The following topic ban now applies to you:

Until you obtain extended confirmed rights, which ordinarily occurs when you have made 500 edits and have had an account for 30 days, you are hereby topic banned from making any edits that relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict ( broadly construed) anywhere on Wikipedia. This includes requests on talk pages, discussions in the "Wikipedia" namespace, and contributions to anything anywhere else on Wikipedia that reasonably may relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

You have been sanctioned pursuant to a discussion at AE. Please note that any future violations will lead to escalating blocks; please find something else to productively edit about in the meantime.

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. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 02:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Please read, thank you. starship .paint ( RUN) 09:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Uh huh, claiming to fix POV and then introducing it, from my perspective, recent editing seems WP:CPUSH at a minimum, good idea if that were dialled back. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't believe I ever introduced POV, I believe I only removed POV. Please don't throw around accusations without evidence. JoeJShmo ^💌 10:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Look at where you change stated to claimed. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Why are we giving more weight here to the doctor than to the Israelis, where we use the word claim/claims? I do realize I may be missing something, and I'll be slower to make such edits in the future, but what's the reasoning here?* JoeJShmo ^💌 10:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

starship.paint didn't point to the use one way or another, generally it's a bad idea to use claim, claims, claimed and its especially a bad idea to change stated to claimed in the way you did here while "claiming" to fix POV. You could have changed "Israel's claims" to Israel's statements. "what it called Israel's "false claims"" is OK because that's in quotes and attributed. Etcetera. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Ah. Didn't realize I should've went the other way around. Thanks for letting me know. JoeJShmo ^💌 10:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

No you should have not. You should not have touched that article, or the entire topic area for that matter.

Also, you need to stop challenging others. If an experienced editor approaches you about a mistake you made – and there have been several cases of that in your short editing history – it's quite immature to always challenge them: No I did it right, no policy is wrong, no it's other editors.

Wikipedia is a huge collaborative project to build a global encyclopaedia. You're welcome to join the effort. But for this, you first need to learn and respect its rules, and also respect other editors and their experience. Your constant challenges consume a lot of community time that could have been spent elsewhere more productively. I advise you to rethink your attitude. — kashmīrī  ^TALK 12:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

• 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) reply

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) reply

@ 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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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

I just looked through all the bullying you have been subjected to from the Wikipedia gestapo, and want to commend your incredible ability to keep your cool. Bravo. I was threatened today with an AE, and fixed my rant (I admit it was a rant) to hopefully comply with the bizarre restrictions that are unequally enforced. Stay strong and brave. DaringDonna ( talk) 20:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you! It's nice to see a friendly face in this cold place. I just took a look at your edit history- I'm impressed by what you've managed to do. Very accurate description of what I've been put up against. The hypocrisy and double standards are hardly even subtle. "Eisav soneh es yaakov"- they'll never let us forget it. I saw one of them who said a contributor was 'POV' on Israel... because "he's Jewish". They're shameless. And by the way, I love your user page. JoeJShmo ^💌 20:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you about my user page. I was inspired by an interview Michael Rapaport had with Bari Weiss. His stand up shows have been cancelled because of threats of violence against him because of his views, and perhaps also because he is Jewish. I thought, if he can be brave like that, and pay the price, maybe I can do something small like make a meaningful user page. BTW, I am being stalked. I had a slightly threatening visit on my talk page from Nableezy, who asked me to explain what I meant by "Wikipedia Gestapo," which I mentioned here. I did not know I had to explain myself to anyone in private conversations I might have on talk pages. I told him it was obviously just a joke. Everyone knows Wikipedia is the free-est, most democratic and open forum for discovering the truth. Stay well. DaringDonna ( talk) 18:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Wow. Kudos to Barry Weiss and to others like him. Mattisyahu comes to mind, his shows also got canceled because he's pro Israel. It seems to be a common tactic of that side to stifle dissenting speech and shut down voices they don't like. I suppose the truth hurts; it can be scary to realize how sad it is that one has filled the vacuum of meaning in their life with a fallacious cause who's roots can often be traced back to common anti-Semitism. And your last sentence made me lol! All the best, don't lose heart. The truth is on our side, after all.

(btw, I see one of the stalkers of my talk page already replied to you. I removed his comment. He somehow managed to completely mischaraterize what you were saying; he's done the same to me many times. Just ignore him.) JoeJShmo ^💌 22:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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

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) reply

You actually put a smile on my face. That was he first time anyone has ever acknowledged me in an AfD discussion before. :) 9t5 ( talk) 00:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

You're welcome! JoeJShmo ^💌 02:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Your tban and ECR cover comments written anywhere and I have removed those comments that violate the restrictions at HumansRightsIsCool user talk. Selfstudier ( talk) 08:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't know whether it's common practice to consider giving advice to other editors in following EC guidelines as violating a topic ban, in fact I didn't even consider that a possibility seeing to how illogical that would be, but I strongly suspect it isn't. If you tell me it is, I won't restore my comment, I'll just rewrite it to address your concerns. Also, your raising of ECR is entirely moot as: 1. I am EC and 2. I am under the impression that ECR doesn't apply to user spaces. For the record, I didn't realize the topic ban extended to talk pages, as I assumed that was exempt subject to the same rules as ECR being inapplicable to user space. JoeJShmo ^💌 09:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

No objection to your giving advice, every objection to your commenting about the conflict, which are the parts I removed. Selfstudier ( talk) 09:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

No problem. I'll reword that. JoeJShmo ^💌 09:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Upon further inspection I take issue with the breadth of your removal. I cannot in good faith seriously construe linking the rules of ARB on the conflict and informing the user of the 1RR rule as falling under the spirit of the topic ban. Do you have reason to believe this is common practice or is this your own judgement call. JoeJShmo ^💌 09:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ ScottishFinnishRadish: Is my removal reasonable? Selfstudier ( talk) 09:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I'll take this to mean it was your own judgement call. In the future, I encourage you to ask for advice whether something specific falls under a topic ban before you remove it, not after. JoeJShmo ^💌 09:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

No, I won't be doing that and I am only doing it now because you are contesting the obvious. Selfstudier ( talk) 09:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

This hardly qualifies as obvious, but I digress. JoeJShmo ^💌 09:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Doug Weller @ Red-tailed hawk any input? Also, can someone clarify why the practice is apparently to treat such a topic ban as applying to userspace if the Committee thought it logical to exempt userspace from the conflict area in regards to regular PIA restrictions? If this is because of the 'broadly construed' language, I'd ask the same question in regards to why an admin would apply a ban in a wider manner than the Committee generally thought appropriate. JoeJShmo ^💌 11:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I think it's useful to remember that the principles of general site-wide policies like WP:TBAN are still also in force, and not only ArbCom stuff. We don't get to pick and choose; they all apply. Left guide ( talk) 12:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

It is bad practice to alter comments that have been replied to, creates a false impression. Selfstudier ( talk) 15:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Should've struck it. JoeJShmo ^💌 15:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Agreed. That's incredibly deceptive since I wouldn't have replied were it not for the removed material; that's what I was replying to. I've reverted that edit. Please strike it if need be. Left guide ( talk) 17:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

( talk page stalker) Per WP:BANREVERT, Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban or block, without giving any further reason. That said, refactoring other users' comments is generally frowned upon, so it's usually better to simply revert the entire edit rather than to censor specific sentences. @JoeJShmo, it's the umpteenth time you're refusing to get the point, and I fear you're heading towards getting blocked from editing. — kashmīrī  ^TALK 09:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The question here is whether the edit a specific part of the edit was in fact in violation of a ban. And I'm tired of your characterizing normal discussion as refusing to get the point. You've done this countless times; it's unhelpful and stifles discussion. Please stop it. JoeJShmo ^💌 10:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Violation of a ban and ecr, both. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

You must've missed it above when I told you I am EC. That's never been revoked. JoeJShmo ^💌 10:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I thought the 1521 edits involved an EC restriction, my apologies. Just a tban breach then. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

It was a topic ban violation. If you continue to violate your topic ban you will be blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 10:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

As I mentioned above, I was not aware that topic bans apply to userspace, as I assumed that was subject to the same exception as ECR. Now I know better. JoeJShmo ^💌 10:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Also, the question I was discussing with selfstudier was whether the specific sentence linking the ARB rules and the 1RR rule fell under the spirit of the topic ban. Perhaps you can clear that up. JoeJShmo ^💌 10:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

That makes no sense; WP:ECR makes no exceptions for userspace. Something isn't adding up here. Left guide ( talk) 10:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

It says it in ARBPIA. See Definition of the "area of conflict". Not sure if this is specifically by PIA and not by all ECR. Either way, I had previously assumed a topic ban in PIA wouldn't be more wide spread than the original area of conflict itself. JoeJShmo ^💌 10:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The more I think about it, the more I wonder why the practice here is apparently to treat the breadth of a topic ban as wider than the Committee thought it logical to define in regards to regular PIA restrictions... JoeJShmo ^💌 10:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ JoeJShmo you are hereby topic banned from making any edits that relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict ( broadly construed) anywhere on Wikipedia. [3] Which part of "anywhere on Wikipedia" you don't understand? Also, a detailed explanation has been linked for you as WP:TBAN – can you please indicate which policy wording there you find unclear? — kashmīrī  ^TALK 14:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

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

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating your topic ban., you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{ unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me ( by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

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

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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