User talk:JoeJShmo/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are topic banned from the Arab/Israel conflict, broadly construed, until six months have passed and you have made 1521 total edits.

You have been sanctioned for lack of understanding of WP:PAGS, NPOV issues, and a technical 1RR violation

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

please point me to the specific instances of NPOV and the 1RR violation you had in mind. Thank you. JoeJShmo^💌 13:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This edit is a partial revert of this edit. This edit is a partial revert of this edit. This edit is a partial revert of this edit. The NPOV issues are covered in the section above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I had been told that when an edit has been around for a long time (like those) common practice was not to count that towards 1RR. Was I misinformed? Or was my perception of 'a long time' off? JoeJShmo^💌 14:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

It's complicated. That you immediately returned to removing content after being reverted and demanded the other parties discuss and only partially revert, rather than you seeking consensus for your removals is part of the issue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I actually didn't notice any of the reverts until I finished all 5 edits. I was focused on editing the article, and I wasn't looking at the revisions page. I did stop editing when I noticed someone was reverting, and moved to the talk page. I can see how you thought my 'don't fully revert' summary was a response to seeing my edits be reverted, but it's actually a summary I commonly leave when I do a multifaceted edit that I know may be taken issue with in one part, but in which case should only be partially reverted. I've left it before on other edits, I can hunt them down if needed. JoeJShmo^💌 15:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

As for NPOV: I was trying to enforce NPOV by treating the claims from both sides the same way, as they had different languages previously. The issue, as set out in the above discussion, was that I was mistaken in the way I went about it, as I changed both to say "claimed" while apparently they both should read "stated". @ScottishFinnishRadish In light of the difficulty in saying there was a violation of 1RR, and the lack of evidence of POV editing issues, I should like to humbly request that you reconsider this topic ban. JoeJShmo^💌 16:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Simply don't go into contentious areas while you're starting with Wikipedia, okay? No need for you to try and "enforce NPOV", as you simply don't have enough on-wiki experience to "enforce" anything, and you'll only annoy others. Just go and practice in non-contentious areas, learn how to select sources, how to balance different perspectives, get the difference between a policy, a guideline, an information page, and an essay, learn how to use noticeboards collaboratively, internalise the five pillars, etc. You really need to learn more before you start challenging more experienced editors. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The whole point of WP:ECR is to ensure that newbie editors get enough experience in less contentious areas of Wikipedia before jumping into the most controversial articles or topics of Wikipedia where conflicts are more abundant and where mistakes are more likely to result in sanctions. You created an account in November 2023, carried out around 30 edits from then to January 2024, then stopped editing for five months. In July 2024, after your account turned seven months old, you have racked up 500 edits. WP:ECR intended for you to have six months of experience, but if we ignore your initial ~30 edits, then you have barely over two weeks of experience on Wikipedia. Clearly, that wasn’t enough for you to learn how things work, but that’s alright actually if you hadn’t jumped into one of the most controversial areas on Wikipedia. Couple that with some signs of argumentative, defensive, or passive aggressive behaviour, it’s not surprising that you have been sanctioned. Gain more experience and listen more. Obviously you think your edits are good, that’s why you made them. Perhaps listen why people have an issue with your edits before turning it into an argument. starship.paint (RUN) 00:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oh, I hadn’t noticed that you already appealed your second topic ban. Certainly a bold choice. The first topic ban should have been enough of a warning. You then performed 21 edits (ranging 3 articles and 1 article talk page) to reach extended confirmed, then within three hours of the first topic ban, you entered ARBPIA. This seems to be part of a pattern, I am not sure if you appreciate the spirit of why the restrictions were put in place. They are meant for you to gain experience so that you do not inadvertently cause disruption or waste editors’ time and efforts. starship.paint (RUN) 00:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Seeing not only this editor's contribution pattern but also quite a few others' (e.g., Special:Contributions/Emdosis), I'm getting close to proposing that the 500 edits in CT restrictions should all be mainspace edits, and to at least 50 different articles on top of that. Draftspace play, tweaking own Talk page, or making 70 consecutive edits to a single article (as JoeJShmo did) shouldn't count as sufficient Wikipedia experience. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kashmiri, might be a much simpler proposal that they have 1,000 edits (number can be debated) and 6 months. TarnishedPath^talk 13:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's not discuss this on the talk page of someone who can't take part, please. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Exists

Template:Exists has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Signature Contrast

Hi! It might be helpful to others (especially those with impaired vision) if you darken the color of your signature, or add a darker-colored background behind it, as it's currently very hard to read in light mode. Just a heads up!  miranda :3  01:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up :) JoeJShmo^💌 02:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Topic ban

Ian Lustick is covered by that, your edits are very obviously related to the topic. Kindly work on a different topic entirely until you are allowed to edit in this one. nableezy - 04:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey nableezy, I appreciate the polite message. My mistake, I wasn't aware the topic ban would apply to professors who happened to deal with the topic (definitely don't think it obvious!). I wish every message I received was written as civilly as yours. JoeJShmo^💌 08:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not just professors who happened to deal with the topic, JoeJShmo, you twice [1] [2] edited a sentence about said professor writing Paradigm Lost: From Two-State Solution to One-State Reality, surely that book would fall under the Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic... In any case, take note that your topic ban is broadly construed. starship.paint (RUN) 14:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I see. If common practice is to construe any edit, even a formatting edit, on any sentence relating to the conflict, as falling under a topic ban, then I'll avoid those edits. JoeJShmo^💌 16:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey starship. Copy pasting my message to Doug– Out of an abundance of caution, what's your opinion on an article about an israeli swimmer- do you think that would fall under a topic ban on the Israel-Palestine conflict? Logically, it seems obvious it shouldn't, but common practice on Wikipedia can sometimes defy logic ;) JoeJShmo^💌 18:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

If there is a section of the article that discusses the conflict, avoid that section. Otherwise it should be fine. I'd need to see the article to provide a solid response though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Depends. This isn't hard, err on the side of caution, if in doubt, don't do it, discretion is the better part of valor, etcetera. Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

JJS, topic bans are hard. It's always a good idea to ask an admin, here on your talk where it's okay to ask such questions, to give you advice. As SFR notes, you need to provide a link to the article/section in question. Valereee (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Valeree, but I think I got the info I needed. JoeJShmo^💌 20:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

If you're referring to your edits at the Andrea Murez article, they look fine with regards to topic ban compliance. I don't see anything on that page related to the ARBPIA topic area, but there could plausibly be some affected content on other Israeli swimmer articles. In particular, if you encounter anything about boycotts, it would be wise to steer clear of that since it's probably related. Left guide (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)