User talk: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 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, , , , and the edits on Clinton Body Count.

You should read Banning_policy 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 Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log. --Neil N  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 . --Neil N  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????????
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)

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 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. p b  p  19:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)