User talk:JoeJShmo

Hi JoeJShmo, I've closed the appeal you filed against your topic ban as declined as there was not a consensus to overturn it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright, you're just doing your job ;). By the way, where do I go to do a regular appeal of the ban when I feel that's appropriate?* JoeJShmo^💌 12:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was the right place to appeal it. The procedure and places to appeal are listed at Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Appeals and amendments. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to give you some tips (how not to get into trouble) but your email is disabled :( . Emdosis (talk) 01:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just enabled it but the 'email user' option isn't showing for me right now. Perhaps it takes some time to process. JoeJShmo^💌 02:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating your topic ban., you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week. 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. 

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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."

Kindly point me to the diffs in question. JoeJShmo^💌 09:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish I see you're referring to a certain comment I left on a user's talk page. That comment was in reference to arguments being made against users being banned largely based off vague references to their block log. The fact that the editor making the arguments had been dragged to AE in regards to PIA was completely irrelevant to the arguments he was making, and that I was agreeing to. I then made the point that the tactic he was arguing against is commonly used to against editors with a right-leaning POV. I was referencing such a POV generally, not specific to PIA. Please explain your reasons for characterizing this as a violation more clearly. Or perhaps you misread my intentions, in which case I welcome you to remove the block. JoeJShmo^💌 10:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This, this, and this are all violations that took place after you were warned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish I responded to the first diff above. And the last diff is laughable to interpret as falling under the topic ban. As for the second diff, I do see your point. But is one diff really enough for the one week site wide block? JoeJShmo^💌 19:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish You again fail to respond or explain yourself further short of providing diffs. You did this last time too, and it took being dragged to EA for you to further explain yourself. Please engage in discussion on talk pages. JoeJShmo^💌 23:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what more you want than diffs to clear violations of your topic ban. Yes, a single edit is enough, but you had multiple violations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a single edit is enough than the point is moot. However, for the record, the first diff did not fall under the topic ban as I explained above, and neither did the third diff, which is obvious. Discussing the oversized presence of a certain admin in the IA space of Wikipedia has nothing to do with the conflict itself. I will also note your message to the user there, in which you characterize a discussion of the potential of appealing a topic ban as falling under the topic ban. If you truly believe that, I'm afraid I have little chance of helping you see any error you may have made here. However, I'll leave this comment here for the record. JoeJShmo^💌 23:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments related to the topic area, not just the real world conflict but anything about the topic area itself, is covered. You can keep arguing this, but its going to end with either a WP:CIR or a WP:NOTHERE indef block. Or, and this is the wiser move, consider that people who have tens of thousands of edits have a better understanding of the rules here, and try to adapt to them. nableezy - 01:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi just saw your comment on the crypto request. I am actually EC (just subject to a topic ban in IA) and am fully able to edit in the crypto space. You've misread my intentions here, and I'd appreciate if you struck the end of that comment and clarified. I raised the request because I thought those sanctions may have been outdated. Thank you. JoeJShmo^💌 01:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so. Apologies for misreading, I thought E/C had been removed.

I still think you have your hands fun with difficult areas and jumping into another is not wise. Star Mississippi 02:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a prime example I advocated for reducing Joe's topic ban to a simple "indefinite until appealed" topic ban, rather than a topic ban until "re-extended-confirmed". It causes too much confusion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what's causing any confusion here; the provisions are clearly set forth in the topic ban notice above, the Arbitration noticeboard closure, and the AE log entry. Left guide (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, I'll take that point. Thanks for clearing this up! JoeJShmo^💌 04:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]