User talk:J0eg0d
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:
I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop a note at Wikipedia:New user log. -- Utcursch | Talk to me |
May 2014 - McGeddon[edit]
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Response To McGeddon[edit]
I created MINOR edits as they should not be in review nor disputed before public knowledge. I added her family members. Her sisters to be specific. Susan Silverman (oldest sister) and Jodyne L Speyer (youngest sister "step-sister" specifically). All information is correct. I added info to her partners although not all of them. Joe Franklin raped her as a child - it specifies that in the Wikipedia entry. I simply added the dates. Dave Attell & Colin Quinn both banged Sarah early in her career - is correct. Jimmy Kimmel was posted twice for differing timelines - is correct. Donald Sterling Owner of the LA Clippers was added because that's hilarious - is correct. Michael Sheen and Sarah MAY be dating. They are friends and they MAY be promoting her appearance on the Masters Of Sex SHOWTIME series. It may be a media prank that you've allowed to remain. LASTLY: Your definition of vandalism is very different from my own; as mine should be corrected as performance art literature. Thank you. j0eg0d (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2014 (GMT) |
License tagging for File:J0eg0d Icon[edit]
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Thanks for uploading j0eg0d icon --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC) |
February 2015[edit]
ARBCOM
Extended content
|
|---|
|
The Arbitration Committee has authorized discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, 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 sanctions are authorized 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. |
WIKI:Gamergate Controversy Restrictions[edit]
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Hi there! The Gamergate controversy article and its talk page is restricted to being edited by editors who have had an account for at least 30 days (not a problem in your case) and have at least 500 edits. Per this restriction, I have removed your comment. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
|
TALK:Gamergate Controversy Restrictions[edit]
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Your edit has been reverted as there are restrictions on the article and talk page that only allow edits from editors whose accounts are at least a month old and who have at least 500 edits. You only have 78 edits so at this point, you can not contribute to the discussion on the talk page or edit the article. Liz Talk 01:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
|
Refactoring at Village Pump[edit]
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Hi J0eg0d, Please accept my apologies for the rudeness in collapsing some of your post at this page. I'm afraid it's likely to be considered off topic or WP:FORUM, and get you into more trouble that it's worth. Other editors can still read the information by clicking on the "show" link. Please let me know if you have any questions. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
|
Brianna Wu WIKI Page[edit]
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Hi, J0eg0d, "Are You Aware?" - I am wondering if you are aware that you are skating on very thin ice on the Brianna Wu talk page? Please do not respond with your bold caps style of comment, as your style of pushing the Gamergate POV places you at a very high risk of being blocked. There is perhaps a small chance that you can become a productive Wikipedia editor. But only if you reconsider your approach and stop your POV pushing now. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
|
Mark Bernstein's Bizarre Behavior[edit]
- @Liz:@Cullen328: You may be interested to know that on [Brianna_Wu], this user appears to have edited while signed out, and then signed the auto signed post. The IP address was /208.167.254.15; it appears JoeGod is using this page to offer advice to himself, and then to thank himself for his advice. I know Wikipedia allows great latitude for users to edit their own talk page, but.... See also the claim to a 2008 Hugo on the User page, which seems somewhat far-fetched, even for the editorial categories (he's not David Hartwell) or the fan writer (John Scalzi? Don’t think so). under protest MarkBernstein (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- @MarkBernstein: I'm not sure why you have such difficulty linking simple pages or reading diffs. I (208.167.254.15) made only one comment on Talk:Brianna Wu which stands with its original signature, my own. I have no idea what motivated your misunderstanding nor do I care unless it affects the article in some way you've yet to identify. Perhaps your time would be better spent learning our software than attempting to stir drama.
- Assuming j0eg0d had posted then redacted his IP address your repeating it may violate WP:OUTING. Your speculation as to j0eg0d's real life identity and request for further identifying information are wholly inappropriate and likely warrant sanction. I caution you to redact the offending content immediately. 208.167.254.15 (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Your user page claims you won a Hugo Award in 2008. This seems surprising, especially reviewing the list of winners. Would you kindly indicate in which category you won, or retract the claim? MarkBernstein (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
File Deletions[edit]
Extended content
|
|---|
|
File:J0eg0d Icon.jpeg listed for deletion A file that you uploaded or altered, File:J0eg0d Icon.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ironholds (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:StinkingBadge.jpg A file that you uploaded or altered, File:StinkingBadge.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Strongjam (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
|
Removing SPAM[edit]
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Hello! Please do not edit other editor's comments, as you did at the Arbitration Enforcement Requests page. I advise you read WP:TPO, as I believe this will aid your understanding of our policies regarding editing other editor's comments. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 07:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC) PeterTheFourth The edit was to remove Self-Promotion and Advertising. You restored the promotional content - I have made note of it. --j0eg0d (talk) 09:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
|
BLP applies everywhere[edit]
Extended content
|
|---|
|
You made two comments with speculation and links about an identified person: Bilby removed the first and I removed the second. The rule is simple: do not post commentary about living persons on any page at Wikipedia unless certain conditions are satisfied, per WP:BLP. The conditions could be explored at another time but for now it is best to keep it simple. If you have concerns about an actionable proposal for the content in an article, you need to express those concerns in general terms, without providing opinions on the character of an identified living person. For example, if someone is convicted of murder, and if it is relevant for an actionable proposal regarding article content, it is fine to observe that the person is a murderer. However, if someone is accused of a crime or other abuse, the simple rule is to not mention it. Johnuniq (talk) 10:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
--j0eg0d (talk) 11:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that BLP does apply everywhere, and what you wrote contained significant negative claims. With the GamerGate article, we've tended to err on the side of caution perhaps a bit more than normal, but as a general rule I'd we'd go in that direction - generally the same concerns can be raised without making things explicit enough to raise flags. Either way, I think there is a case to be made that we don't need the OAPI article - I'm inclined to redirect it to Crash Override, as that has a bigger presence and the two are closely connected, but we can make a solid case for that on notability grounds. An I respect that rewriting the text with names removed is better than mentioning names. However, we still run into the problem that it is clear who is being spoken about - the problem with BLP is making the allegations about a living person, and whether or not we mention them by name. If it is clear who the target is then the problem will persist. In regard to OAPI, do you think a redirect would be the way to go? I'll look around and see if there are enough sources to warrant keeping it, but at the moment I don't feel it will have had sufficient coverage to warrant a stand alone article. - Bilby (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
J0eg0d, this is not the only time you have surreptitiously edited other editor's comments on your talk page. Refrain from doing so in the future, please. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 07:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC) PeterTheFourth, the word "surreptitiously" refers to doing something in secret or through stealth. I believe you're using it incorrectly here. The vector graphic (Stop Hand) you've used suggested some sort of authority on your part. I found it misleading & unnecessary. Have a great day. --j0eg0d (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
|
“Wiki” isn't an acronym[edit]
Extended content
|
|---|
|
I’ve noticed that you frequently place the word “wiki” in all caps -- WIKI. But “wiki” is not an acronym; it's a Hawaiian word (or part of a word -- I believe the word is actually “wiki-wiki”) that means “quick”. The original usage was coined by the inventor of wikis, Ward Cunningham, and refers both to synthesizing the pages just in time to serve them and also to the amount of time required to write the first system. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC) Certainly. Because the word "wiki" is used so often throughout the web, most Browsers have probably wondered why we use "wiki" in the first place and I'm sure interested parties (like myself) will look up the meaning. I've known the meaning for about a decade now. I overly use WIKI the same way I use TALK, I don't believe TALK is an acronym either, but feel free to correct me. I use WIKI on purpose, because it's similar to using "WP:" when linking to an article - it's my abbreviation for Wikipedia. Apologies, if this confused you, and again (as I know you're excessively adamant about such things) I do not use a separate account(s) in WIKI. This is the only account I have, or need, and to be clear - I do not like to use my IP address, but sometimes I do not realize that I am not logged in. Have a nice time. Sincerely --j0eg0d (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC) |
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction[edit]
The following sanction now applies to you:
Standard Gamergate topic ban for an indefinite duration. "Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed."
You have been sanctioned because your contributions in this topic area have been unproductive and highly disruptive.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Gamaliel (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Hugo Award Claim[edit]
This user claims to have won a Hugo Award, but declines to give any specifics. "Hugo Award" is a registered service mark of the World Science Fiction Society, and falsely claiming to have won (or to have been shortlisted) for the Award is a violation of this service mark. I ask the user to provide evidence of having received a Hugo Award or to withdraw the claim.
--Kevin Standlee (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC) Chairman, World Science Fiction Society Mark Protection Committee
- Is this a non-compulsory request or are you acting in a legal capacity on behalf of the World Science Fiction Society? I ask because Wikipedia encourages users not to reveal their personal information as it opens them to unnecessary risk, which I'm sure my fellow editor would prefer to avoid. Thanks. 166.173.251.171 (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Now, we wouldn't be an IP trying to tempt a fellow editor into saying something that might appear to be a legal threat? I think it's quite clear that Kevin Standee has requested that his organization’s service mark be respected. He has asked the user to provide evidence -- I'm expect that private assurance would be satisfactory -- or to withdraw the claim. For example, if the editor were to phone Mr. Standlee and assure him that he was indeed (say) Michael Chabon, who won the 2008 best novel award, that would probably settle the matter. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Dying of curiosity here-- just how competitive is the running for chairman of the Committee for Making Pseudo-Legal-Sounding Demands for Personal Information in Places They Cannot Possibly Be Enforced? Are you looking for a vice-chairman? I can bring my own chair.
- -Starke Hathaway (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Grand High Cyber-Overlord, Ministry of Unwarranted Self-Importance
- Actually, Starke, this demand probably can be enforced. Major awards use trademark protection to avoid impostors and such -- the Academy Awards trademarked the Oscar™ and that worked well for them. Assuming that this editor is in fact the well-known SF fan and WorldCon official whose name he signs, Wikipedia might be infringing on his organization’s service mark -- which is, presumably, covered under the same policy as COPYVIO. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Don't mind me, Mark, I'll just be over here holding my breath. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- The way you become Chairman of the WSFS Mark Protection Committee is first to get yourself elected to the WSFS Mark Protection Committee (three members are elected each year for three year terms) by the members of the WSFS Business Meeting, or to be appointed by one of the WSFS committees who have the right to appoint members. Once you become a member, then you need to convince a majority of the members of the WSFS MPC to elect you to the relatively thankless job of Chairman. While it is at least technically possible that you could manage to do this without being an attending member of the current Worldcon, without actually attending that Worldcon, and without being moderately well known to the people who regularly participate in the process of actually running Worldcons, I would point out that nobody has ever chaired the MPC since its creation about thirty years ago who did not meet all three of those criteria. Oh, and you can expect to spend a few hours each week (on the average) dealing with the job of managing the MPC, a position that pays nothing, including investigating service mark violations that are brought to the MPC's attention. The position is rarely competitive, although it was a close decision two years ago when I was elected to my current run in office; there was no other candidate for the position last year when I was elected for my current term. The current MPC officers are Chairman, Secretary, and Treasurer. The committee in the past did have a Vice Chairman position, but several years ago decided it wasn't necessary and stopped electing one. The MPC determines its own officers, under the provisions of the Constitution of the World Science Fiction Society, the current version of which is available at http://www.wsfs.org/bm/rules.html If you want additional information on the process, please feel free to ask. Kevin Standlee (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I find it odd that you request J0eg0d post evidence on the same day the ban was put into effect. 174.30.95.89 (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the claim until it can be substantiated, privately or publicly. Gamaliel (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, don't I have egg on my face? I guess on some level I assumed there was some level of pettiness in Bernstein-related drama beneath which Gamaliel would not immediately throw himself into the fray to rescue him. Lesson learned, will not make that mistake again. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I don't know. Sure, he claims to be Kevin Standlee, but I think we ought to remove that claim until it can be substantiated, don't you? And if you're claiming your arrival at this page is unrelated to MarkBernstein's involvement here, I flat out don't believe you. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- The issue was raised on a Hugo discussion board elsewhere, which is undoubtedly how it came to Kevin Standlee's attention. As far as I know Mark isn't active there and may not have even heard of the site. I know Mark is the new Overlord Ryulong for you guys, but come on, don't be any dumber than you already have been.209.6.192.97 (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know how Kevin Standlee became aware of j0eg0d's user page and I don't really care. I happen to think having your "chairman" harassing pseudonymous internet users for their personal information is probably worse for your brand than a claim, even a false one, made on a user page that to a close approximation zero people care about, but I suppose that's Kevin's lookout. What I am concerned about is the fact that whenever anyone so much as looks at MarkBernstein the wrong way, in comes Gamaliel with admin guns a-blazing with amazing alacrity no matter how many "busy in real life" messages he has up on his user page. Tell me, Gamaliel, did he call you on the home number or the cell number? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Trademarks are worth money. Also, letting someone run around using your trademark who doesn't have a right to it risks weakening the legal power of your trademark. Protecting your trademark isn't harassment, though of course, you being a Gater, I wouldn't expect you to actually be able to recognize what is and is not genuine harassment. Doesn't all this raging about CONSPIRACY! COLLUSION! ETHIX!! get exhausting? Honestly, it's very bad for your cardiac health. CrataegusBrainerdii (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Precisely. Anyone who sees a potential violation of a WSFS service mark is invited to write to the MPC and report it. Kevin Standlee (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Trademarks are worth money. Also, letting someone run around using your trademark who doesn't have a right to it risks weakening the legal power of your trademark. Protecting your trademark isn't harassment, though of course, you being a Gater, I wouldn't expect you to actually be able to recognize what is and is not genuine harassment. Doesn't all this raging about CONSPIRACY! COLLUSION! ETHIX!! get exhausting? Honestly, it's very bad for your cardiac health. CrataegusBrainerdii (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- This potential service mark violation came to my attention through discussions of this year's Hugo Awards, specifically at File 770. It's relatively rare for someone to falsely claim to have won or to have been shortlisted for a Hugo Award, but I elected to investigate the claim. Anyone who is skeptical of who I am or of the organization I represent is welcome to contact the World Science Fiction Society through their Contact Page or the current World Science Fiction Convention through their Contact Page. You'll probably notice my name on that list, but you can certainly write to the convention chair directly if you don't believe that, either; she knows who I am, and we had breakfast together a couple of weeks ago at a meeting in Spokane planning for this year's Worldcon. Since I'm a actual, real, not pseudonymous person, and since I really am the elected leader of the organization that manages the intellectual property of the World Science Fiction Society, I'm not particularly concerned about anyone questioning that authority. Kevin Standlee (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Starke: you're confused: @Gamaliel: has my contact information, . I don't have his. Since Gamaliel topic-banned the user this morning. I expect Gamaliel put this page on his watchlist; no need to involve me Until today, I hadn't heard of Mr. Standlee, nor would I expect to as I've never been a member of Worldcon,but of course I've heard of the Hugo Awards. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I do appreciate -Starke Hathaway and the unidentified IPs that have come to my defense. I would advise you each avoid this Wikipedia clickbaiting. Theses are juvenile tactics to encourage disruption only to ban other people for being involved. I do not know Kevin Standlee - I met several Writers, Artists, Fans & Administrators in Denver during 2008, and not one of them was named Kevin Standlee. As far as his edits and as far as the Hugo Award goes; I genuinely do not care if it's listed on my User Page, I stated as much when it was posted.
The Hugo Awards has been a farce long before the #gamergate hashtag was ever invented; It has a long history of white guys back-patting themselves and there was always behind the scenes "politics". - The sole individual with any ardent concern about that claim was Mark Bernstein. This same infatuation was persistently focused on WP:OUTING me & identifying my IP Address. Doesn't Mark dabble in science fiction writing? I assume his phobia of other people's success has to do with never being nominated by the WSFS? That's a question by the way Gamaliel, not an accusation.
- If any attention needs to be made in my absence, -Starke Hathaway it would be in ARBCOM here as Mark's
kapoand favorite unbanner Gamaliel is seeking to ban me indefinitely ^_^ Aren't these guys adorable? You may also be interested in knowing that Special Contributor 209.6.192.97 (the person who insulted you) is an IP Address from the exact same town Mark Bernstein is currently residing. That is such a coincidence. Sincerely --j0eg0d (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Your unsupported accusation remains in the edit summary. I am suggesting that if you do not want the block that was applied because you made unsupported SOCK allegations to be extended because you continued to make unsupported SOCK allegations . Because the allegations are in an edit summary, you will need someone with a mop or better to clean it up for you. Or you can make no efforts to remove the allegation. But if you fail to take action, it should not come as a surprise to you when the block is extended. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- TheRedPenOfDoom I'd assume Wikipedia is the biggest part of your day. It's actually the smallest part of mine. I genuinely don't care about blocks or about Gamaliel's interest in banning me; It's not on my karma. --j0eg0d (talk) 07:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Your unsupported accusation remains in the edit summary. I am suggesting that if you do not want the block that was applied because you made unsupported SOCK allegations to be extended because you continued to make unsupported SOCK allegations . Because the allegations are in an edit summary, you will need someone with a mop or better to clean it up for you. Or you can make no efforts to remove the allegation. But if you fail to take action, it should not come as a surprise to you when the block is extended. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the biggest part of my day. My wife and sons, and my small business, and my extended family and friends are more important to me. My Boston Terrier is too. But the integrity of Wikipedia is also important to me, including defending it against any variety of trolling, attacks on living people, and POV pushing. If I posted a claim on my user page that I had won a notable award, I would expect scrutiny of that claim. If I accused someone of sockpuppetry in an edit summary, I would expect that people would insist that I furnish solid evidence or explicitly withdraw the accusation. J0eg0d, if you want to edit the #6 or #7 website in the world, #1 in terms of originally written content, then you need to be honest and respond to reasonable inquiries about the claims you make about yourself, and about other editors as well. This is not Reddit or whateverChan. This is the world's leading encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- That's wonderful and all, but there's a blatant hypocrisy about said "defense". Since I first noticed the discrepancies in Gamergate controversy and pointed it out. Mind you that's a vast difference between the "trolling, BLP attacks, POV pushing" that you mentioned. Ever since that day; I have been wikihounded & tag teamed by the exact same group of people, I get trolled in ever edit that interests me, I've been called so many names that the only one I remember at the moment is "meatpuppet", I've been accused of being a SOCK on more than one occasion, I had what-was-thought-to-be my IP address posted above, a call to brigade was included in that post to YOU and Liz, my identity has been scrutinized and researched on other websites, demands for my personal information have been called for, editors continuing with OUTING me, I was blocked for "Personal attacks or harassment: Unsupported sock accusations and apparent attempted intimidation on User talk:Jimbo Wales" because I dared ask Mark why his business address is actually somebody else's law firm, Gamaliel chose the next day to sanctioned ARBCOM to ban me indefinitely, I won't be able to defend myself because I'm blocked (LOL FUNNY STUFF HUH), I've faced nothing but harassment & stalking while on Wikipedia - I think I have one edit that was not deleted in the past 2 months, and I know someone will look for that one edit and delete it just because I've mentioned it, I have not been welcome in Wikipedia from the day I visited Gamergate controversy, from the day I wanted people to know that **it's a hashtag that was created by Adam Baldwin**, all of this high school drama nonsense from people using the exact same claim of "defense" & integrity of Wikipedia. People guilty of the very things I'm being accused of. Do not come to me with this BS and assert otherwise. Why would anyone care if they're banned from a website that provokes & attacks them over a damn hashtag? Defending Wikipedia has nothing to do with some imagined nobility. This website is slowly dying because of the lack of interest and this White Knighting nonsense can (in part) be blamed. --j0eg0d (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Block extended[edit]
For repeating unsuppotted accusations of sockpuppetry, and for a particularly gross personal attack ("kapo") both in this edit I have extended the block for a week. DES (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC) If this sort of thing continues, talk page access might be revoked also. DES (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- DESiegel RE: anti-Semitic claim There's nothing anti-Semitic about the term "kapo" (overseer), I'm half-Jewish and this is a term we call privileged Jews abasing other Jews. Gamaliel & Mark are both Jewish, they know what it means & are lying about it Jerusalem Post. --j0eg0d (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is in the thread WP:ANI#Request block review. Thank you. DES (talk) 12:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- DESiegel You spelled unsupported wrong. --j0eg0d (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- So I did. It doesn't change the meaning, or your actions. Do you have any more substantive response to the matter? DES (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. @DESiegel: To keep it simple ... I've been reacting to the blatant favoritism & hypocrisies within Wikipedia; Please note the hatted discussion here the used of the word “subjective” as a noun (“my subjective is...”), a curious grammatical error which, if memory serves, was also made on Gamergate topics by j0eg0d and, before then, by GhostLourde. Doubtless just a coincidence.) MarkBernstein (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC) and the further behavior here @Liz:@Cullen328: You may be interested to know that on [Brianna_Wu], this user appears to have edited while signed out, and then signed the auto signed post. The IP address was /208.167.254.15; it appears JoeGod is using this page to offer advice to himself, and then to thank himself for his advice. I know Wikipedia allows great latitude for users to edit their own talk page, but.... See also the claim to a 2008 Hugo on the User page, which seems somewhat far-fetched, even for the editorial categories (he's not David Hartwell) or the fan writer (John Scalzi? Don’t think so). under protest MarkBernstein (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC) . There is more, but NO ONE does anything about this. There has been a month-long WP:Wikihounding campaign by Mark and his friends, some of which are Admins that unblock Mark when he gets into trouble - One of his close Admin friends requested sanctions against me one day after you blocked me for 2 weeks ... I won't be able to defend myself. I'm not the only one being harassed as this has been the staple of behavior for a while; People claiming integrity & defense yet are guilty of the very things I'm being accused of, and they're not being blocked. --j0eg0d (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- So I did. It doesn't change the meaning, or your actions. Do you have any more substantive response to the matter? DES (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Since you continued to repeat the personal attack you were blocked for after the block was issued, I've removed talk page access. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Arbitration Enforcement[edit]
A discussion at Arbitration Enforcement has been opened with regard to your defense of the term "kapo" on this page. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)