JoeM

User talk:JoeM/Archive 1 User talk:JoeM/Archive 2

AN notice

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban

As you were warned of discretionary sanctions here and almost immediately after made edits that triggered an AN report here I am imposing a temporary 6-month topic ban on all articles and pages related to Hilary Clinton, broadly construed. Past unacceptable editing includes [1], [2], [3], [4], and the edits on Clinton Body Count.

You should read Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Topic_ban so you know what this entails. Basically, do not post to any page related to Hilary Clinton and do not mention or refer to Hilary Clinton anywhere. This ban can be appealed at the Administrators' Noticeboard, and will be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log#American_politics_2. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

If it's any consolation...

I wasn't involved in your RFA; looking at your contributions, a ten year absence from Wikipedia and then only a year of being back, I can certainly understand why most people believed you didn't have snowball's chance in hell of passing an RFA. However you were right in questioning Floquenbeam's civility. Floquenbeam is a terrible administrator. Admins should be exemplars of civility, should hold themselves to an even higher standard than the average Wikipedian is expected to maintain, should be impassive and diplomatic, even when/especially when dealing with difficult people or intervening in heated disputes, but Floquenbeam regularly injects snark, sarcasm, and thinly veiled insults even into things like his closures of dispute resolution discussions. When even politely asked to consider changing his comments to something more neutral, he defensively lashes back with more insults. He lacks the temperament and self-control required to be an admin and should have been desysopped long ago. So no, it wasn't just you. Whether or not your RFA was clumsy or premature, your request to Floquenbeam was politely worded, and his response was unnecessarily and inappropriately obnoxious, especially for an admin. Just remember that if you ever pass an RFA, strive to maintain a polite, professional tone; be a good admin, not one like Floquenbeam. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I would put zero stock in Mmyers1976's opinion of Floquenbeam. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Because this is such a fantastic example of a civil, neutral edit summary coming from an admin: "you are not admin material (that *could* be a compliment, but in this case it isn't". Or this " I'll just block whoever continues this stupidity". Or this "perhaps if you acted like you were an adult..." What does it say in the Civility policy's section on edit summary Dos and Don'ts? "Do: Use neutral language. Don't: Make snide comments." Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocked????????

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).

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

---

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

I agree with Bbb23's findings. The checkuser tool shows that you are still using multiple accounts, including Wenteng (talk · contribs) and Paektu (talk · contribs). Mike V • Talk 19:59, 15 October 2016 (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.

Can someone please help me! Granted, I used sockpuppets over 10 years ago. But I was unblocked afterwards-- personally by Jimbo Wales, after serving my sentence and apologizing. By virtue of the fact I've continued to use the same account for 13+ years, everyone should see my commitment to transparency. If I were using sockpuppets, why would I even come back as JoeM, given the baggage I have to carry from my admittedly provocative behavior during the early days of Wikipedia. Please unblock my account. The reasoning for the block is complete nonsense. JoeM (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, JoeM. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, JoeM. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Please return

Please return Joe. Youbmay have violated rules and not been the best but you were still a fine contributor. And you helped balance out opinions among Wikipedians with a certain opinion. 2600:1:F1A7:FB21:2DB1:634A:3E3A:2B8E (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Clinton body count conspiracy theory for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Clinton body count conspiracy theory is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton body count conspiracy theory until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

pbp 19:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)