text:
alestinian conflict. I also tend to agree that Wikipedia is not addressing a rather serious antisemitism problem.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support site ban per Johnuniq and others (first choice) or a topic ban (second choice). A very long "rope" was given to this contributor already. My very best wishes (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support site ban. Sir Joseph has a long history of lashing out with poorly-reasoned attacks on good faith editors who are rationally discussing issues he feels are fraught with anti-Semitic overtones. He behavior inflames the editing environment on a wide range of articles and it needs to be purged. It's his behavior, not his opinion as to what might or might not be anti-Semitic.  Both O3000 and MVBW are among the most civil and conflict-averse editors I have encountered on contentious Wikipedia articles. Sir Joseph, as has been documented, routinely escalates, confuses, and personalizes content disputes.  BTW I'm surprised and disappointed that a sanction on Israel-related topics is being conflated here with behavior on Jewish-related topics. Don't we all know that's wrong?  SPECIFICO talk 20:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , "BTW I'm surprised and disappointed that a sanction on Israel-related topics is being conflated here with behavior on Jewish-related topics." that's ironic, considering your first sentence. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I think this is a lame report. Sir Joseph has a long and rich history of editing on Wikipedia, including in a very loaded area (IP-conflict), and his edits are at least as good as other editors' who edit in this area, if not better. I find the attitude of the reporting administrator disturbing, to say the least. I propose to close this thread with a trout to the reporting editor, and think that they should be under increased scrutiny for biased edits for the next year. Debresser (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be an outrageous abuse of process, with an orderly poll in process. Your unsupported disparagement of one of our best and most level-headed Admins is gratuitous and I suggest you will strike it.
 * Incognito editor, I happen to disagree with your assessment that this is one of our best admins. I have noticed on more than one occasion, that this admin makes less than optimal decisions for unclear reasons, and I suspect they may have certain biases. Therefore not only do I not strike my comment, but repeat my proposal, that this admin should be kept under community scrutiny specifically in these fields (IP-conflict and anything related to Jews). Debresser (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Oppose - any form of t-ban. I also oppose any action against Tony, who is an excellent admin. Sometimes we just see events differently. Atsme Talk 📧 19:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Option 1 only: Quite frankly, this is a rather serious problem that requires some solution, and casting aspersions is the easiest one to rein in, even if parsing possible attacks is a bit harder; all others seem disproportionate at this time, but the matter of vile insinuations must be dealt with posthaste. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 20:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support the TBAN, which implicitly also includes the second option (as does WP:NPA) so that doesn't need to be called out. Guy (help!) 22:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think Sir Joseph is out of line, and a warning is merited. We're not in site-ban territory. Any topic ban should be about the holocaust; the Arab-Israeli conflict is only slightly related. And this is too complicated to enforce. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support option 1 per Javert. I noticed the intervention by SJ at Tony's talk page yesterday, because I was tagged there for unrelated reasons but it struck me as a completely out of line attack on good-faith actions by one of our most respected admins. I don't generally edit or follow the Israel-Palestine debates on Wikipedia in huge detail, and I don't have an opinion on whether we have an antisemitism problem, but that isn't the issue here. It's the aspersion-casting and attacks on editors who are just trying to do the right thing in a tricky situation, in multiple venues, and refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing. We can monitor the situation and come back here to discuss further remedies if the need arises - and hopefully it won't, because it would be a shame to lose a good content editor over an issue like this. — Amakuru (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support option 1 and topic ban, either on IP as proposed or specifically on the Holocaust. SarekOfVulcan (talk)  23:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Levivich word for word. I just want to add that it's very ironic that Frood makes a statement about antisemtism and then proposes a TBAN from the IP conflict when as pointed out, this has nothing to do with it, as Specifico mentions as well. I am also still waiting for TonyBallioni to respond to the insinuation in Point #4. He talks about insinuations, but he makes one there and implies that I called someone antisemitic when I did no such thing, or that I'm guilty merely for participating in an ANI thread, just like all of you are doing now. Bottom line is that he brought this because I posted on his talk page that I didn't think he would be a good ARBCOM candidate. Everything else is old news. He continues to say that I am calling O3000 a Holocaust denier when I am doing no such thing. It is clear that he has an axe to grind. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I just looked over the record. You called me a holocaust denier five times. Five times. Asking me to provide diffs would seal the argument against you. You are now accusing me of having some ax to grind. What ax? You called me one of the most disgusting terms that exist. Basically, you called me a Nazi. For, who but a Nazi would deny the Holocaust? You think anyone that doesn't agree with some exact number of dead matters, as if it wasn't monstrous for any number of millions. Indeed, at the Wannsee Conference where the Final Solution was developed, they even argued about the definition of a Jew -- and the Nuremberg definitions before that were ridiculously complex and arbitrary. There is no exact number to this historic monstrosity. You do not belong editing anything related to religion. You clearly have a hatred for Palestinians or anyone that isn't Jewish enough for your taste. You will be barred eventually. That's why I didn't bring this to AN/I myself. I'm patient. Unfortunately, this will all waste editor time. What you should do is voluntarily remove yourself from religion articles for six months and rethink your approach. Otherwise, your extensive block logs will ultimately catch up with your behavior. O3000 (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You are not TonyBallioni. Please do not respond or talk to me. You are also insinuating things about me that I never said, which violates policy, but I guess it's allowed when you do it because this is not the first time you have done so. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't get to tell someone not to respond at ANI when they are responding to a message where you brought them up. Nil Einne (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't bring them up. I was talking to TB, not O3000. Apparently for TB and O3000, they wish to prolong a closed action that was already clarified a while back just to ban me, for TB, this was because I posted on his talk page that I don't think he'd make a good ARBCOM candidate. This incident with O3000 was clarified already back in August and put to rest and no further edits about it were made or necessary until TB brought it up. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't give a damn who you were talking to. "He continues to say that I am calling O3000 a Holocaust denier when I am doing no such thing" (emphasis added). If you are going to talk about someone on ANI even if in an oblique way it is disgusting to suggest they cannot respond. People should be entitled to respond to any discussions on them except when they are banned point blank in which case discusions on them should be minimised to the essentials. (Entitled doesn't of course mean it is wise, plenty of people have gotten themselves into trouble by responding when they shouldn't have. But the person bringing them up doesn't get to tell them they aren't allowed to respond. ) Nil Einne (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Oppose This editor makes good edits in a difficult area. That alone should give them some credit. In addition, we have seen too many attempts to shut long-term editors up because Wikipedia does not like to be criticized, and I strongly oppose that tendency. Debresser (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't your comment here a violation of your topic ban from the I-P topic?  Volunteer Marek   07:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @Volunteer Marek You are mistaken. I am under no such ban. Debresser (talk) 09:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe that's a topic ban from making comments at AE, not the IP area. Black Kite (talk) 09:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Debresser (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Oppose. See this solution as very draconian. Let's be reasonable here...this arena is a difficult topic area and has had an endless supply of holocaust deniers and revisionists frequent it. Truly believe we are better off with a hardcore stance by those few editors willing to wade into this fracas than doing a TB against them for a small pittance of diffs amongst many thousands that are made. I would urge caution about making accusations against established editors as far as them being holocaust deniers or even revisionists...my advise is to completely refrain from making any character assessments and if they find comments or edits to be highly questionable, refer them to AE for enforcement. This on the record now, so I think all can learn from it so let's move on.--MONGO (talk) 05:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose proposal is too broad/vague. Buffs (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Broad proposal and per the wisdom of Levich. Wm335td (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is Wm335td's 2nd edit to AN/I ever . Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Their first edit to ANI was to another thread a week ago . Assuming you're suggesting canvassing, unless they're clairvoyant, I don't think that theory holds water. Strike one... – Levivich 03:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Opposed to the TBAN that is both draconian, as well as arbitrary for an issue that is not really directly related to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. We should adopt either option #1 or a strong warning, but the TBAN proposal makes very little sense here. I should note also that the structure of this thread is somewhat confusing, because some users are voting "support" without specifying which specific proposals they do support and which they oppose.Krow750 (talk) 08:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is only the 2nd edit Krow750 has ever made to AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Their first edit to ANI was in another thread a week ago and they edited AN a week before that  and last month . Strike two... – Levivich  03:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support for 2 I honestly think the other proposed t-ban would cover this pretty effectively, after all if Sir J is calling people holocaust deniers or claiming they're defending Hitler on a page about fish or something that's probably going to go poorly for them regardless. And I do think the other t-ban is a more comprehensive remedy. But I'm not opposed to this proposal; I just think it's slightly weaker than the one I supported first. Simonm223 (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per Levivich's well-reasoned arguments.Homemade Pencils (talk) 00:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is just the 6th edit Homemade Pencils has made to AN/I in the four years since the account was opened. ; the last was on 10 July 2016, over 3 years ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite insulting to suggest a Japanese-Canadian, longtime, regular mainspace editor !voted to oppose an Arab-Israel TBAN against SJ because they were canvassed. Unlikely to be part of some off-wiki cabal, methinks. Strike three, next batter. – Levivich 03:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't care if they're the Queen of the May, and I've made no comments whatsoever about their worth as Wikipedia editors, nor did I blame them for !voting -- not everyone knows about WP:CANVASS, and the blame goes to the canvasser, not the canvasees -- but people who almost never post here, with 249, 242, and 632 edits respectively, all of whom show up not just to !vote, but to vote the same way, those are definite signs of the possibility of canvassing. You don't agree, fine, but if you personalize this to be about me again, we're going to have trouble again, so I suggest that you don't.  It's not about me, it's about the evidence of canvassing.  I could be wrong, but I don't deserve to be ridiculed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Comment - Why are these editors with little history of AN/I participation showing up to oppose sanctions to Sir Joseph? Where is the WP:CANVASSing happening and who is doing it? What steps need to be taken to prevent this discussion from being influenced by canvassed editors? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid those were three strikes, and I've once again had to call you out :-) – Levivich 03:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not laughing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Support second part. No opinion about A-I topics, I don't edit them often enough, but a 'last warning about personal attacks' seems appropriate. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support no further editing on Israel-Palestine topics, and option #1 as strong discouragement against calling other editors antisemites, etc. I believe however that option #2 is too harsh. -Darouet (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Arab-Israeli topic ban. Sir Joseph pushes a strong agenda, just recently he deleted a reliable source including the real name of an animal just because it has the name Palestine in it: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - This diff has to be seen to be believed - Sir Joseph is apparently so desperate to expunge the word "Palestine" from anything that he ignored the fact that the freaking Times of Israel also refers to the animal as the "Palestine mountain gazelle". NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism for the Pot calling the Kettle Black. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Support except (2): Antisemitism and holocaust denial are serious, that makes accusations of them serious, serious enough to destroy lives and careers. So, strong evidence is required to merit such accusations. There's a lot of IDHT and rightGreatWrong vibe in their comments, but I don't think #2 does anyone any good. It will just paint a target on SJ's back and "insinuation" and "similar" are not the swords under which someone can become a productive editor.  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 07:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So what does that have to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Sir Joseph (talk) 02:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Oppose per Levivich. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: reminder/warning (closed)
Proposal: "Sir Joseph is reminded that accusing an editor of holocaust denial requires specific evidence of that editor challenging the narrative of the holocaust agreed upon by mainstream sources. Sir Joseph is warned that such accusations without such evidence constitute personal attacks, which may be met by blocks under WP:NPA in the usual manner. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, as proposer. I think is quite wrong about 's point 1; Sir Joseph has obviously not gotten the point.  and  said something to him, yes, but he's repeating the accusations up above, and what the admins said to him needs, I think, the weight of a formal warning from the community. That said, I'm not willing to go further than a warning, after reading through all of this multiple times. Sir Joseph is free to believe whatever he pleases. He isn't free to make accusations sans evidence, just based on his beliefs. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC) Striking my support. Sir Joseph's continued inability to understand makes this insufficient. My oppose above stands. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , where have I continued the accusations? I have not done so at all. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh what nonsense. You've continued to insist, above, that what O3000 said was holocaust denialism. Saying that, instead of saying he was a holocaust denialist, doesn't release you from having to provide evidence for that assertion. That particular quote did not constitute such evidence. This has been explained to you on your talk page. You ignored that explanation, and said the same thing above. I explained why. You ignored me, and then said the same thing to Tony. That is a typical inability to get the point. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You keep missing the point. The quote itself is a form of Holocaust denialism, or revisionism. He has already clarified back in August that he was just quoting others, so this was put to bed back then. From the USHMM, Common distortions include, for example, assertions that the figure of six million Jewish deaths is an exaggeration and that the diary of Anne Frank is a forgery. That is from his quote. That is a common assertion that scholars use. I am not sure why you and others keep saying that it's not denialism when Holocaust scholars say it is. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I know exactly what holocaust denialism is, thank you. Read O3000's quote again. Explain how it challenges the figure of six million Jewish deaths. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * But, it’s still in the millions. Does it make it OK if it was 75% as many? Just say “substantially fewer deaths”. What part of that isn't clear? Sir Joseph (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand the quote; do you? That quote is saying a) that the holocaust would not have been okay even if the number of victims was 75% of what it really was, and that therefore b) it is preferable to write "substantially fewer deaths", when discussing various estimates thereof, than to give a percentage. Neither of these things are challenging the accepted estimates of the number of victims. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I do understand that quote but that still is one of the forms of denial, Common distortions include, for example, assertions that the figure of six million Jewish deaths is an exaggeration and that the diary of Anne Frank is a forgery that is what I was pointing out. That is from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. That is why he clarified and said it's not his quote but he was quoting others. So all this is old news, but TB is bringing this back for the drama and retribution for questioning him as per ADMINACCT. Otherwise I have no idea why he'd bring it up since it was already clarified. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't change the subject. I asked you to show me where O3000 challenged the six million figure. You haven't done so. And you can't, because he hasn't done so. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not changing the subject. You're the one who claimed I said he's a Holocause denier and I never said it. I said his qoute is. Because that quote on my page is, saying, "75%...." is, as the statement from the USHMM says. 75% less, is a challenge to the six million figure. And again, this must be the second dozen time I've said it, I never said O3000 is a Holocause denier, he was quoting others, so this quote was saying that others use the 75% quote. I am perplexed that you are not getting this. I never said anywhere in this thread that O3000 challenged the six million figure. To say I did is a disgusting aspersion on me. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You continue to act as though the mere mention of '75%' counts as an endorsement. That's not reasonable. Lepricavark (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I don't know what you mean by endorsement. Secondly, as someone who thinks that the USHMM is "just" a museum, I don't think your opinion on this matter should carry much weight. But I guess for the third dozen time, I guess I have to say, this was a quote from O3000, and not once in this thread did I say that this was his opinion. So I really don't know why any of you are ascribing that to me.Sir Joseph (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not say it was "just" a museum, so your use of quotes is a bald-faced lie. I said it was a museum, which it is. I believe that my statement was sufficiently clear and I am not going to explain it for you. Lepricavark (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. I think this is far more in line with the actual "offense". As has been pointed out, accusing someone of antisemitism is quite serious and should not be undertaken lightly.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose someone with a block log this long, who is a frequent flyer at AE, and who has been warned about this before knows what he’s doing and simply doesn’t care. A warning will only give him cover to keep finding new ways to attack anyone who doesn’t agree with him and then claim he wasn’t violating the warning. An indef block given his history of disruption is warranted, but at the very least some sanction that makes sure a long block will occur at the next occurrence. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Since it's unusual for us to disagree; I'm not willing to jump to a site ban based on the four points you raise above. They concern me, but the only one individually sanction-worthy is the first; and we're too far past that incident for me to be willing to block over that. Therefore, I default to "do it again and you will be blocked", because we don't have evidence that he has actually ignored what Bish and El_C told him. He does have a history of disruption, and I noted his frequent appearance on the drama boards myself, up above. If we're considering a site ban on those grounds, though, we need to examine his whole history of disruption. Maybe we need to make such an examination, and I for one don't know what I'd recommend after doing that. Based solely on the diffs presented here, I think this is where we're at. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I get your point of view. I’d have been fine with a warning if he hadn’t repeated the libellous lie that O3000 was a Holocaust revisionist in this very thread and then tried to play word games to deny doing that. That’s someone intentionally editing in bad faith, and I’m generally opposed to giving warnings to people who are intentionally editing in bad faith. Warnings exist to get people who mean well but are being unintentionally disruptive to understand the views of of the community as a whole on their behaviour. This isn’t that. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , You need to stop lying. I never said O3000 was a Holocaust revisionist and in this thread up above I most certainly didn't do so. The only one casting aspersions here is you. Your point #4, regarding the ANI thread where you claim I participated in a thread about calling someone antisemitic implies I did so. That is not true. Either put up the diffs or stop. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * O300's quote is the literal definition of Holocaust revisionism (diff)TonyBallioni (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , that's correct, the quote is revisionism. But as he already pointed out, he was quoting what other people were saying. The quote itself is revisionism. From here,  Common distortions include, for example, assertions that the figure of six million Jewish deaths is an exaggeration and that the diary of Anne Frank is a forgery. So there is no discrepancy. He was quoting what others say. That was clarified and put to bed. That you are trying to open it up and make trouble speaks about you, not me. We discussed this on my talk page already and this was resolved. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Except you did not say that. You said "Objective3000's quote" not "the people Objective3000 was quoting/and or criticizing". The implication is not lost on anyone. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What implication? That's his quote. That's what I mean. He clarified that he is quoting people, but the statement is his quote. You are making this into a bigger issue than it is, I think just because I posted on your talk page. That is also not lost on anyone.Sir Joseph (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * TonyBallioni, you should know better than to propose admin intervention based on perceived implications. I think it is you who is seeing implications a bit too much. Debresser (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This thread is warning enough, if any were needed. Which I doubt very much. Debresser (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * How is the thread a warning, if closed with no action, which is what you seem to be advocating for? Anyone can be dragged to ANI. Being discussed here isn't in and of itself a sign of misbehavior, let alone of community disapproval of misbehavior. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TonyBallioni and Debresser, and reiterate my support for proposal above based on SJ's WP:TENDENTIOUS Wiki-lawyering behavior in the comments just above this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What is tendentious about pointing out that I didn't do what I'm accused of? TonyBallioni has repeatedly claimed that I am still calling O3000 a Holocaust revisionist which is a vile thing to claim. It is not Wiki-lawyering to defend yourself against an admin who clearly has an axe to grind and wants you banned. Using wikiterms to get people banned is part of a problem. Questioning an admin for his past actions should not result in an admin digging through old, and closed, actions to get one banned. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Oppose I did not !vote in the above discussion; but must do so here. He has just denied that he called me a Holocaust denier even though he has done so five times. He has been warned and sanctioned many times. Warnings have no meaning to him. He refuses to acknowledge the problem. An admission of the problem and steps talking to improvement are required. Otherwise, we'll just be here again and again. O3000 (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And he has now demanded that I not respond to him here. Does that sound like he has learned any lesson? O3000 (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I never called you a Holocaust denier. I said your quote is Holocaust denial, which it is. And you then clarified that it's not your opinion but you were quoting others, which then put the matter to rest until TonyBallioni reopened this. I told you not to respond to me because you said I hate Palestinians and Jews who aren't religious, which is an NPA. It's clear you are unwilling to drop the stick, same as TonyBallioni, for some reason you wish to continue harping on closed matters, which I thought was already clarified. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , have you had any problems with SJ after the El C/Bish warnings a month ago but before this filing? And if so, can you point to diffs or pages? Thanks. – Levivich 01:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you mean the warnings against SJ, absolutely. He continues to make false statements here and has ordered me, one of his victims, to not respond to his false statements at AN/I. That's a new one on me. I am sickened by this beyond your apparent understanding. I'm beginning to hate looking at this site. Signing off for the night, so he can add what he wishes. O3000 (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify which of my statements are false? I've repeatedly said you're not a Holocaust denier and was just quoting others. I must have said that half a dozen times now. I'm assuming you think that's a true statement. So what statement of mine do you think is false about you? Sir Joseph (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @O3000: I'm asking if there were any problems in the month between Aug 18 and Sep 19, inclusive. – Levivich 01:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's never wise to peeve too many editors off. We've no rights here, only privileges. The community is capable of removing such privileges. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I would like to note the wisdom behind GoodDay's comment immediately above; it is indubitably true. And, having said that, I do not believe that the above proposal is strong enough, and, as such, I must oppose it. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 01:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – this is clearly insufficient, given that Sir Joseph continues to engage in these accusations during this very discussion. Another warning will accomplish nothing. – bradv  🍁  01:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Where am I continuing to engage in any form of accusations? You need to stop with your own shameful accusations. That you can't understand English is not my problem. If you want to ban me, then just say so, but to claim that I am calling someone a Holocaust denier is shameful when the evidence is not there is disgusting. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Oppose because I don't see justification for issuing another warning. The last warning, a month ago, appears to have worked. I don't believe in doing this: Somebody does something bad. You warn them to stop. They stop. A month later, you file an ANI report about that bad thing they did. They start up again. You then warn or sanction them for starting up again. That is actual baiting. – Levivich 02:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Lol, if it "have worked" we wouldn't be here and Sir Joseph wouldn't be repeating the behavior that got him in trouble through out this entire discussion. This is more like: Somebody does something bad. You warn them to stop. A month later, they do it again. And again. And again. Tony's diffs are from Sept 20, Sept 20 and... Sept 20. Not "month ago".  Volunteer Marek   02:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Except those diffs don't show anything sanctionable. – Levivich 02:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Oppose at this point, nothing short of a full-fledged site ban is sufficient. The behavior has been appalling, but I fear that SJ will be allowed to get off scot-free simply because he was able to misrepresent his actions as some kind of campaign against legitimate antisemitism. The enabling by some editors in this thread is truly disappointing. Lepricavark (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Holocaust and anti-Semitism topic ban
Proposal: "Sir Joseph is topic-banned from the holocaust, and from antisemitism, both broadly construed. This includes discussing the holocaust in relation to the behavior of other editors, and specifically, accusing other editors of holocaust denialism. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC) Amended per below. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, as proposer. Perhaps it was naive of me to believe that a warning would achieve anything. Be that as it may, in his replies to me and TonyBallioni above, Sir Joseph has continued to avoid the basic point, which is that he did not have the evidence to make the accusations that he did. However, I stand by my comments above. A topic-ban from ARBIPA for this offence is off the mark, because this problem is related to the holocaust. A complex behavioral restriction is impossible to enforce. A site-ban is going too far. This, to me, is the logical step if a warning is insufficient, as I now believe. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, but I'd suggest we append the words "holocaust denialism, holocaust revisionism, or antisemitism " to the proposal to avoid the tendentious argumentation still going on above. – bradv  🍁  01:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – based on lack of evidence of any problem regarding the Holocaust since the warning a month ago, before this spurious ANI report was filed (i.e., between Aug 18 and Sep 19, inclusive). To the extent there is a problem "in this thread", it was caused by the filing of this thread. No thread, no problem. I'm not down with sanctioning people for responding poorly to poor noticeboard reports. – Levivich 02:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's bordering on Wiki-lawyering, though I know it wasn't your intention. He made a comment yesterday that highlighted a longer-term behavioral problem. He is exemplifying that problem here today. The fact that his comment yesterday wasn't sanctionable in isolation is besides the point; being dragged to ANI is an excuse for hyperbole, for anger, or for swearing at somebody; it's not an excuse for politely repeating the same stuff you were warned for a month ago. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , assuming you're referring to statements he made in this thread and not elsewhere, I think it is an excuse, if the ANI report is about the stuff you were warned a month ago. Look at this this way: He made an unwarranted accusation by implication a month ago. He believed it was warranted. He was told not to do it again. He didn't do it again. He may still have believed it was warranted, but he is free to believe that, as long as he doesn't express it on wiki. He didn't express it again. Until, he's brought to ANI, not for something new (that's valid), but questioned about the same accusation he made a month ago. In response, he says that he still thinks that accusation was warranted. Ah ha!, we say, You repeat your blasphemy! Well, no, not really, he kept it to himself until he was basically asked about it. He hasn't made any new accusations of denial or revisionism; he's only said that he believed his original accusation was warranted, and he only said that because it was brought up here. So, in a month from now, will we file another ANI and ask, "Do you still think that quote was revisionist?" And if he answers yes, we siteban him? We don't sanction people for their beliefs. In my view, to support any sanction, there must be a new incident, post-warning, and nothing in this thread counts, it has to be something to justify bringing this thread in the first place. If there was no problem between Aug 18 (the warning was Aug 17) and Sep 19 (this was filed on Sep 20), then there is no justification for any sanction whatsoever. – Levivich  02:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not what the logic is. We're not a criminal court dealing out punishment, and entrapment isn't an excuse. The question is whether Sir Joseph will repeat the behavior he was warned about. The warning wasn't just "You cannot say X". The warning was "you do not have the evidence for the accusation you are making, and therefore you need to recalibrate." The comments on TonyBallioni's talk page aren't a repetition of the behavior, but they are an indication that it will be repeated. The comments here are another such indication; no recalibration has occurred. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Entrapment isn't just some legal loophole, it's a fundamental principle of fairness. It's about environment. In a normal editing environment, SJ has shown, for example, he can go 30 days without accusing anyone of being antisemitic or a Holocaust denier. (According to diffs I've seen so far, maybe there's something out there I don't know about.) But in the environment of, for example, an ANI thread that brings up an accusation he made a month ago, he continues to insist the quote was revisionism (although he has disclaimed multiple times that O3000 is a revisionist or denier). He was willing to drop the O3000 thing for a month before someone else brought it up; that shows that he won't be picking up that stick so long as no one else picks up that stick. That's acceptable; that's the warning working. As for the TonyB comments, I don't really understand, if it's not a repetition, why it's an indication that repetition is forthcoming. In any event, his statement on TonyB's talk page is accurate, or at least as accurate as we can get without reading the mind of the editor who was blocked. That editor (Yaniv) reverted what they perceived as antisemitic vandalism. TonyB blocked them for, in part, making an accusation of antisemitism where TonyB didn't think such an accusation was merited (as part of a history of doing such things, I guess, I don't really know the history of that editor's editing). So SJ says that TonyB blocked someone for "calling out antisemitism". Where Yaniv's edit summary was "rvv antisemitic vandalism", I don't see the problem with saying, "blocked for calling out antisemitism". TonyB did, in fact, block an editor for calling something antisemitic. Whether that block was right or wrong, I don't see how you get from there to TonyB's interpretation that this was SJ calling TonyB antisemitic. Suggesting that Yaniv was right and that the edit they reverted was antisemitic vandalism, is not the same thing as saying TonyB is antisemitic for making that block.Ditto with the Sandstein post: he's saying Wikipedia has a revisionism problem (true) and Sandstein closed the thread too early (also true), that's not the same thing as saying Sandstein is antisemitic or perpetuating an antisemitic culture or anything like that. At worst, it's saying he's not sensitive enough to it. I don't see these statements as sanctionable or problematic. They're criticisms of admin actions, which we shouldn't sanction people for. What I see is 30 days of "good behavior", including appropriate criticism of admin actions, followed by bad behavior when needlessly provoked by this ANI report. – Levivich  04:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support only if anti-semitism is included per bradv. He'll just accuse admins who take the other side of him in content disputes of furthering a culture of anti-semitism if he doesn't. That is what led to this thread being started in the first place: his attacks on Sandstein and myself. Not my caring that'd he doesn't think I'd be good on ArbCom (he is hardly alone in that opinion and I have no desire for that position, so that doesn't bother me.) Maybe I'm sensitive about this because people have created false accounts on Stormfront to praise me as a friend of neo-nazis on Wikipedia after I blocked Yaniv for long-term tendentious editing in anything related to Israel and/or the History of the Jewish people, but these accusations have only one purpose: to try to prevent administrators from acting impartially when someone who is an "ally" is behaving disruptively. It's negative for the project and created a climate of fear. Who wants to be compared to literal nazis for blocking someone for POV pushing? Still a second choice to a site ban, but that's unlikely to pass at this point. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There you go with your insinuations again, with your claim about attacks on Sandstein. People have been making comments about his actions at AE for a while. There is no need to make it personal or about antisemitism. I don't know why you are now implying that anytime I will have a problem with an admin it'll be about antisemitism. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think a topic-ban from "accusing other editors of anti-semitism" is unworkable. If we want that, we need to tban him from Judaism, which necessarily covers anti-semitism. I wouldn't be opposed to such a proposal; I think I've wasted my share of people's time here, though. Also, just a note to say the site ban isn't a formal proposal. We can assume that those opposed to lesser sanction are opposed to a site-ban, but I don't think anyone but you and me have specifically expressed opinions on it. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with making it a tban from antisemitism as a whole. The outcome of this proposal is that he's going to stop saying Holocaust revisionism and replace it with Antisemitism, and we'd be back here again in 6 months. Yeah, I know that's not very AGF of me, but not a suicide pact and all. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose all this is due to a misunderstanding and due to TonyBallioni reopening an already taken care of closed thread that was already clarified. All this drama is due to TB upset that I posted on his talk page and that is the bottom line, everything else could be clarified real easily without drama. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I was content to ignore your accusations against me, then you decided to accuse Sandstein of helping to create a project where Holocaust revisionism is safe. The problem here is that you want to be able to make unfounded attacks against anyone who disagrees with you, and then claim that you are being persecuted when people have the nerve to subject themselves to even more attacks from you by requesting action. That must stop. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that Wikipedia does not have a problem with Holocaust revisionism? Sir Joseph (talk) 02:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a problem with many kinds of extremist ideology including Holocaust revisionism. That is different from evaluating whether the specific people you've suggested are promoting that are. I've been surprised that time and time again that you've dug in and refused to accept ideas presented by multiple editors - such as wikilawyering here. I think it's this sort of actions that finds us here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, we're here because TB opened the ANI because I posted on his talk page, so it's about the Holocaust. And Tony, I never said Sandstein furthers a culture of Holocaust revisionism, I said he swoops in and blocks without waiting for other admins to comment, something that many other editors have complained about in the past. That you continue to make insinuations about me is disgusting. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sandstein does have that tendency, and it makes things bad at WP:AE. Debresser (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Since I amended the proposal. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Qualified Support per Bradv and Tony. The TBan should include the Holocaust and antisemitism broadly construed. The seems the most appropriate response to what does look like a long term pattern of problematic behavior where these subjects are concerned. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support with bradv's change. A TBAN, or other form of sanction, is ultimately necessary to prevent further issues. This seems to me to be the most reasonable approach to doing so. Vermont (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not warranted and chilling effect. We should be more concerned with alleged antisemitism in Wikipedia than users who complain about it. Lest we forget - the actual trigger for the complaint here was Sir Joseph questioning the soundness of an admin's actions on the admin's talk page.Icewhiz (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not warranted as per Levivich also there was no problem with his mainspace edits so what the tban want to solve? -- Shrike (talk) 05:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support although frankly it should just be a total topic ban on anything related to Jews - they have long had issues with the differences between ethnic and religious Jews - feel free to browse the BLPN archives. First choice is total site ban. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Only one diff has been presented that's really problematic (#1), and SJ has recanted its content. It leaves us with this thread, which Levivich addressed beautifully above. François Robere (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this and any action against Sir Joseph. What he has been through on this noticeboard is warning enough to be cautious about how he presents what others have said/have not said. I went back and read this entire thread again and again in an effort to keep things in context. I do so respect the admins participating in this discussion and trust their judgment but we are only human. I wanted to be sure of my own position so I would not be persuaded by my peers on either side, so I read the comment on SJ's TP in context and the light came on as to why so many good editors were disturbed over SJ's comment. It begins: The below quote is from Objective3000 who gave me advice on how to edit Wikipedia without insulting people: As SJ has repeatedly said to the point of bludgeoning, he actually did not say O3000 was the author of the quote itself, but that he used a quote from someone else. This is an issue of semantics. SJ did not say it was a quote by O3000. Was the quote O3000 chose to repeat the best quote to use as an example? I think not, but we should not condemn SJ for his reaction to it, or for expressing his POV. Atsme Talk 📧 13:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You neglected to mention that he included a link to a Holocaust denial page, suggested the editor be blocked, and he added my username to the quote in retribution immediately after we had an unrelated disagreement elsewhere, and that he also had another quote, related to anti-Semitism and Palestinians, removed from the same location. O3000 (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * and all that was clarified a month ago. As for the other quote, it's still on my talk page. You are basically wanting me to get banned for sapping saying that you're not a holocaust denier, which is all I've been saying in this thread which apparently people don't read. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  16:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Are we going to open many more new sections with proposals...? Quote myself from above: "This editor makes good edits in a difficult area. That alone should give them some credit. In addition, we have seen too many attempts to shut long-term editors up because Wikipedia does not like to be criticized, and I strongly oppose that tendency." Debresser (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: Sir Joseph clearly isn't getting it. I agree that an indefinite TBAN from Judaism is appropriate here. Unfortunate, but it's the least solution that will resolve the matter that I can see here. Waggie (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, but I don't think it will be sufficient, so I've supported the site ban below, which, unfortunately, but after consideration, I feel is the necessary sanction. -- Begoon 03:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support the central dispute with O3000 that seems to have kicked off this mess indicates Sir J isn't capable of maintaining appropriate distance in this topic area. While I (as I've mentioned on other AN/I threads today) do espouse a zero-tolerance policy toward antisemitism is necessary, using accusations of such where they're pretty clearly not warranted in order to settle a content dispute is also something which we should not tolerate. That said, AN/I sanctions are supposed to be remedial, not punitive. And the most effective remedy to this issue is for Sir J to find other parts of Wikipedia on which to focus. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * are you aware that the dispute was a month ago and settled? I haven't had any interaction with him since then? So please explain your reasoning. It's really unfair to bring up a closed case and then use that to make a new tban.can you please show me new edits outside of this thread that show adisruption worthy of a tban? Thanks. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's pretty evident that the conflict between you and others is ongoing and that the O3000 conflict is a significant current factor. My recommendation for a t-ban rather than a block or site ban was because I felt it a more appropriate remediation; but that doesn't mean I don't find throwing around false accusations of antisemitism reprehensible behaviour for which you remain unrepentant. Simonm223 (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That is why I'm upset. Where am I throwing around false accusations of antisemitism? Please show me. I suggest you read Levivitch's comments carefully and then re-read everything, and not just TonyBallioni's statement. Keep in mind he only opened this because I posted on his talk page. As an admin, that is not the correct thing to do and that is more chilling than anything else. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The difs presented quite capably speak for themselves. And I've said my piece; I'm not interested in a protracted argument with you over this. Simonm223 (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking for a protracted argument. I'm asking for a diff. You're asking to TBAN me for a NEW edit of mine. You said the diffs presented speak for themselves. So I'm asking to please show me which diff that is. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - It's clear from the diffs and the conversation here that this user can't, at this time, edit in this topic space constructively with other editors; the immediate resort to unfounded accusations of Holocaust denial against those who hold slightly differing opinions is simply not acceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll ask the same thing. Please show me a new diff, that shows I resort to unfounded accusations of Holocaust denial. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sympathetic to SJ because these !votes makes no sense to me, either. Even if one believes that the TonyB and Sandstein diffs are accusations of antisemitism (I don't read them that way), those are not in the context of content disputes in mainspace. You're saying he can't edit "in this topic space", but this has nothing to do with editing in any topic space. Both the TonyB and Sandstein comments were posted on admin's talk pages, criticizing admin actions. So TBAN him from criticizing admin actions, I guess would be at least somewhat related to the offense in question. But saying the diffs show an inability to edit in a certain topic area is as wide of the mark as the proposal above saying he should be TBANed from Arab-Israel issues. I would be very frustrated if people were asserting all this stuff about me that just wasn't true, or at least hasn't been evidenced by diffs. Same with "problems in this thread" – OK, TBAN him from ANI, then? The reason I give SJ a pass for "arguing too much" in this thread is because I, too, would be going nuts if people showed up basically throwing supporting any sanction in any area for any justification, repeatedly asserting "yup, ongoing problem, everywhere", when the only evidence to date is one user space issue from a month ago, and two criticism posts on admin talk pages. – Levivich 22:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support both. His comments, such as casting aspersions on this noticeboard, deserved even more. My very best wishes (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Current rationale is lacking a foundation of evidence. This is guilt-by-accusation. Buffs (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Levivich, and I don't believe it has been demonstrated that this is needed. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Tony had declined the invitation to run for Arbcom more than 20 minutes before SJ decided to interject into a thread with "criticism" where the issue was already resolved. He brought heat and no light because he cannot drop the stick. Logically, if Tony isn't going to run then there is no reason to butt in after the fact to explain why SJ thinks he wouldn't make a good candidate. ADMINACCT is for queries of admin actions but that wasn't what this was. There was no constructive criticism and the timing is badly off. What he did was tried to hijack a thread by butting in off topic as it had since become a discussion of other potential candidates. It was impulsive and part of a larger pattern of problems as exemplified by his lengthy block log to treat WP as a battleground. He has continued here by bludgeoning others showing an acute lack of self-awareness.
 * "" (diff) illustrates that he is trying to right a great wrong. Other admins/editors will continue to mitigate antisemitism while the topic ban is enforced. What those supporting are saying is that SJ is not someone the community wants doing this because of the way he goes about it. He can appeal his topic ban at AN after six months and hopefully his behavior in the interim will complement his appeal.
 * Support I see a lot of posturing and non-denial denial going on here; Sir Joseph clearly insinuated that O3000 is a Holocaust denier, which is utterly unacceptable. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - First choice is site ban, second is ARBIPA and accusation topic ban, third is this.  I'd have no objections to any combination of these three passing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban. Enough of the warriorism. This should precede a site ban, since these things are supposed to be escalating. Carrite (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, but prefer site ban due to everything we've seen on this thread. WMSR (talk) 01:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support in the spirit of recently closed ArbCom, keeping someone who seems to encourage battleground-language behavior/etc. from such areas is likely a good idea. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I agree that holocaust revisionism is big problem on Wikipedia and as long as Sir Joseph is admonished not to falsely accuse others of antisemitism, they should be permitted to continue editing on topics related to the holocaust and antisemitism within Europe. -Darouet (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. It's reasonably clear that Joseph sees himself as participating in a WP:BATTLEGROUND against holocaust denial on Wikipedia and intends their editing on the topic as a way to right a great wrong.  Now, it's a fine line, since working to prevent fringe theories and conspiracies from overwhelming our articles is admirable, but someone who thinks Wikipedia is dominated by such a conspiracy theory (as per the It's quite clear that Wikipedia is now the home of Holocaust revisionism and if you question it, you get blocked or banned quote above) needs to slow down or bow out of the topic area. Editing in such a heated topic area requires the ability to keep a cool head and keep disagreements in context, rather than this knee-jerk assumption that huge swaths of Wikipedia are here to push fringe theories. --Aquillion (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. The question is the signal to noice rate: to me it seems SJ generates an awful lot of "noice" compared to the "signal" he adds to Wikipedia, Huldra (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban w/ Bradv's amendment, neutral on site ban. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Call for close this has been open for almost a week, and we have roughly 2:1 support for this TBAN. I realize there is a lot of text to read through here and that no one probably wants to touch this because they'll get accused of being an antisemite off-wiki, but the outcome here is pretty clear and this thread has gone on long enough. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Holocaust denialism and anti-semitism are strongly condemned at Wikipedia and anyone pushing those lines is easily indeffed. SJ's accusations are wide of the mark and not needed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for a diff of my accusations. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Oppose - per Levivitch. No evidence of ongoing issue. Here come the Suns (talk)
 * Support, at minimum. PLENTY of evidence, long term, of an ongoing issue, so a topic ban is an obvious first step. --Calton | Talk 03:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you mind sharing some of the PLENTY of evidence? Thanks. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You know, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT isn't the winning strategy you seem to think it is, especially since it's not you that needs convincing here, it's everyone else. Whether you're "convinced" is irrelevant. --Calton | Talk 04:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So that's a no to the providing evidence? Sir Joseph (talk) 04:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a yes to you proving my point for me. And, once more, whether you're "convinced" by anything whatsoever is irrelevant --Calton | Talk 16:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Support as the minimum necessary remedy at this point.  Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 07:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support with the added words "...topic banned from the holocaust, holocaust denial, holocaust revisionism, or antisemitism, broadly construed" per bradv. Let's face facts. SJ is going to be back at ANI and AE again and again facing complaints, both legitimate and bogus, until we take some sort of action. Yes, there is a legitimate problem here, but SJ's ham-handed way of dealing with the problem just turns it into a battleground, and we have no shortage of other editors who are working on the same problem without causing disruption. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If anyone doubt's SJ's unsuitability for editing in this area, see : "It's quite clear that Wikipedia is now the home of Holocaust revisionism and if you question it, you get blocked or banned". Our articles at The Holocaust and Holocaust denial disprove the claim, and it shows a mentality of an editor who should not be allowed to edit in that area. And before SJ accuses me of holocaust revisionism, let me state for the record that between 1941 and 1945 the Nazis murdered six million Jews. This is one of the most well-established facts in history, and no legitimate historian disputes it. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Editor: "It's quite clear that Wikipedia is now X and if you question it, you get blocked or banned". Community: "That’s not true! Ban him for saying that!" 🙄 – Levivich 04:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps your opinion would matter a bit more if you were involved more in the recent ARBCOM case. Why not check out AE and see who just got TBANNED? Why not check out Gas Van and see what's going on there? Just because you pop in two articles, doesn't mean there are other articles that are not distorted. As I said before, we had articles, such as Warsaw Concentration Camp that was distorted for years. The person who fixed it, is now TBANNED. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've never been to AE regarding any accusations about antisemitism, as far as I can tell. I'm also still waiting for diffs of evidence of any accusations of allegations of antisemitism I made. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you just weaselword/wikilawyer your accusations with wording like
 * "It is also a bit antisemitic..."
 * or
 * "I never said you are an antisemite. I said your comment was antisemetic."

 * As Coffee told you in 2106,
 * "As far as the antisemite remark goes... I will note that you while you avoided directly stating that others were antisemitic, you have definitively - without question - alluded to that being the case (especially with comments like "see what some editors will go to just to make sure he's not Jewish" and "Guy Macon and his followers owning the page and not allowing Bernie's Jewishness to be included", which basically claim that there is some form of discrimination happening here due to Macon and others discriminating against Jews - selective discrimination is of course one of the definitions of antisemitism)."
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 04:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's almost October 2019. That diff is from 2016. You said we're going to be here or at AE again and again for my behavior. Certainly you can find something. And I don't think you really want to re-litigate the 2016 incident considering you were not innocent. So again, where are the diffs to justify a TBAN? Sir Joseph (talk) 04:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have never accused anyone of antisemitism, why are you arguing so forcefully to avoid being topic banned from accusing people of antisemitism? A bunch of editors just !voted to topic ban you "from the holocaust, and from antisemitism, both broadly construed" (antisemitism is in the original proposal, not just bradv's suggested change). You need to convince us that if we leave antisemitism out of the topic ban you won't use that to wikilawyer your way into continuing your disruptive behavior. The point of a topic ban is to get you completely away from the area where you have demonstrated that you are unable to edit without disruption, and to guide you into completely unrelated areas that you don't feel so strongly about where you can edit productively. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You know, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT isn't the winning strategy you seem to think it is, especially since it's not you that needs convincing here, it's everyone else. Whether you're convinced is irrelevant. --Calton | Talk 04:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm just asking for a evidence. Throwing out Wikilinks is fine, but you should be able to throw out evidence of me throwing out accusations as well. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You've been given evidence, multiple times. You're Sealioning, and it's tiresome. --Calton | Talk 16:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Calton, I would like to have a civil conversation about your statement. Would you mind showing me evidence of any negative thing any sea lion has ever done to you? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * They got it all wrong. François Robere (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * P:::::* Indeed they did! --Guy Macon (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Oppose per Levivich. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Sir Joseph is site banned
We seem to be raising alternatives in separate sections, so those who have favored a site ban, please copy your comments here.  SPECIFICO talk 02:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Support site ban. Sir Joseph has a long history of lashing out with poorly-reasoned attacks on good faith editors who are rationally discussing issues he feels are fraught with anti-Semitic overtones. He behavior inflames the editing environment on a wide range of articles and it needs to be purged. It's his behavior, not his opinion as to what might or might not be anti-Semitic. Both O3000 and MVBW are among the most civil and conflict-averse editors I have encountered on contentious Wikipedia articles. Sir Joseph, as has been documented, routinely escalates, confuses, and personalizes content disputes. BTW I'm surprised and disappointed that a sanction on Israel-related topics is being conflated here with behavior on Jewish-related topics. Don't we all know that's wrong? (copied from earlier comment above)  SPECIFICO talk 02:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – based on lack of evidence of any problem since the warning a month ago (Aug 17), before this spurious ANI report was filed (Sep 20). To the extent there is a problem "in this thread", it was caused by the filing of this thread. No thread, no problem. I'm not down with sanctioning people for responding poorly to poor noticeboard reports. – Levivich 02:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The evidence is numbers 2-3 in TonyB's initial comment opening this discussion (from September 20th, not August 17), as well as Sir Joseph's comments throughout this discussion. How can you just so blithely ignore all that?  Volunteer Marek   02:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've answered that in my comments above. – Levivich 02:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really. You didn't answer it, you dismissed it. You really think that, for example, this is not sanctionable? This is *exactly* the same false accusation as the one made on August 17, except here Sir Joseph is making it, again, on September 21. Describing this as something that is "a month ago" is disingenuous.  Volunteer Marek   03:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how many times in this thread I need to say the same thing over and over again. The quote is indeed a form of revisionism, but O3000 was quoting others, it's not his quote. I do not know how many times I have to say that in this thread. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As others have repeatedly pointed out this seems to be just WP:WIKILAWYERing on your part, since it's obvious to anyone with a pair of eyes that when you were criticizing the quote you were implying (and still do) that O3000 endorsed this view and attributing these views to them.  Volunteer Marek   03:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's why it was clarified. I do not know how many times I have to say that in this thread. How many times do I have to say that O3000 is not a Holocaust denier? This must be the 100th time in this thread? Yet I'm going to be sanctioned for saying that O3000 is a Holocaust denier, does that make sense? Sir Joseph (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No,, I don't think that diff is sanctionable because it was retracted one minute later. (And you're calling me disingenuous?) I answered your points about numbers 2 and 3 here, and about SJ's comments in this discussion here. – Levivich  03:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Lol, no, that's not a retraction (that would involve admitting that he was wrong about it), that's a "oh crap I said too much better remove it before people notice".  Volunteer Marek   03:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's your interpretation. He's specifically said otherwise and I read it that way too. Buffs (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Support yes, this is the obvious solution. Lepricavark (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as I've already called for it. His behaviour here is not the behaviour of a good faith user. It is the behaviour of a user who is intentionally misrepresenting his own and other people's actions in an attempt to further his own causes. Despite the claims above, there were problems: he accused one administrator (Sandstein) of furthering a culture that supports Holocaust revisionism and attacked me by saying that I was blocking people for fighting anti-semitism. To pretend that this is not an intentional attempt to make life difficult for people whom he disagrees with by using vile personal attacks doesn't take into account the whole context of him as an editor, as has already been pointed out by SPECIFICO. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , where did I say Sandstein furthers a culture that supports Holocaust revisionism? I said Sandstein swoops in and blocks without waiting for other admins to comment. The vile insinuations that you continue to post about me need to stop. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's quite clear that Wikipedia is now the home of Holocaust revisionism and if you question it, you get blocked or banned. Look at AE and ARBCOM. And then Sandstein comes in like a hammer without waiting for any other admins to comment and then just blocks. The meaning there is perfectly clear. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is clear, but what does that have to do with Sandstein? You said I said Sandstein is furthering a Holocaust revisionism agenda and I said no such thing. The proposed ARBCOM decision I think will do that. But Sandstein just swoops in like a hammer and blocks without any other admin comment. That is his general MO. At this point in time it is quite apparent that you have a strong bias against me and will do anything in your power to have be banned. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - a site-ban being applied in relation to such an emotional topic, isn't good. GoodDay (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a great deal of discussion and reasoning in this megathread, both for and against a block. To brush that all aside and simply say that we shouldn't apply a siteban because this is an emotional topic is quite reckless. Lepricavark (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - if this was an isolated incident it'd be one thing, but it's a pattern of behavior. On top of that Sir Joseph has shown throughout this discussion that he's not getting it, and continues repeating the false accusations, which strongly suggests that a site ban is needed.  Volunteer Marek   02:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I must have said at least a dozen times throughout this thread that O3000 is NOT a Holocaust denier and for some reason people here keep saying that "Sir Joseph keeps saying that O3000 is a Holocause denier and we must block him" or something similar. TB reopened this closed and clarified issue for some reason, and the Sandstein issue was because Sandstein closes AE actions by just swooping in, as many people in AE note. TB has a problem with me and makes a few notes up top, some of which are reverted entries, in other words, I made an edit and then reverted. He then used this closed and clarified case and then a vague ANI case that had nothing to do with me but labels it with some insinuation about anitsemitism. It's clear he's trying to muddy the water. But there is no evidence of any wrongdoing on my part of any issue with regards to antisemitism or the IP conflict since the prior case or my past TBAN. To bring up past issues just to get me banned is improper, especially if it comes right after I post on an admin's talk page about his candidacy to ARBCOM. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You literally called O3000 a Holocaust revisionist yesterday. Vermont (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't. I said his quote was a form of revisionism, and he was quoting others. I really don't know how many times I have to say this. This is why ANI is such a toxic place where closed and clarified items can be dug up by people who don't know the past and used. This must be the 20th time I've said it now that O3000 is not a Holocaust denier. How many more times do I need to say it? Sir Joseph (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If I were to say something like: "[editor]'s quote is the literal definition of holocaust revisionism", that is calling them a holocaust revisionist. It is not remotely appropriate to insult someone with that, and then later claim you're just saying their comment is holocaust revisionism, not them. Your actions here are completely unacceptable and reprehensible, and I'm now fully in favor of a site ban. Vermont (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * O3000 didn't make a comment, he quoted someone, that quote is indeed a bad quote. Not sure why that is hard to understand. Not once in this thread did I say anything negative about O3000. That you are ascribing motive to my comment about his quote is incredulous. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support because if still has not admitted to any wrongdoing, there is no reason to believe he will not continue this unacceptable behavior moving forward. WMSR (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What wrongdoing would you like me to admit to? Sir Joseph (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Oppose Sanctions should generally not exceed that which is required to resolve the problem. The TBan proposed above should serve that purpose. A Site Ban is overkill. Whatever issues Sir J may have, this is not a case of NOTHERE. That said, if the TBan is adopted and there is any serious violation, I would support an indefinite block as the next step. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - [S]o those who have favored a site ban, please copy your comments here - How very slimy. I've already opposed a site ban, moving it down into a "those in favour say aye" (and only aye, apparently) section is just low. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur! Buffs (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not warranted and chilling effect. We should be more concerned with alleged antisemitism in Wikipedia than users who complain about it. Lest we forget - the actual trigger for the complaint here was Sir Joseph questioning the soundness of an admin's actions on the admin's talk page.Icewhiz (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't about SJ complaining about genuine antisemitism. I'm sure you realize that by now. Lepricavark (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not warranted there was no incidents since his last comment a month ago Shrike (talk) 05:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So, you've decided to ignore all the evidence included in this thread, very much including SJ's obnoxious behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Support - I'm sick and tired of SJ's deliberate self-serving misinterpretations of perfectly clear English sentences. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - plenty of past warnings, plenty of recent evidence suggesting that they are not heeding those warnings. Icewhiz's notion that a siteban would have a "chilling effect" obscures the fact that false accusations etc can have a similar effect. We have to allow discussion of unpleasant things. - Sitush (talk) 05:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This "remedy" is so far off the charts of proportionality that it baffles the mind.--MONGO (talk) 06:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A TBAN is sufficient at this point. Guy (help!) 08:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support given the majority of their time is spent arguing about Jews, unless the topic ban encompasses this completely, they will just move on to being disruptive in another jewish-related topic. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Totally exaggerated. We've had editors do much worse for much longer and not get as much as a slap on the wrist. Also, as Icewhiz notes, the trigger to this was the critique of an admin, not the actual offensive comments being cited; this isn't the first time this happened, and that's not the sort of behavior with should reward and amplify. François Robere (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as I stated above, this entire discussion revolves around semantics and the reaction of an editor who was duly offended. A quote from (as in, I got this quote from a book) is not the same as a quote by (I found this quote by Abe Lincoln), it's just that simple. Atsme Talk 📧 13:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Enough's enough, They have tons of AE blocks, tons of warnings.... and yet here we are again, Tbanning won't solve jack as they'll be another thread in October with them either skirting the tban or them further making repulsive comments such as those above, Get rid. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reasons I opposed above. Toa Nidhiki05 15:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support having to have these circular discussions so often is disruptive and a time sink. If SJ can't be civil and avoid these types of conflicts, its seems this is the only option. Praxidicae (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * What conflicts?Sir Joseph (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What conflicts? This is the problem. SJ's conduct on this page has been reprehensible. WMSR (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * do I not have the right to respond to people claiming I said things I didn't say who are trying to get me banned? Other than this ani, what conflicts have I gotten into that warrant a site ban? Sir Joseph (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, so you think that you should have the right to respond, even though in the discussion above, you tried to deny that right to O3000. You reserve for yourself rights that you do not wish others to have, which totally fits in with your winner-take-all, no-holds-barred battlefield style of editing and commenting. You are clearly here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and don't give a damn how your actions harm Wikipedia. You make it nearly impossible to have a sober, intelligent discussion with you, you're so hell-bent on denigrating and destroying your perceived enemies.  It makes it entirely impossible for anyone who might be inclined to do so to agree in part with what you have to say, because you will brook nothing but complete and utter acceptance of every iota of your ideological stance.  You, and every other ultra-partisan editor, no matter what their position may be, are  on Wikipedia, eating away at us from inside.  Whatever good you may do is nothing compared to the effects of the .The only solution to the problem of editors such as yourself, is to get rid of them.  Wikipedia must protect itself to survive, and site banning you, and every other editor like you, of whatever ideological opinion, is the only way to do it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't demand anything from him. I asked him not to respond to me because I don't want anything to do with him and I wasn't talking to him. And how would you like it if people repeatedly claimed you call someone a nasty and vile name when you did no such thing? That's what you are doing to me. So of course I'm upset. Not once in this thread did I say anything negative about O3000. So why should I be banned for defending myself from wild accusations? Sir Joseph (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Gotta love BMK. Writes "you're so hell-bent on denigrating and destroying your perceived enemies", then calls SJ a "cancer" and "disease". This is from the editor who last week was here alleging a vast conspiracy to keep a Bannon quote out of Wikipedia. Self-awareness level: 0. – Levivich 00:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * One more thing, for next time. Next time you're in a thread about the Holocaust and antisemitism... maybe you avoid language like "you're a cancer", "the disease you represent", "eating away at us from the inside", the "only solution" is to "get rid of them", the community "must protect itself to survive", and so on. Avoid comparing editors to diseases. Avoid invoking imagery of cleansing the body politic by eliminating undesirable elements. Avoid sounding like a Nazi. – Levivich 01:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As long as we're sharing advice, perhaps you should avoid even hinting that I might be antisemitic in a thread about an editor inaccurately being called a Holocaust denier, since you know damned well that I'm not antisemitic, and anyone else who examines my editing history, especially in the last year and a half, would find more than enough evidence that I have fought assiduously to keep neo-Nazis, neo-Fascists, antisemites and so forth from adversely influencing the encyclopedia.And now, since you seem to prize your powers of self-awareness, I suggest you strike out the suggestion above that I "sound like a Nazi" before I open a report asking for you to be blocked for violating WP:NPA. Or better yet, strike out both comments as WP:Casting aspersions without a scintilla of evidence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope. Your rant above was inappropriate; my calling you out for it is not inappropriate. When you say some members of the community are like a disease or a cancer, and the community must protect itself by expelling them (the "only solution", really, dude?), you are, in fact, sounding like a Nazi. You're doing it unintentionally–I know you're not antisemitic, I know the good work you do in fighting off Nazi vandals–but what you are doing is using inappropriate language and imagery, and you should never write anything like that again. – Levivich 01:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sometimes a cigar is a cigar, and sometimes a solution is a solution. I strongly suggest that you strike your suggestions of Nazism here. They show the same sort of prejudice shown by SJ’s long list of sanctions and accusations of anti-Semitism. O3000 (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , and sometimes incivility is incivility. So you're OK with BMK calling an editor a cancer and a disease and the only solution is to get rid of them so that Wikipedia can survive, but me saying that sounds like a Nazi is the part that should be stricken? Not my view. – Levivich 01:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop, you two. You three. BMK's choice of words is uncomfortably close to things that Nazis say, though with quite different import, so he should probably have chosen his words more carefully given the context. But no one here thinks, or means to imply, that he's a Nazi or anything like a Nazi. Let's leave it at that. EEng 01:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * EEng: OK. I will not push the NPA/ASPERSIONS thing, but I would prefer to hear from Levivich themself that he does not believe I am in any respect a Nazi or an antisemite, and that he, too, could have chosen his words more carefully to avoid any such implication.  With that, I will drop the matter, and apologize for using language which was -- yes -- "uncomfortably close" to that the Nazis used about Jewish people, although that was not in my mind at all when I used it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you are a Nazi or antisemite, and I'm happy to drop the matter as well and apologize for saying you sounded like a Nazi. – Levivich 02:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate it. If it wasn't clear from the above, I apologize as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

 * People...who are trying to get me banned. -- Sir, Joseoh, that is the problem. Nobody is here to try to get you banned. But 20+ editors here agree we need to do something to make sure there's a safe editing environment. We can disagree about this or that sanction, but I think we all recognize that your behavior, as documented, stalls article improvement and drives editors away or (if they're tougher than that) at least disturbs them deeply, as stated above.  SPECIFICO talk 23:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Nobody is here to try to get you banned," writes the editor who started the thread . – Levivich 00:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * c'mon man, that's not even CLOSE to an accurate statement. That's exactly what you/others are trying to do. Regardless of whether you support or oppose, that is a demonstrably false statement. Buffs (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Oppose Are we going to open many more new sections with proposals...? Quote myself from above: "This editor makes good edits in a difficult area. That alone should give them some credit. In addition, we have seen too many attempts to shut long-term editors up because Wikipedia does not like to be criticized, and I strongly oppose that tendency." A site ban is a draconic measure, and should be reserved for serious cases. By no means is that the case here. Debresser (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per this is what should happen to editors who make such ridiculously unfounded accusations. Lupin VII (talk)
 * that's the problem I am having. I haven't made any accusations. TonyBallion is bringing a closed and clarified case from a month ago. During this thread, I have repeatedly clarified that. I do not get why people do not understand that. So what new edits of mine are sanctionable? Because throughout this thread I've been exasperated saying that I've made no accusations but apparently that is called arguing. So what is it that you want? Sir Joseph (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You can deny it until you are blue in the face You can blow smoke, and do everything conceivable to obfuscate the facts, but the evidence that you did make such accusations is here, in this discussion and it it clear, and obvious, and compelling.  No matter how many times you say that it didn't happen, we can all see that it did happen.  No matter how often you try to hide behind the ridiculous assertion that Wikipedia is now the "home of Holocaust denial", we can see for ourselves that -- while there is always a Holocaust denial problem, and a neo-Fascist problem, and a white nationalist problem, and an anti-semitism problem, and a homophobia problem, and a racism problem -- they are problems that we consistently fight against with a reasonably amount of success. To say that we are the locus of Holocaust denial is a bizarre and completely unfounded charge, that appears to be your attempt to distract our attention from your own egregious behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * and what are you banning me for? Sir Joseph (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:DISRUPTION, WP:BATTLEFIELD, WP:NPOV, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:NPA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * These three diffs   are all those things? – Levivich  01:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * BMK, you said there is evidence, so can you share it? Sir Joseph (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The evidence is entirely in this thread, both in your reported incidents elsewhere, and in your behavior in the thread itslef. Whenever it's shown to you, you simply deny that it's evidence of anything. Despite your stonewalling, y ou know what you did, and the people reading this discussion and following the diffs presented know what you did, so, no, I am not going to waste my time playing your game. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm asking you to show me a current diff, not from August that shows a policy violation, not from somewhere else. Why can't you show it to me? You keep saying I called someone a Holocaust denier and I did no such thing. That is a gross and horrible thing. You're trying to get me banned and I'm asking for a diff and you can't do that? Either put up the diff or cease your libel. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether you like it or not, the behavior in this thread is also relevant. Lepricavark (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Support: His conduct here just shows more battlefield mentality to me. - Frood (talk!) 02:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Is defending myself against people who want me site-banned now called a disruption? And I note that for irony, you were the one who started the proposal to TBAN me from the IP conflict, thus conflating the IP conflict and the Holocaust, and as several people pointed out, that was "interesting" to say the least. So again, which policy did I violate, PRIOR to this thread, that causes a site ban? Sir Joseph (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Support per . -- Begoon 02:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: But only if a TBAN isn't imposed. I would rather a TBAN, as I feel that Sir Joseph can contribute constructively in other areas, this just seems to be a sensitive topic for them. I feel that a site ban is a far less preferably alternative. I don't think that Sir Joseph is a "bad person", or that they are trying to be offensive, but the net result is that they are causing disruption in a topic area that further disruption is the last thing we need. Waggie (talk) 02:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. This whole thread stands in start contrast to the collapsed subthread above, in which nasty comments were made, including what sounded like an accusation of antisemitism, and then it was resolved by apologies on both sides and a handshake. I was holding off on supporting a site ban, but this reminder of the way things are supposed to work causes me to lose any hope of Sir Joseph seeking to repair or improve his behaviour. – bradv  🍁  04:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, show me what comment I should apologize for. Because all throughout this thread, I have said, O3000 is not a Holocaust denier. Which I imagine is what I should be saying. So tell me which recent comment of mine that you wish me to apologize for. I've been asking for diffs of recent behavior that violates policy but I've been getting nothing. Please show me something that I can work with. TB brought me here for a reason. So please show me a diff that is worthy of a site ban, because right now, all I have is me saying a million times that O3000 is not a Holocuast denier, and all the support votes keep saying that I should be banned for disruptive behavior. Well, you're trying to ban me for something I haven't done and saying nasty things about me. So tell me what to say. Help me out here, what do you want me to say? Sir Joseph (talk) 04:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Brad, you earlier !voted to support a TBAN against I/P, even though nothing in this entire dispute has anything to do with I/P, but no explanation or apology from you for conflating the Holocaust and Israel. Now, you're !voting in support of a siteban against SJ because of something that occurred between me and BMK. Your !votes have no logic to them. You haven't even identified (with a diff or a quote, for example), the behavior that needs to be improved. You're also ignoring that the behavior was improved–for 30 days following the warning last month. You want a sanction against SJ–any sanction, you don't even care what it is–and not for anything he's done recently, but because of your pre-existing feelings about him. You're !voting based on a grudge and it's not right. – Levivich 13:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I explained my vote for the ARBPIA topic ban above – I don't think it ever should have expired without evidence of improvement. And this thread is not just about his interactions with O3000. It's also about his accusations against TonyBallioni and Sandstein, which are very recent. So yes, I am in favour of any sanction which seeks to curtail this behaviour, but I'm supporting this one too because anything less than a site ban will likely result in us being back here in a month. – bradv  🍁  13:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Still undecided, although Sir Joseph has continued to dig himself deeper into a hole by insisting that he did nothing wrong, instead of reading the above comments where it was explained to him how his analysis of O3000's comment was misguided. That said, consensus isn't clear at this time. Those people commenting on this sanction should likely pay attention to the other sanctions, and it would be helpful if those commenting on both would express a preference, I think. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing the point that the issue was resolved and clarified LAST MONTH. Everything was resolved and closed. How am I digging a hole when I am saying that O3000 is NOT a Holocaust denier or Holocaust revisionist? TB should not have brought a closed case to ANI. An admin should know better than that. Should we relitigate my blocks from 2016 as well? Sir Joseph (talk) 04:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As you have ordered me to not respond or talk to you on this page, I would ask you to refrain from mentioning my username over, and over and over. O3000 (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Oppose per Levivich. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose A t-ban is sufficient. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm not sure I've ever interacted with SJ.  Looking at the long discussion here it does appear SJ has a combative history but an indef siteban seems to be a nuclear option vs the next reasonable step.  If the problem is over a month old then no action should be taken now other than a clear warning that the next, even minor, transgression should be seen as proof of a long term problem.  In such a case I would argue the next step (based on block history) is a block up to 1 month.  Absent some sort of obvious NOTHERE I'm not sure how people can feel that the next step after (more than one) multi-day ban is an indef site ban.  If we are going the block route then 1 month, then 6 months, then indef with the standard offer.  If a protective measure is needed then I think the Tban makes more sense.  With an indef Tban SJ can show good behavior at other articles and get the ban lifted in 6 months or not.  If they violate the Tban then blocks can happen next.  Springee (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I've supported the lesser remedies above and part of me thinks, based on the lack of getting the message here, that a siteban will become inevitable. But like Vanamonde above, I think it would be OK to put SJ on something like a final warning. Make no mistake, though, SJ needs to step away from these baseless accusations of antisemitism and casting aspersions, and this isn't something that was dealt with and handled a month ago - SJ was posting uncalled-for and off-topic comments on Tony's talk page just three days ago. — Amakuru (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "SJ was posting uncalled-for and off-topic comments on Tony's talk page" sounds chilling to me. This is the reason why TB opened this whole ANI case. He didn't like that I brought up his past actions. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * why is it ok for you to bring up someone else's past actions? Shouldn't it be fair game then to bring up yours? StonyBrook (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin who is possibly running for ARBCOM where past administrative actions are fair game to see how you would act. Being punished for past actions that were already taken care of is not the same thing. I would have assumed that is clear to all. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * For someone who is not an admin, the quote from you from below This place is toxic and I've done mostly admin work, be it vandal revert or pagemove seems out of place. And more than just 'possibly running for ARBCOM', you actually have, so your declaration of probity in this regard is unconvincing. Antagonizing people only leads to threads like this. StonyBrook (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Neutral: Like Amakuru above me, I also believe that a site-ban will become inevitable, in time. Nevertheless, I do not believe this would be a wholly prudent step at this time, but I cannot oppose it, given Sir Joseph's statements and attitude within this very thread. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this behavior has been going on for a long time. It's nothing recent. He's been warned over and over.  SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * How many times have you been warned about stuff? If I start a thread to get you site banned will your fan club pop up as well? Sir Joseph (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose agree with others saying that this seems like a pretty nuclear option when other options have not yet been tried. Agent00x (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: I've been on the receiving end of his accusations before. He needs to stop acting as if anyone who disagrees with him is an agenda driven editor or an anti-Semite, and this thread makes it abundantly clear that he has no intention of stopping.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What accusations? Please provide diffs and content disputes don't count as accusations. Otherwise you are guilty of posting aspersions about me. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This, for instance. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jewish_culture&diff=911482903&oldid=878318699 And that's just the most recent. The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Correct, that is a content dispute. You say Judaism is only a Middle Eastern culture and me and quite a few others say it's not so, Judaism is a culture of wherever that person may be, Middle East, the US, Europe, Africa, etc. I don't see any accusations in that diff. (It's funny though that you talk about agenda driven editing, all one has to do is look at your contribution history to see which one of us has an agenda when they edit, and it's not me.) Sir Joseph (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm changing my stance to support. Because instead of admitting what you did, you denied it and then immediately started throwing accusations at me and misrepresenting my views. You've just proved every single accusation against you in here right. And all this shows is that you have no intention of stopping.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The Human Trumpet Solo who has in the past been on a vendetta of keeping anything Western out of Jewish related articles. His thinking is that Judaism is only a Middle Eastern culture/ethnicity, and that if you are Jewish, you are only Middle Eastern. <--- That is quite clearly an accusation of bad faith.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I actually think this is a great example. On content grounds I think you're 100% correct and Human 100% wrong. Looking at your participation in that thread if you'd started with "Jews are part of western culture and your are erasing that. Nobody said that there are other Jews that are not part of western culture just that there are Jews that are part of western culture." (your second comment) that would still be more aggressive than I like to be but that's a personal preference and nothing sanctionable. From there you actually continue to comment less about Human and more about the content, just as policy expects. However you started with generalized inflammatory statements that are upsetting to the editor you leveled them against and, as seen here, troubling to the community as a whole. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And that's worthy of a siteban? FTR, this was after many other content disputes and meatpuppetry and SPA attacks. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's your constant antagonism, accusations, insults, and borderline bullying/harassment (and if the other complaints in here are accurate, I'd remove the "borderline") that are worthy of a siteban. The fact that you just lied about our interactions (again) doesn't help either.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Still didn't lie, the interaction is right above us for all to see. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Sir Joseph Indeed, it is.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I've not weighed in on any sanction so I would suggest that support for a siteban not be read into my comment. And I will be equally explicit that what I am taking from your response is "You're correct, I should have done what you suggested" :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, one can always improve how we interact with each other, especially when it's in areas that are faced with SPA and MEATPUPPETRY, as this was at that time. But in this thread, I'm being told that I said "X" when I explicitly said "not X" and I when I ask for evidence I'm told that the evidence is there and they don't have to provide the diffs and that if I keep asking it's called battleground, harassment, bludgeoning and all the other wikilinks, but I have a right to defend myself against 1, being site banned 2 being tbanned and 3, being told that I am calling people nasty names when I did not do such things and especially when certain people with grudges (and let's be real, that is what is happening here for some) suddenly have their opportunity to get rid of me. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And therein lies the point - you're not improving. At all. And you're still denying any wrongdoing, even though the diffs are right there.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * diffs? Sir Joseph (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Sir Joseph I've already posted one. Others have posted several.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I 100% support your right to defend yourself against unfair charges. Responding to nearly every person who notices a problem with your actions, especially given that this reply to me is the first time in this ANI thread where I've noticed you acknowledging that there could have been better ways for you to proceed in dealing with other editors without losing the plot on the content that is at the heart of what you're trying to accomplish, is going to get labeled the things you noted. So finding ways of making your point heard in general, rather than making demands of many individuals, would avoid that. Especially because you have people here who agree with you that your actions don't merit sanction. A discussion is being had and, to be honest from my doing more reading than participating, I would hypothesize that your style of defense has meant some people who might have been inclined to support you or at least defend you against a site ban into neutrals or those supporting sanction against you. The one person we know this to be true for is ( but I would guess that there are others - or at least others who might not have chosen to participate in a contentious debate at all who decided to. But I admit that's speculation from me - and thus might be wrong. However, I still throw it out there for you to consider. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Except they are talking about a month old case that has been closed, especially Vanamonde. And he is wrong in his assertion. As Icewhiz and Levivich pointed out, I am quoting the opinion of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Regardless, that was a month ago and the case as I said was clarified that it was a quote not an opinion of any editor so I have no idea why it's relevant to anything today since until TonyBallioni brought it up it hasn't been mentioned by me at all. That is the issue. I have been asking for NEW diffs where people keep saying I've been saying nasty things and nobody is providing any of that. It is unfair and worse, libelous because they keep repeating that I have been continuously stating nasty things about editors when I have not done so at all. TonyBallioni for example has said I implied nasty things about Sandstein when I have done no such thing other than say that Sandstein comes in to AE and closes AE actions without waiting for other admins, something that other people have said in the past.(Which even if not true, is not a "nasty" thing to say, and certainly not site ban worthy.) How would you react when you are facing a site ban and being told that you have said nasty and vile stuff about people and then that if you defend yourself it's just showing a battleground mentality? Not once in this thread have I said anything negative about O3000, or did I imply anything negative about anyone else to such an extent to warrant a site ban. SPECIFICO has it in for me, and all it takes is looking at past disputes to see that. Go to AE, or Donald Trump article pages where we both interacted. This is one reason where in the past couple of months I pulled back from editing anyway. This place is toxic and I've done mostly admin work, be it vandal revert or pagemove, I've taken so many pages off my watchlist because people hold grudges for years. The irony of SPECIFICO telling me that I'm disruptive is funny, if not sad. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Support there are ways of discussing such topics in a civil manner, Sir Joseph doesn't engage with others he disagrees with in a civil manner, and the fact that a number of people have felt completely harassed by Sir Joseph is sufficient here. Enough is enough, we should not continue to enable this harassment, regardless of the subject matter.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Really? TRM is coming to talk about civility and harassment? OK, so I ask yet again, please provide diffs showing support worthy of a site ban. I am allowed to defend myself against false accusations and piling on by editors I've been engaged in in my many years here in content disputes. I have asked many times for someone to show me new DIFFS showing content that is worthy of a ban and nobody has shown it. All this is because an admin did not like that I posted on his talk page. And that's the shame of it all. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless of my past misdemeanours, I'm afraid nothing comes close to the harassment you have levelled at people and I find your attitude here disgusting. Diffs are already covered above, it's a matter of interpretation and your accusations should not be enabled here any longer.  Feel free to harass me again, but I won't be responding.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's all I'm getting in this thread, "the diffs are above, I'm not providing it." I have the right to respond to people who want me banned, that's not harassment. Every time I ask for a diff, I'm told, "I'm not providing it." Everyone is pointing to a month old case that has already been settled for a month that TonyBallioni has been trying to re-litigate. Nobody has shown any diffs where I have interacted with O3000 since then or posted anything since then about the subject. So I have the right to ask where the diffs are. That's not harassment. You want me site-banned, you need to provide the evidence. It's disgusting of you to just say "I'm not providing evidence, and I'm not responding." Talk about harassment and piling on. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that your behaviour here in this thread alone demonstrates sufficiently part of the issue at hand, let alone your accusations against others which amount time and again to harassment.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Strong Oppose People are voting to ban/block SJ based on accusations of impropriety. I don't particularly agree with SJ's opinions on matters, but defining responses to "BAN HIM!" or "BLOCK HIM!" as harassment are absurd. Likewise, most of the support rationale here appears to be "well, he's been accused of harassment by a lot of people" or "a lot of people feel harassed, so that's enough for me". If we're going to indef block someone or ban them, the standard of evidence needs to be much higher than what I'm seeing here. Buffs (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Additional Comment There appears to be a bit of off-site canvassing going on. I have a screenshot, if anyone needs it.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That may be off-wiki canvassing but there's no evidence that I'm aware of linking that vile account to Sir Joseph. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see any canvassing, just reporting. Canvassing to an ANI thread would never work, anyway. – Levivich 19:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Then you simply don't understand the concept of canvassing. The false allegations against myself and others are yet another repetition of the cognitive dissonance, intentional or otherwise, exemplified by those who think that they can use opposition to alleged antisemitism as a cover for doing whatever they please to anyone they decided to target. It's abusive and underhanded, but the considerable opposition to sanctions for Sir Joseph indicates that it works. Lepricavark (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You're alleging that the editors opposing sanctions are doing so because they were canvassed off-wiki? – Levivich 22:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I'm stating no such thing. Sir Joseph has somewhat successfully employed the defense that he is being persecuted for calling out antisemitism, which accounts for some of the opposition to the various sanction proposals. The unnamed individual behind is repeating that argument, while also attempting to publicly shame Sir Joseph's critics. I doubt if the  canvassing has had much meaningful impact. Lepricavark (talk) 23:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea who's running it, but the account is calling editors in to this thread to help Sir Joseph.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * One of its early followers seems to be Omer Benjakob, a Hareetz journalist who regularly reports on Judaism and Wikipedia. It is also followed by Canary Mission and User:TheTimesAreAChanging, who is currently serving a two-month block. An association to any of these cannot be entirely discounted. Toa Nidhiki05 19:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether or not User:Sir Joseph is behind the account, there's a chance that most of the opposition in here can be attributed to .The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 11:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of the opposes I see here are from established Wikipedia editors, not from canvassed users; please withdraw your suggestion to the contrary. Iffy★Chat -- 12:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If anything is canvassing by an established Wiki user, this is it. I am not behind . Just because you follow that account and found your way here, doesn't mean others did the same. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Just because you follow that account and found your way here, doesn't mean others did the same." There you go again, proving my point. I don't even use, by the way.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Oppose per Levivich and Icewhiz. Iffy★Chat -- 12:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: After stumbling upon a note about this case on an admin's talk page, I wanted to at least share here this quote from Sir Joseph, which they left on my talk page |diff.
 * For context, this came from them at the end of a longer-term dispute, where they objected to the the "Migrants at the Mexico-United States border" entry in "List of concentration and internment camps," and then their follow-up objection to the proposed changes to language for that entry after an RfC found consensus for its inclusion, with changes.
 * I'm not voting on any of the proposals because I don't feel involved enough on Wikipedia to justify it, but I do think it's important to bring attention to this editor specifically stating how they "don't really care" about reliable sources. I don't know the correct lingo for labeling this, but to me this doesn't sound like someone who is interested in improving Wikipedia so much as someone interested in making sure Wikipedia has only the content and perspective that they approve of, experts (they disagree with) be damned.
 * (Any mistakes in protocol or anything are entirely unintentional and I want to preemptively apologise for them now. Also, if this comment should be located elsewhere, feel free to relocate it there, or direct me to.)
 * --Pinchme123 (talk) 04:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinchme123, I'm not reading those comments the same way you are. I think the statement is more that he doesn't care to DISCUSS the sources and instead deal with the facts as he sees them. Regardless, he was offering a reasonable opinion on the subject (one I don't particularly agree with, but reasonable people can disagree). I see nothing sanctionable in such a discussion. Buffs (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Buffs, if they had said they didn't care to DISCUSS the sources, that would be one thing, but that isn't what they wrote; dealing with facts on Wikipedia means dealing with how experts present facts. And the comment came as the culmination of their months-long repeated objections and stonewalling about hundreds of content experts by the end, which kept those of us who wanted to make the entry better from doing so, until they disengaged. That quote is not about discussion, but about not believing expertise, because it was expertise that convinced those in the RfC to support inclusion. If that isn't antithetical to the mission of Wikipedia, I don't know what is. --Pinchme123 (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You're intentionally distorting his words. Lepricavark and I apparently disagree about SJ, but when we both agree that you're twisting what was said to malign another editor, perhaps you should rethink your assessment. Buffs (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't like it when SJ misrepresents the words of other editors. I don't like that you are doing it to him, either. That issue is not relevant to this thread. Lepricavark (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't like it when SJ misrepresents the words of other editors. I don't like that you are doing it to him, either. That issue is not relevant to this thread. Lepricavark (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Oppose as excessively harsh. There is already a proposal above that would stop Sir Joseph from accusing others of antisemitism, and that is adequate to deal with this issue. Regarding the notion that Sir Joseph is being overly combative by defending themselves from a site ban, such an argument is ludicrous, if not Orwellian. -Darouet (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Also agree that this is unnecessarily harsh. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Harassment shall not be tolerated in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a battleground. I know people with great knowledge who left Wikipedia since they were harassed by others.--Kazemita1 (talk) 06:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Levivich - calling someone to AN/I then trouncing them solely for their behaviour at AN/I seems anti-productive. Any admin can block SJ at any time for cause, the fact that he is not blocked suggest this is not a wise step at this stage. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC).

 * Oppose - I agree with everything Levivich wrote - a well reasoned argument against this proposal, I couldn't have written it better. Here come the Suns (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. His latest bout of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT has convinced me that he does not -- and may never -- get it, or he's using it as a way to dodge responsibility. Neither way is helpful to the encyclopedia. --Calton | Talk 04:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Requesting you provide evidence to support a ban is not WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. That someone would support a siteban for that, is the most draconian thing on Wikipedia and shows the toxicity of ANI and why TonyBallioni should be admonished and the trout section should not have been closed early. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. Constantly demanding "evidence" and ignoring it when provided -- your current tactic -- is most definitely WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. Also, completely irrelevant: whether YOU are "convinced" about anything whatsoever is meaningless, since the ONLY bearing it has on what it shows OTHER editors in deciding whether you are reformable with a topic ban. It's becoming clearer and clearer that you're not.
 * That someone would support a siteban for that, is the most draconian thing on Wikipedia...
 * You've earned it. Congratulations. --Calton | Talk 07:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Support Also encountered his editing behavior. Continued self interpretation of other's behavior is not accepted. -- M h hossein   talk 05:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Way overblown. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is overkill. Everyone here, including Sir Joseph, just needs to take a step back and calm down.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Take a break and develop a global solution
Since one of the cases that triggered this discussion was SJ's comment on my post, I feel some moral responsibility for that story, so I propose my solution. It is naive and less bloodthirsty than others, but I believe it deserves consideration.

IMO, an almost correct description of a general problem was done by
 * "We should absolutely take a zero-tolerance approach to genuine holocaust denial. For that very reason, crying wolf about holocaust denial isn't okay." (01:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC), this page)

I say "almost", because, whereas punishment for "crying wolf" is necessary, that is not a method to achieve zero-tolerance to Holocaust denial. In contrast, only after a zero-tolerance has been achieved, we can start punishing those who cry "Wolves!".

IMO, a solution to that complex problem may be:
 * 1) Accusations of Holocaust denial and antisemitism are totally prohibited everywhere, except at ANI or AE pages.
 * 2) It should be clearly explained, on some Supplementary Guidelines page, what antisemitism is and what is not.
 * 3) All real or perceived cases of Holocaust denial must be reported.
 * 4) Admins must be prepared for a long analysis of facts and evidences that will be presented at ANI.

If these rules will be adopted (as a guidelines or a part of policy), then SJ, whose cry "Wolf!" is not always justified, may be punished after the first violation. However, in a current situation, it would be incorrect to do that.

Below are my explanations of 1-4:

 * 1) According to this rule, every single accusation similar to those discussed in this ANI thread will result in an ANI report, and if confirmed, result in a warning, then escalating blocks, and eventually a ban.
 * 2) The rules will allow us to discriminate real accusations of antisemitism/Holocaust denial and just a discussion of some subject related to Jews, Jewish history, or policy of Israel. For example, a modern Arabo-Israel conflict should probably be excluded. A question if all ethnic Jews are those who are living in Middle East (one example of an alleged accusation of antisemitism from the above thread) is definitely not included, etc.
 * 3) If you see antisemitism - report it. Don't call a Holocaust denier as such: report them to ANI.
 * 4) This rule is probably the most important. To prove antisemitism/Holocaust denial, or lack thereof, very long discussions may be necessary, and they may require analysis of many evidences (an example can be found here). Usually, admins tend to approach to such discussions as to "just a content dispute", which literally means: "You guys should decide that among yourself". Unfortunately, that flawed approach created a situation when the users like SJ do not believe in a possibility to do anything with Holocaust denial/antisemitism on WP pages, and they are crying "wolf" everywhere out of desperation.

If we ban SJ now, we will just reinforce a (significant minority) opinion that WP is dominated by antisemites. If we adopt these rules, that also may lead to future ban of SJ, however, in that situation BOTH every real antisemite AND every user who cries "Wolf!" will think twice and trice before posting something on Wikipedia pages.

I think the ideas expressed during that discussion may give a good start to this work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I think you have this posted in the wrong section. SJ is not a party to this thread... Buffs (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC) It's been fixed now Buffs (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Fixed. (@Everybody else: I accidentally posted this in a wrong section and moved here

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1019