share your despondence at Wikipedia ever being anything better than Liberalipedia. Other times I get a glimmer of hope. As of this writing, the AOC page looks vastly improved, largely as a result of the editing of someone who uses the handle "Drmies". He cut the article way down to size, removing, for example, the entire paragraph about the president of J Street congratulating AOC for being the greatest person who ever lived. Personally speaking, I am far less concerned about the omissions of AOC's numerous gaffes as long as the rest of the article does not prop her up to be Mother freaking Theresa. Take a look - I think you'll agree that the article looks much better now. Vcuttolo (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Reversion

The content you just removed has been in the article for at least ten years, unchallenged. Surely the status quo / stable version should be the one that is displayed while discussions are ongoing? I'm obviously not going to revert you, but given I've just been brought to a drama board for making the mirror image of your edit I think it's a bit risky for you to jump in and just delete the disputed content. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Elizabeth Warren

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Elizabeth Warren. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Amos Oz

On 30 December 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Amos Oz, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Request

I respectfully ask that you avoid commenting on my talk page in the future, aside from posting obvious alerts. Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Reverted edits on Israel Defense Forces

I understand that this is an extremely sensitive topic, however with that in mind, I tried my best to keep my edits as objective as possible. I would greatly appreciate if you could explain why my edits were reverted. Thanks. - Puzzledvegetable (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, they were unnecessary. For example, your edit that "The IDF "stated" mission" is not needed. The ref says what the IDF's mission is. Do we have other armies in the world we say that the mission is stated? That would be undue. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I’m not denying what the reference says. However, this reference comes from the IDF itself, which no matter how objective they may try to be, may unintentionally fall victim to bias. This is not a criticism, it simply reflects reality. There is nothing unnecessary about adding the word stated. It simply reflects the potential bias from IDF sources. Additionally, the other edit I made changed The IDF possesses top-of-the-line weapons and computer systems to The IDF possesses various foreign and domestically produced weapons and computer systems. “Top-of-the-line” is a very subjective phrase, that doesn’t really belong in an encyclopedic article. Therefore, I still believe my edits are appropriate and should be left on the article. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Ilhan Omar

Information icon Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Ilhan Omar. The material in this edit is not supported by the text or the sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Are you not looking at the sources? She is being called out for her antisemitic tweets and her antisemitism. Here's one for example, [2]. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
That source is not used anywhere in the article. Until there's consensus to use it, it's inappropriate to say Omar was accused of anti-Semitism. Furthermore, the source provided in this edit does not say that Omar "declined to address" anything. If you keep adding unsourced, contentious material to BLPs like this, you are liable to be blocked from editing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Content removal in Kashrut

Your removal of content here with an edit summary saying "removing tobacco, has nothing to do with kashrut, or dietary laws, cannabis has, since marijuana is oftentimes ingested via mouth, but tobacco is not, and the laws of tobcco focus more on health, not dietary" caught my eye.Your summary there appears to be arguing from your own knowledge/belief, with no reliance on a supporting reliable source. In fact, the source cited in support of the removed content, also removed, does support the removed content. The link in the cite isn't very useful, though; it doesn't point to the cited article, and a subscription would be needed to view that article there (but look here).

I'm not Jewish and don't smoke either tobacco or marijuana, so I don't have any axe to grind here. I have not reverted your removal -- just commenting in passing. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rihanna

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rihanna. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Christopher Nolan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christopher Nolan. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Email

Thank you for your email. If that was an attempt to get me to stop editing Israel Defense Forces, it is being duly noted and ignored. If it is a threat of sorts, I will not hesitate to report this to the Arbitration Committee if I feel it necessary. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't a threat or anything, just something for you to keep in mind. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
It has been suggested that I request arbitration but I am beginning to believe that your email was sent out in poor taste without much intent for malice. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Puzzledvegetable (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

1RR

Did you notice that the page was under 1RR restriction? This is your first revert of this edit to an older version that existed on the page before, and that is your 2nd revert. Please self-revert. My very best wishes (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

That first edit is not a revert, it is an edit. The second edit is a revert, because it reverts what was previously there. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
For more information, see here: Wikipedia:Reverting#What_is_a_reversion? specifically "You re-phrase the wording in the first paragraph of an existing article." which is "A normal change, not a reversion." Sir Joseph (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@Sir Joseph: MVBW is correct. The word "antisemitic" was removed here. You replaced the revised wording with "Allegations of antisemitism" here and again here. The only difference is the word ending; the meaning is largely the same. Please self-revert. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC) (edited 21:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC))

AE

WP:AE#Sir Joseph nableezy - 17:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Please dont modify your comment after it has been responded to. nableezy - 17:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I didn't. You really are bad with looking at timestamps. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
You right, sorry. nableezy - 17:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

To enforce an arbitration decision and for 1RR violation on the page Ilhan Omar, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 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. GoldenRing (talk) 09:04, 22 February 2019 (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."

Really? 72 hours for a not so obvious 1rr violation? You must be thrilled. Your block seems to violate blocking guidelines. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing:, if you look at the AE action that you blocked me for, the AE action was defective, besides that 72 hours is too long. Nableezy just posted that there is an edit notice, however the rules state that you must provide notice that the area is under DS. He failed to do so. As per:

"Awareness aware.aware Amended on 15 January 2018 No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if:

They were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision; or They have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed); or In the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement; or

In the last twelve months, the editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict. There are additional requirements in place when sanctioning editors for breaching page restrictions."

Therefore, the block itself seems to be defective. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

You were notified of ARBAP2 on 5 July 2018, less than 12 months. That satisfies the user is aware of discretionary sanctions requirement. Ill copy whatever appeal you'd like copied, but you may want a new argument. nableezy - 19:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
That wasn't in the AE, therefore the AE is not valid. You as AE filer are responsible for filing it correctly. Failure to do so is grounds for having the AE request dismissed, as it should have been. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
lol, k. You want me to copy this then? Do you at least want to format it with the AE appeal template? nableezy - 19:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
No, does it look like an unblock request to you? I pinged GoldenRing, I'll wait for his ADMINACCT response. Regardless, I think 72 hours is far too long a block for this and it should be shortened. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Just trying to help you get more eyes on it, but ok, whatever floats your boat. nableezy - 19:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
SJ - I agree that the AE filing itself contained a misrepresentation in that it claimed AP2 awareness while linking to a 1RR edit notice that does not establish such an awareness. I would suggest waiting for GR's response. If you require help copying things over - ping me.Icewhiz (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I will wait for GoldenRing's response, but in AE, this is one area where sticking to legalities is supposed to be paramount. I am not sure why I missed it, but the AE request was faulty from the outset and should have been tossed from the get-go. Thanks for your offer of help. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm thinking of filing the appeal now, and if GR wants to reduce the time in the meanwhile he can do so, since 72 hours is anyway too large a block and violates blocking rules since the block is punitive not preventative as was pointed out to him in the AE admin section. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

In reply to your e-mail, please follow the appeals procedure if you think your block was mistaken. Sandstein 20:12, 22 February 2019 (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:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Sir Joseph

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user
Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Sir Joseph (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed
72 Hour Block for 1rr Violation
 [3]
Administrator imposing the sanction
GoldenRing (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator
The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Sir Joseph

I am requesting an appeal (I do have other reason, but I am requesting mainly on legal reasons, since this is AE and AE is supposed to be 100% legal)
I did not realize this at first, but the AE request itself was invalid and should have been dismissed.
This is the AE action brought against me, [4].
However, if you look at the section "If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness_and_alerts)"
Note the text Supply evidence that the user is aware of them, Nableezy only showed that there was an edit notice in place. If you go to Wikipedia:AC/DS#Awareness_and_alerts you will see that while there are ADDITIONAL requirements for page restrictions, there are requirements for alerting that Nableezy did not do or highlight which makes this AE action invalid.
This is from: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Awareness No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if:

  1. They were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision; or
  2. They have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed); or
  3. In the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or
  4. In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement; or
  5. In the last twelve months, the editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict.

There are additional requirements in place when sanctioning editors for breaching page restrictions. Therefore for the above reasons, I humbly submit my appeal, mainly on this specific issue. The only other issue I will bring up is that at the point of the block, the block was punitive, not preventative, and while an admin can take unilateral action and block, at the specific point in time, the edit was well over a day old and some admins were not in favor of a block and I think that even if a block was placed, a 72 hour block was far too long for a block.

Statement by GoldenRing

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Sir Joseph

Result of the appeal by Sir Joseph

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Decline reason:

The AE appeal has been declined. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2019 (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.

Unblock discussion continued

  • That's not the issue, the issue is that under AE and ARBCOM guidelines, Nableezy did not SUPPLY EVIDENCE to that. Therefore the AE filing was not complete and should have been tossed. Also, I am appealing the length of the block as too long and that the block is punitive not preventative. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Also if, IF you had raised the issue before the close of the AE report, then it would have taken any one of us about half a minute to find that you had participated in several AE reports regarding I/P matter these last 12 months. Huldra (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Dlohcierekim: Why did you say that I provided no diffs in my thread about about VM? I clearly posted the 4diffs he used against me. Also, you guys are missing that I am also mentioning that the 72 hours is far too long for the block, not sure why you call it minimal. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

An arbitration block does not require even an AE thread. A block for violating a page level sanction requires that you be aware of the discretionary sanctions for the topic area and an edit notice. You were notified of the discretionary sanctions, and you have opened other arbitration requests in the last twelve months. Finally, I really question how you think it wise to attempt to wikilawyer in the unblock request of a block that resulted from a thread where admins specifically said you were wikilawyering. You think that the request should have been tossed because I did not include this link? Then I could have just made a new request with that link, now couldnt I have? This is game playing. You could have avoided this entirely by self-reverting. And even now, when all it would take for you to be unblocked would be an acknowledgement that your first edit was a revert and anything approaching a sincere promise to attempt to abide by the sanctions in the future, you decide you would rather go the wikilawyering route. You can get unblocked in two seconds, just say oops I messed up and I am sorry. But no. nableezy - 23:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I copied your appeal though. nableezy - 23:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Besides the notice, I am also asking about the 72 hours. Why are people skipping over that? Also, I think @Bishonen: can't edit in the uninvolved section, since she opined in the original request. I think that's how it works. I am not sure. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
That is not how it works. Admins dont become involved because of administrative actions. But, and Im putting this mildly, the wikilawyering is so obvious that anybody who reads through your appeal is going to skip past your questioning the 72 hours. Hell, one admin said it makes them want to extend it. Im being honest with you here, I dont actually care if youre blocked or not. All you had to do is say you know understand the first edit was a revert. nableezy - 01:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement block extension

Per the discussion at AE, your appeal is declined and your block extended to one week in duration. Sandstein 07:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Week break

Hope to see you back refreshed and well rested from this one week vacation. Find something more enjoyable in the interim than this nuthouse offers.--MONGO (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I am thinking of just leaving this place. What I find infuriating is that people throw out the term wikilawyering like it's candy. It's my job as someone appealing a block to appeal a block. And AE is a legal venue, and it's ironic that Sandstein of all admins didn't get that since he's the one who usually declines AE actions for nitpicking reasons. I've been involved in real lawsuit in real life and I'm following a real lawsuit in real life and nitpicking a "did not supply evidence" is a valid reason for dismissal. I could have gone with other reasons, but those are subjective reasons that I chose not to, as is my legal strategic right. Further, an appeal is usually stayed open for more than a few hours, and appealing, even if it is wikilawyering is not justification for extending a blocking under AE sanctions, which Sandstein had no jurisdiction to do, and just adds to the toxic environment of Wikipedia. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and AE is not a legal venue. Bishonen | talk 00:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC).
And under DS, yes he can. DlohCierekim (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Really? For filing an appeal? This is ludicrous. You know very well when I say AE is a legal venue that it's bound by ARBCOM guidelines and not the ANI/AN lunacy. And extending my block was uncalled for and petty and vindictive.Sir Joseph (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I do know very well when you say AE is a legal venue, you don't mean that it's bound by the law of the land (any land), but that it's bound by our own rules to follow ArbCom guidelines strictly and to the letter. If you had followed my Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy link and read it in good faith, you'd know you're wrong about that. Bishonen | talk 01:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC).
I filed my appeal in good faith, and I think that blocking someone for filing an appeal is a very bad thing to do. I was not trying to be disruptive and I think it sends a bad message to people. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
This is some of the worst wiki-lawyering I've seen on the project. Per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, trying to appeal on a technicality will always go badly. However, you're not even right on the merits. Per WP:AC/DS: Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place: revert and move restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, or other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. It doesn't matter whether the link was in the AE thread or not. While admins are encouraged to discuss the matter (and they did), there's no need for an AE thread at all. There is no dispute that you were aware of the discretionary sanctions. Appeals such as the one you made waste everyone's valuable time, and there is a benefit to the project in discouraging them. You might have had a point with a 24-hour v. 72-hour block, but at this point, nobody is going to bother to listen. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I guess reading all the love notes above inclines me to believe that the chances you'll be able to make any error in the future, even of the smallest slight, will lead to vilification and further sanctions. Its not fair you'll have to operate at a level well above everyone else but thems the potatoes. Of course falling off their radar will surely help get them off your back but youll have to avoid topics similar to the ones you have been editing.--MONGO (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Lets get hammered with rectified spirits!

Wikipedia sucks, I wanted to send you Rectified spirits (great stuff, aaying words of wisdom in turn after you've downed a few shots... great fun) - but all they had in the template was a beer. Actually, here:
Icewhiz (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

When bad things happen to good people, offer them a cup of tea. Asking you please, please not to abandon Wikipedia. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to all, and totally unrelated to everything, I'm reading the drama board and reading the talk pages of one of the people involved, and found this quote by one of the editors on that page in one of the past discussions,

"I think the Holocaust deaths may have very well been exaggerated by some. And, I’m not interested in excluding deaths that were clearly aggravated by forced labor, lack of medical care, and starvation, or even relocation. (I hear Trump claiming that Puerto Rican deaths after the hurricane was over somehow don’t count.) But, it’s still in the millions. Does it make it OK if it was 75% as many? Just say “substantially fewer deaths”."

I just find that very insightful. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I think this might be the last comment on my block, but I think it's very insightful in the mindset of admins and the atmosphere here. I emailed Sandstein a week ago when I was blocked and basically told him why I think I should be unblocked, since I thought the AE block was defective, and he is a very big stickler for the rules. He then posted on my talkpage, basically saying that he saw my email and if I want to file an AE appeal, I can do so at AE. I did so and he then blocked me for a week. Now that I'm thinking about it for a few days, I find this troubling. He couldn't be bothered to put in a few extra words to say, "but don't do it, because I'll block you, or don't do it because the appeal won't work, or don't do it but try a different reason for an appeal." To me, it is sort of entrapment, but also just not courteous and nice. He tells me to go to AN knowing full and well what I will say at AE because I told him, and then he blocks me for it. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Hang in there, and please do come back with a smile. It seems to me that the definition of "content dispute" on Wikipedia has grown to encompass things that are beyond dispute - but perhaps I'll be proven wrong. Icewhiz (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sir_Joseph/Archive_9&oldid=1079461026"