Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:35, 15 November 2015

I am:

This is Sir Joseph's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 7 days

(I'll write back on my talk page, unless specifically request otherwise. Thanks!)

Template:Archive box collapsible

Added request for undelete of this topic

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Eprovided.com. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Mediation

Case is accepted. Page can be found here

Hinder

   Buy the fucking record, and read the credits, cody hanson doesn't play the drums!!!!!!!

AFC Backlog

Articles for Creation urgently needs YOUR help! Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1774 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Misplaced Pages is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Are you autoconfirmed? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. PS: we have a great AFC helper script at User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js which helps in reviewing in just few edits easily! We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 2 or 3 reviews, it would be extremely beneficial. On behalf of the Articles for Creation project, TheSpecialUser

AFC Backlog Drive

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

20:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

18:05:38, 17 September 2015 review of submission by Nupur2000

• Nupur2000 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kiran Kamath (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nupur2000 (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC) Please help me out. what else I need to feed in this article ?

• • You need to put into the article something that asserts notability. Why should what you're writing be in an encyclopedia? You need to include significant coverage and references. Yossiea 18:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Coz he is a renowned DJ from India. and his contribution towards Indian bollywood music is immense . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nupur2000 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Dispute

Hello there! I don't think we've met, but I see you roam the 7th circle of AfC! I thought you might be interested in chiming in at this discussion, given your knowledge of Judaism. It'd be nice to see this resolved. Thank you for your input. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. I took a quick look. I try not to get involved in religious issues disputes, they tend to go in circles and I'm also not the most knowledgeable person out there. Yossiea 14:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Request on 06:22:56, 1 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Nittennair

• Nittennair (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:MuchTV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi I have editted the article multiple time and have provided references. Could you help me edit this article so that it can get approved?

Thank you.Nittennair (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Nittennair (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

08:05:06, 20 October 2015 review of submission by Kiffsy

• Kiffsy (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mike Conyers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Citation help

Hi there. I am trying to sumbit my first article and feel like a bit of a baffoon. Can you help direct me in regards to which sources need citations?

Article : Mike Conyers CEO of ResDiary

He is is a really interesting character and a titan of scottish industry, so I need to know how to get this up :-)

Thanks

Kiffsy (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not a real expert on citations, you might want to check out the teapost or whatever it's called. Basically, anything that you insert needs to be verifiable. So if you claim that Mike Conyers can do X, X needs to be referenced. You don't need a citation on every sentence but it needs to be verifiable, especially if it's a biography of a living person. Yossiea 13:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

17:35:19, 4 November 2015 review of submission by 193.4.74.32

• 193.4.74.32 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Iceland School of Energy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi. My article was declined as it was mentioned it was the same as another page. This is incorrect as REYST is another organization all together. I can't delete or redirect that page unless there is another page to redirect it to hence why I created a new page under the Iceland School of Energy title.

• OK, my mistake, so in that case, feel free to resubmit the AFC. Yossiea 19:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert - Arab–Israeli conflict

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.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)Template:Z33

Arbitration case request dismissed

Hi Yossiea, I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). You've recently filed a request for arbitration, but it's unclear what the dispute is, because you haven't given a statement. In addition, the dispute shown on the talk page seems to be very premature for arbitration. For those reasons, I am removing this request for arbitration as declined.

Arbitration on Misplaced Pages is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

Disputes among editors regarding the content of an article should use structured discussion on the talk page between the disputing editors. However, requests for comment, third opinions and other venues are available if discussion alone does not yield a consensus. The dispute resolution noticeboard exists as a first point of call for disputes that are not resolved by discussion, and the Mediation Committee provides formal mediation for advanced content disputes.

In all cases, you should review Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Misplaced Pages. The English Misplaced Pages community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact a member of the community if you have more questions. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 14:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

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 ] or ]. 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. Swarm ♠ 22:13, 11 November 2015 (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" ). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

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 or administrators' noticeboard. Because there was no personal attack. Yossiea 02:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I've extended the block to indefinite; you don't get to call other editors "terrorists", ever, period, end of discussion. --jpgordon 18:03, 12 November 2015 (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.

• Done at WP:AE. Swarm ♠ 05:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Have you read the talk page? It's full of bad faith, and furthermore, one of the editors is a supporter of hezbollah, look at his userpage. Why would I assume good faith for a terrorist supporter? Yossiea 05:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

It is unfair that I get blocked but others do not for also not assuming good faith. Yossiea 05:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

It is also unfair that I can't respond to the allegations. Yossiea 05:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I read both discussions and no, it's not full of bad faith. It's full of editors on both sides of the argument repeating the same thing multiple times, while making no effort to provide reliable sourcing or seek out dispute resolution, but I don't see any reason not to assume good faith. Nableezy appears to be a highly established editor in good standing and the fact that you perceive his personal viewpoints to be different from yours does not give you license to accuse him of bad motivations. The discussion is under discretionary sanctions and a higher level of decorum is expected. By accusing him of only caring about his personal bias, you have committed an assumption of bad faith, a personal attack, and have breached the expected standards of conduct. Swarm ♠ 05:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

1) Someone who has this on their page "This user supports the right of all individuals and groups to violently resist military aggression and occupation by other parties, but due to an alleged consensus he is disallowed from naming particular individuals or groups which certain administrators find to be unacceptable." is not someone Misplaced Pages should be touting as a model editor. 2) This by serialjospsych is not WP:AGF "The original research here is blatant. It's a waste of time for anyone to even respond. One editor's WP:IDHT, pushing for the acceptability of this but only if they can say Egypt is an occupier. They have multiple times been asked for a reliable source to justify it. Instead of doing so they move on continuing IDHT promoting original research. Another editor latches on to that original research. Another editor comes in with original research, ignores what they source used says and then reasons that the sources must be out of date because they don't line up with his original research. " Yossiea 05:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

(←) That is a bad comment to quote because it's entirely accurate. What I see there is an editor asking for you to provide reliable sources to support your position. That is not unreasonable, that is fundamentally how this project works, and you made absolutely no effort to substantiate your position with sources and instead repeated unsourced claims and exhibited WP:IDHT behavior in repeating the same things over and over again rather than responding to the opposing viewpoints. Regardless, that has no bearing on this block. You made an explicit personal attack, apparently because you disagree with a view the editor expresses on their user page. That is unacceptable. Swarm ♠ 05:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Anyway, I will be away for at least the next 24 hours, so I won't be responding for quite some time. Good luck with your appeal. Swarm ♠ 05:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. I did bring sources. I brought Misplaced Pages articles. I brought their own logic. They didn't like it so they ignored it. So I asked again, if they claim Israel is militarily occupying Gaza by blockading Gaza, why is Egypt not doing the same? Egypt is also blockading Gaza. How is that not not the same thing? And yes, if people can't see that, then it is anti-Israel, the same UN that puts Saudi Arabia as the bastion of Human Rights but puts Israel as the most evil nation on earth. So I do have a valid claim for asking if someone is anti-Israel if after me asking them why Egypt gets special treatment that Israel does not get. Yossiea 06:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages articles and "logic" are not sources. Citations to material complaint with WP:RS are sources. Gamaliel (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• I am writing about my block. I have provided sources, repeatedly. They keep posting that Gaza is under occupation. Yet the page they are editing is Military Occupation and it is different than a "regular" occupation. They then continue and say the reason why Israel is occupying Gaza is because Israel controls the border of Gaza. Well, Egypt does the same and I provided a link to that. When I pointed out, not too seriously that Hamas used to occupy Gaza, I provided a link to that, that Hamas was in charge of Gaza and it was not recognized by the PA, Israel or the US (among other International countries).

Furthermore, just so you know, nableezy is a supporter of Hezbollah, a terrorist organization. I doubt he should be editing this since a terrorist who endorses terror has a COI. It's certainly not IDHT to point out that if Israel is occupying Gaza due to a blockade, then Egypt is too. That, and the page is MILITARY occupation and as was repeatedly pointed out by others on the page, including debresser and fran9 there is no Israeli military presence in Gaza. I guess this is why James Madison said the Masses are asses. We have a Hezbollah terrorist telling me I'm not assuming good faith, and Misplaced Pages is banning me. That's why nobody takes Misplaced Pages seriously, and why I'm thinking of leaving.

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

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Please copy my appeal to WP:AE, Hezbollah is a terrorist organization as per the US, EU and most other organizations. Calling a supporter of Hezbollah a terrorist is not attacking an editor in violation of WP:AGF, it's not as if I'm just attacking, this person is a terrorist sympathizer, big difference between an edit disput and a terror dispute. This has nothing to do with my edit dispute at the MILITARY occupation of Gaza and I was ready to cool down and begin editing again after my 48 hours were up but this is unacceptable. To not be able to call a terrorist a terrorist is, have we gone so far PC that the world is upside down? In any event. I think an indefinite block is extreme, you have already caused me to no longer edit Israel related articles. ] <sup><font color="Green">]</font></sup> 20:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Please copy my appeal to WP:AE, Hezbollah is a terrorist organization as per the US, EU and most other organizations. Calling a supporter of Hezbollah a terrorist is not attacking an editor in violation of WP:AGF, it's not as if I'm just attacking, this person is a terrorist sympathizer, big difference between an edit disput and a terror dispute. This has nothing to do with my edit dispute at the MILITARY occupation of Gaza and I was ready to cool down and begin editing again after my 48 hours were up but this is unacceptable. To not be able to call a terrorist a terrorist is, have we gone so far PC that the world is upside down? In any event. I think an indefinite block is extreme, you have already caused me to no longer edit Israel related articles. ] <sup><font color="Green">]</font></sup> 20:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Please copy my appeal to WP:AE, Hezbollah is a terrorist organization as per the US, EU and most other organizations. Calling a supporter of Hezbollah a terrorist is not attacking an editor in violation of WP:AGF, it's not as if I'm just attacking, this person is a terrorist sympathizer, big difference between an edit disput and a terror dispute. This has nothing to do with my edit dispute at the MILITARY occupation of Gaza and I was ready to cool down and begin editing again after my 48 hours were up but this is unacceptable. To not be able to call a terrorist a terrorist is, have we gone so far PC that the world is upside down? In any event. I think an indefinite block is extreme, you have already caused me to no longer edit Israel related articles. ] <sup><font color="Green">]</font></sup> 20:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I'm not going to defend Yossiea's behavior - it is combative and uncooperative and he seems to have no awareness that it is inappropriate. But the user in question has had a userbox on his user page since 2010 which complains that he can't have a pro-Hezbollah userbox, and regularly has used his userpage as a soapbox on related issues. I don't think he should be calling out other editors, but I'm not sure an indef block is appropriate in this case. Gamaliel (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place to comment for a non-admin. I'm quite new to en wikipedia and am not familiar with all corners of it. I participated in the discussion in the List of Military Occupations. While I don't agree with some of Yossiea reactions and don't think it is helpful to call other editors terrorists supporters (no matter whether they are or not), an indefinite block seems to me a bit too strict. In support of Yossia, I would like to remark that the discussion was quite heated anyway and some comments from "the other side" were also at least on the border of personal attacks (can provide links if this helps). Franp9am (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate that, and I would appreciate it if you would also comment at https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:AE. Thanks! (And this is not canvassing.) Yossiea 21:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'm begging you guys please unblock me. I enjoy editing Misplaced Pages. I have been editing since 2005 I think. I have been active on and off for all that time. Do you think I want to stop? I don't want to lose this. Please unblock me. Yossiea 03:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

An indefinite block is not a permanent block. It's a block that last only as long as necessary to end disruption. At the AE opened on your behalf Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Yossiea.7Eenwiki one person has expressed concern that you don't understand the reason that you have been indef blocked though it is obvious. They question the ultimate likelihood of you ceasing your hostilities towards people you disagree with if you deny or don't understand the reason for the block. I feel that its likely you do understand why you were blocked. So the simple question would be do you?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)4

1) I do understand. 2) My point was and I think you mentioned it was that a) things are heated, b) a hezbollah supporter, etc. 3) I don't think I will be as active in Israel related stuff. I can't deal with the stress. I've been here since 2005 or so, and I've been in a couple of stupid edit wars, you should check out my dealing with daniel575 and his 9 sockpuppets and how he chased away good editors. I decided a few months ago to get back into editing Misplaced Pages and decided to also get back into content editing and not just AFC/AFD which I used to do more often. But I guess I won't. And as far as Gaza, I still think you were missing the point with the difference between military and regular occupation. But it makes no difference in the real world what a list on Misplaced Pages means. I took my chill pill. Yossiea 04:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok you understand that calling this individual a terrorist (I forget whom) was wrong. It happened due to the stress of a heated discussion. And you feel that staying out of Israel based topic areas will help insure that this doesn't happen again? This is my understanding of what you are saying but I do not wish to misquote you.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• • I have proposed we redefine the AE sanction to a 10 day block and indefinite topic ban. I'm not sure if people will support that, but if they don't, I recommend you refile an AE appeal in one month. You will be more likely to be unblocked then. Regards, Swarm ♠ 05:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    • If you're going to topic ban me then I don't understand the ten day part? Also, just out of curiosity, what would you call someone who has this on their userpage "This user supports the right of all individuals and groups to violently resist military aggression and occupation by other parties, but due to an alleged consensus he is disallowed from naming particular individuals or groups which certain administrators find to be unacceptable." and I ask this seriously. I understand I can't call someone a terrorist. But if someone had on their userpage a userbox saying they support OBL or ISIS or Boko Haram or the IRA, or half a dozen other, wouldn't that be incitement, or fighting words? In some countries, it would even be illegal to display and in the US, it might be legally considered fighting words. Just a thought.

As for the punishment, I think I learned my lesson regardless. I don't think I need a topic ban because there is such a huge assortment of articles out there that I am bound to run into it. For example, I uploaded a picture to Har Nof, and that had nothing to do with a dispute. I will be more careful in the future. I don't think sanctions are warranted, a block of two days was more than enough. Yossiea 05:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:User:EdJohnston please read this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?oldid=690281384#Review_of_past_issues and this https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Rephrase_suggestion_to_WP:UP.23POLEMIC please. It might shed some light on current issues. Yossiea 06:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Lastly, I think sanctions are unnecessary because quite simply they're not needed. I don't have a big history of abuse that warrants such an extreme sanction as a topic ban.

I don't know why edjohnson closed the ae request. Now I don't know if I should be mad or not.

I hope it was not my comment that brought you such a trouble ? Either way, I would strongly suggest to unblock you because I am sure that no one has been actually offended by your comment. Here is the problem. Someone who supports Hezbollah is not necessarily a terrorist himself. This is a cultural thing. For example, these guys who are basically Terrorists the Founders have been described as national heroes in the Soviet historiography and literature, and still remain national heroes for many. My very best wishes (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

So, I think you should ask to remove/withdraw all your statements currently hanging on WP:AE or completely change your statements. Your first comment was indeed a comment on a contributor, and "calling a supporter of Hezbollah a terrorist" (your 2nd paragraph copy-pasted to AE) was wrong. My very best wishes (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I am blocked, so I can't do anything. I will do almost anything to get to posting again. Sometimes people misinterpret what I type and I am not trying to say something bad but they think I am but I'm just asking a question or something. Feel free to post or remove or ask to removethings.Yossiea 19:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. So, I will remove them per your request. If you want to post something else instead, please post it here on your talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

thank you. Can you please comment on the ae? I really am sorry and don't want a topic ban.Yossiea 19:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem is not your editing of content, but commenting about other contributors. Can you simply never comment about other contributors anywhere except cases when someone complains about you on administrative noticeboards and you need to explain your own content edits, rather than anything else? Just to clarify, asking something like this would be asking/commenting about another contributor. Of course you can look at a userbox and make your own conclusions, but you should not rise this matter anywhere to "get" him. If you do not change your behavior in this way, I would expect you to be quickly blocked again in the subject area so contentious as ARBPIA. My very best wishes (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

request

Regardless, I don't think a topic ban is warranted in this case. At the end of the day and measuring everything, I think we can continue without additional sanctions. I didn't edit war on a sanctionable page. I think we can put this behind us.

• The discretionary sanctions apply to any pages that include this topic, period, and unquestionably apply here. It is not your place to pass judgment on the personal beliefs of other editors, period; in fact, you should not comment on other editors at all but instead focus on content. It is quite clear that you see nothing wrong with your comments and that tells me you yourself have a personal bias that you are unable and unwilling to keep out of your editing, and as such, you should be prevented from editing in this topic area at the minimum. We have absolutely no place in this contentious area of content for editors who are going to make personal attacks or judge the personal beliefs of others. Not only is a topic ban warranted, it will be the minimum sanction imposed against you at this point. As far as a 10 day block goes, this is exceedingly reasonable. You are at the community's mercy as to whether you are unblocked at all and quite frankly you are not helping your own case here. Swarm ♠ 22:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

My take on the situation here is that they are suggesting a 10 block as a cooling off period. Consider the first block, for a personal attack, and then consider the second block, for another personal attack. Consider as well your responses. It does seem as if you are trying to justify your comments. I can reasonably understand your comments but there's no justification for them. Calling a Hezbollah supporter a terrorist is out of line. Your appeal a personal attack and while discussing the appeal you make another personal attack. A cooling off period is reasonable. You've not really said much to assure that this will not happen again.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

But I did it on my talk page, not on a topic page, that is what is confusing to me. I understand a block, but why a topic block? I didn't vandalize the topic pages. Yossiea \

The sanctions apply to any page on Misplaced Pages that discuss the topic. Swarm ♠ 02:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I did not know that a user talk page also has that. Also, wouldn't that then mean that a user box calling for the death of Israelis should result in a topic ban?

Lastly, I've never been banned before. As you can see from my logs, I don't usually get involved in disputes so I don't know what all these terms being thrown around means.I'm sorry for insulting people and I won't do it again and I really don't want a topic ban. I think that's going too far for something I didn't know about. I beg you to let me try again, I've been here for almost ten years. Please let me continue.Yossiea 19:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

and I'm not justifying my remarks. I apologize for that. I'm now just asking what's the difference between a talk page and auserbox? Personally, I think once unblocked, I'm removing my boxes, I've had them since they were cool, in 2006, but serve no purpose. Yossiea 19:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not acceptable on your talk page or anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Two factors that really made it worse, 1) is that you targeted an ideological opponent who you are in a content dispute with in a topic area under general sanctions and 2)you did so while under seeking an AE review which puts you under a microscope and brings more admin eyes your way. A topic ban, and again this is my personal take on the situation, but it depends on what issues the admins are specifically looking at. Just viewing the personal attacks alone your behavior is escalating inappropriately. Beyond that if they look further there's other things to consider. For instance in 2014 that block you received was for violating 1RR in List of Military occupations that was put in place by WP:ARBPIA. This block here, the first one was for an attack at that very article. The second seems related. Consider the IDHT behavior and the inappropriate notification in violation of canvassing policy. Again it depends specifically on what each admin views as an issue. The personal attacks are simply enough, to my understanding, because you are not recognizing the issue in that. If you don't understand what your disruption is, the general consensus is that you can't actually understand what the issue is you can't be expected or trusted to change that behavior. The behavior is considered disruptive and the goal is to stop the disruption. Since the disruption is related to the topic area, and since you have not had any issues in other topic areas, removing you from the topic area will stop the disruption. But again this is my general take on the subject. Personally they have the grounds to do it but honestly I think they should just give you the rope. I assume you will take what ever appropriate action to manage the stress that lead to this in the first place when entering this topic area in the future. You should review what the administrators have said both here and over at the AE thread and consider those statements before responding further. Right now, focus on your own behavior is what I would recommend. This is what they seem concerned with ATM to me.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

thank you. I am sorry for insulting you. It was wrong and it was the heat of the moment getting to me. Personally, I see the way you're acting now and while I disagree with a lot of your opinions, I would be honored to continue editing sticks with you. Yossiea 19:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

You haven't personally offended me. I've edited enough in WP:ARBPIA to know this happens. When people feel strongly about something emotion can get he better of them.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

thank you. But do you think a ten day and a tban is overkill? I think ten days is more than enough, but I'm not going to fight that, but I don't think I should have a topic ban, especially since I didn't even know you can get one from your talk page. Can you please let ae know all I wrote today, from my talk page? Thanks. Yossiea 20:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

and then, just to ask, is a Hezbollah user box allowed? Or is it allowed by a user doing edits in the sanctionable area? Yossiea 20:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

One has no bearing on the other. As per the box, as I understand and if nothing has changed then there's nothing wrong with that specific box, other boxes have been barred. But you are basically considering that inherent bias to be a COI. There's bias everywhere. Consider an American writing Russian history. English speaking Israeli citizens writing articles on the Palestinian conflict. Pro-life people writing articles about abortion. There's bias there but we don't consider it a COI that would prevent them from writing neutrally. You have to consider the external role or relationship when considering a COI. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

so then why would a comment on my talk page result in atban? If you read the discretion notice above, it also says only pages about Israel. My edit on my talk page should not result in a topic ban. Especially since I had absolutely no idea that my talk page falls under discretionary sanctions. , not a bias buy a sanction violation.Yossiea 21:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

They indef blocked you because you called someone else a terrorist. They could have blocked you with discretionary sanctions or with out. Though to mention, The Admin that changed it to indefinite didn't seem to do so on the basis of discretionary sanctions. Honestly, You really need to stop trying to wikilawyer this. It doesn't help you. They have caught you violating policy. They watched it escalate further. They want to know that you understand what you did wrong. They want to know that you are going to take action in the future to see that it doesn't happen again. They are going to take what ever action necessary to prevent your disruption.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to wikilawyer, if they do a ten day sanction I'll be fine with that, my point is that I should not also get a topic ban. They want to give me ten days and a topic ban.that to me makes no sense, based on what I wrote.again, I'm not trying to argue, but how am I supposed to know that my talk page is subject to discretionary sanctions? Yossiea 22:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

"The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted." But regardless, you do understand even if you ignore the discretionary sanctions calling someone a terrorist like you did is always inappropriate. Whether or not you you knew that discretionary sanctions were in play you should have known that was inappropriate. They are going for the topic ban because it seems necessary because of your escalating behavior. You have to convince them that it's not. what can you do to alleviate their concerns?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

the only thing I can say is that this cooling, de escalated. In the future, I will hope to go back to my usual method of think twice post once. Like you said, this was an abberation. And like you and others, elsewhere, have said, tbans are punishments that in this case is not necessary needed. Worst case, why not give me a chance? Hasn't my tenure here made me deserve at least that? Yossiea 23:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The first thing I would do is make a statement a very clears statement that shows you do in fact understand perfectly well why you got blocked, both blocks. Then I would ping Swarm. Swarm seems to be a skilled and knowledgeable Admin, they maybe be able to talk with you and both of you come up with an alternative means to help alleviate the concern that you will cause further disruption. I'm not exactly sure what can be done so no promises, but I've seen agreements develop before in cases like this.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope my statement below is a good start. Yossiea 00:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement of Wrongdoing and begging for mercy

I want to end this back and forth. I do want to make a clear statement. Firstly, the way I think and process information, sometimes I ask questions and say things just to process, and that does not mean I am attacking or questioning, I am just trying to ask or clarify. I am not necessarily trying to wikilawyer. I have things in my head and I was always told to just process and think things through, so I'm processing my thoughts onto "paper."

That being said, I do realize I was wrong both times for attacking. If I may just make a statement with the second attack, (not necessarily to justify) I did not know that I can't do that on a talk page. I thought a talk page was a private space where I can vent and then delete when I needed. It's my own venting ground. Certainly not subject to the Israel Sanction pages. Had I known that I would not have done so. Once I found out about the 1RR a while back, I knew that certain areas didn't use the normal 3RR. I already apologized to Serialjoepsycho. I have been editing wikipedia for over 10 years and was involved in very few edit disputes, with the most notable one was dealing with Daniel575 and his 9 sockpuppets and his admin friend who was covering for him. During that time, I followed all the rules and acted as a model wiki editor.

This time I lost my cool because it was in the heat of the moment and the stress got to me. I apologize for that. It was unbecoming of me and unbecoming of someone who has been here for over ten years. That being said, I ask not to be topic banned. Being away from Misplaced Pages for over 48 hours has allowed me to cool off. I realize my error and I will not do that again. I did not know my talk page is subject to discretionary sanctions and I also did not know my talk page is subject to similar rules that can't be flexible since it's a user talk page. (Perhaps it's my fault that I'm not that involved, but I'm usually a behind the scenes editor and don't get involved in police or disputes, but I sometimes try to get more involved in front end stuff as time allows.)

In addition, and this is just a personal request, perhaps similar to a request for mercy, I have family in Israel. They walk around today with implements ready to defend themselves with. My second cousin was kidnapped last year and murdered so when I saw on a userpage that someone supported Hezbollah, and this was while I was blocked and this was while this guy was editing against my opinion of the facts, my emotions got the better of me. I have already passed the 48 hour block. I don't know what sanction you will place on me for the second attack, but I beg of you to please take everything into account. I will work with you. I already said I will think twice, submit once, should I edit in the Israel arena. Allow me the opportunity to prove myself once again to be the editor I have been for the past ten years.

If anything in this has offended anybody, please know that it is not how it was written. Please ping me and I will clarify whatever it is you wish. Ask away. I will do all I can to prove to you that I have it in me. I would not want to be missing a good part of Misplaced Pages for editing. As per the advice of -Serialjoepsycho-, I am pinging @Swarm:User:Swarm Yossiea 00:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Swarm I suggested that he ping you. I explained in my view y'all are discussing the topic ban as an insurance measure to end his disruption due to his escalating behavior. I suggested that he discuss this with you as there may perhaps be a way to alleviate concerns of future disruption without need for a topic ban. That's the reason for the ping.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It would have been nice to have been notified that Im a terrorist, I only even noticed any of this cus I was on AE for something else. But for the record, that userbox does not say anything about Hezbollah. And even if one were to make the assumption that I do in fact support Hezbollah, or Hamas for that matter, that would hardly make me a "terrorist". People have different views than you, and understand that somebody may see the IDF the same way that you see Hezbollah. All that said, I dont really care about the insult, and Im kinda surprised it resulted in an indef block. If my view matters, that aint necessary. What is necessary is the user understanding what WP:OR means and agreeing not to engage in it. nableezy - 07:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock