As you have just started editing, I hope you find the following selection of links helpful and that they provide you with some ideas for how to get the best out of Wikipedia.
The Entrepreneur's Barnstar is given to recognize new editors who have made great strides to contribute to Wikipedia. I, Quinxorin, present this award to Josh Gorand for exceptional contributions to various articles in a short time as a user. Quinxorin (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you insist on using Prime Minister instead of Minister-President, would you please be consequent and change it everywhere where it is used. The term Minister-President is consistingly used to describe the head of government of German federal states, so there is no need to changed it only in two cases of current interest. --Dodo19 (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The German states uses and have used various titles in German. I already change Minister-President to Prime Minister whenever I come across the term and such a change is supported by sources. I might look further into this later. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
all the German Ministerpräsidenten are called minister-president on all wiki-pages exempt for your changes in some wiki-article%s about lower saxony Ministerpräsidenten, if you insist on prime minister as the correct form off Ministerpräsident them please change all of them and not just 1% the_consistency_guy09:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)09:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)09:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.195.69.112 (talk)
Böhrnsen
I know but I honestly don't have the time or the energy to fight things like this full-blown anymore. If a legitimate discussion seem to be taking place, I may drop in but I'm afraid I can't be any more help than that. Therequiembellishere (talk) 10:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Thanks for your ongoing contributions to this article. However, I get the impression that some of your edits are not totally in accordance with WP:NPOV, as you sometimes seem to draw conclusions from sources that aren't actually supported by them. (I specified this here) Also, please see media publications and statements by political opponents of the Left in context. Citing the conservative/right-wing newspaper Welt as the only source for the assumption that something is "widely interpreted as..." is certainly a bit over the top. Lastly, I think it is not appropriate to mention the observation of parts of the Left by federal and some German state authorities (to claim the whole party is extremist and under surveillance by "German (which implies: "all German") authorities/intelligence" is wrong anyway) in every second sentence. It is important to include different opinions and also criticism of the Left but these opinions should be marked as such and not be assumed to be objective facts ("widely considered"). Other than that, happy editing :). Thanks. Janfrie1988 (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Prime Minister of Lower Saxony, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prime Minister of Lower Saxony. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Do you have any reliable source saying that Gauck's father was taken to a "concentration camp"? There are numerous sources describing the camp as a "labor camp", and the article must present facts as evidenced in reliable sources. I would appreciate it if you would not delete sourced content from the article. With regard to dispute resolution, consider this a warning not to engage in edit warring over the article. Cs32enTalk to me07:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er, you are the one manipulating the talk page by deleting other people's comments to prevent people from reading my objections to your unilateral and non-valid "votes". I can comment wherever I want except inside signed comments. Josh Gorand (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You were the one who wrote a manipulative comment. If you're so confident that it is not a valid vote, then there are no reason for your comments like that ones your have recently put in the voting section. Kingjeff (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have no right to delete other people's comments because you disagree with them. Thank you for admitting that you deleted my comment because you disagreed with its content. This speaks for itself. There is no vote. There is a discussion. A vote can only be started after first achieving consensus on having a vote. We have only just started looking at the relevant sources. This is what matters. Josh Gorand (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
using prime minister is fine with me, but it sucks if all the different wiki articles use something else, and with the exeption of lower saxon Ministerpäsidenten, most of the other english wiki pages about other german Ministerpräsidenten use minister-president -
i dont really care which one is used but can't we try being a little consistent; thank you _consistency10:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)10:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.195.69.112 (talk)
First making POV forks that were deleted, then frivolously nominating the article for deletion (speedily kept), then unilaterally moving the article without consensus (and ignoring sources cited on the talk page), then complaining about me preventing further move wars, making a fake note on the administrators' noticeboard, pretending to be just some "observer"(!). What's next? Josh Gorand (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should have known, then denying this behaviour by you guys took place at all. As a user who has made edits to Talk:Prime Ministers of Lower Saxony (when you wrote that you intended to move the article "Unless there is objection" - anyone who had read the talk page would be fully aware that there was strong objection and of the previous POV forks and frivolous ADF), you of course knew all this, because the talk page included, at that time, a (prominently displayed) link to the AFD page and a discussion of both the POV fork issue and the frivolous AFD (described as a "travesty" on the talk page by a different user). Or did you propose to move the article in retaliation against me (after an unrelated dispute), without bothering reading the talk page and sources that have been cited there? Are you really interested in Lower Saxon politics, or did you just show up there (and now here) out of spite? Josh Gorand (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't say that. A couple of users have been involved in this behaviour, all while a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Germany, Talk:Christian Wulff and elsewhere has taken place. It doesn't make any difference to me if different people are behind the frivolous ADF, the POV fork, the unilateral move and the "reporting" of me for merely fixing it and preventing move wars. Anyone who wants to have the article moved needs to take part in the discussion, cite source and obtain consensus. Josh Gorand (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
International Society for Human Rights
Greetings. Your inclusion of Ludwig Erhard and other deceased and irrelevant names @ the ISHR article looks a lot like vandalism. You did a lot of edits in that session. Some look constructive. Some look like POV. I've removed Erhard, et al, but what's up? Why the borderline vandalism? Tapered (talk) 04:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But there's no precedent in German articles. As much as I'd love for there to be a wiki-wide policy on political articles there are clearly large, distinct ways certain regions edit their articles, Canadian succession boxes and Israeli infoboxes being the two that come to mind right now. If Gauck's article is to have them, then all previous candidates need them as well; it's useless as a succession box if only one relevant article bears it. In any case, the clumping of all parties in one infobox was improper and should, in the event of German-wide presidential nominee succession boxes, be split to separately show the line of CDU/CSU nominees and SDP/Green nominees. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as Bibfile mentioned in the linked talk page, the party system is much different in the United States in that they are much more rigid and clear in their nominations for elected offices that the more fluid, potentially multi-nominations more likely to occur in Western Europe. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andreas Schulze until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --RJFF (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the article! As it is basically a translation of the German article, this should be noted as a courtesy to its original authors. Thank you. --Concord (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Joachim Gauck
Please be very careful when making reverts. I make a number of edits to the article and most were aimed at taking out POV language, wiesel terms such as "regime" which have virtually no place on any article. I made a number of edits and if you really believe that the Communist party installed by Germans is the problem, we can find a way around it. The point is however, that the party was formed in 1922 but it went though name changes. It continued even in West Germany until the state banned it in 1956. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are making disruptive edits to that article, as has been pointed out to you, including introducing obvious errors and making changes that do not improve the article in any way. The SED was formed in 1949, not in 1922. Regime is not a "wiesel term". Josh Gorand (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Regime" is POV in that it is used in a deregatory sense by commentators and directed at their opponents and never their chosen "regimes". The word is synonymous with government, administration, governance, system and a host of other terms. If you know of a reason why "regime" fits the bill better than these, explain it. In the meantime, I ask you not to use the term "vandalism" which you claimed falsely, and I further ask that you watch your language when calling me disruptive. It is a content dispute at most. I have edited for six years, and you feel me to be disruptive or spreading vandalism, please report it to the admins. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regime is a neutral term meaning form of government[1], widely used when referring to communist/socialist regimes in particular, and indeed, used in hundreds if not thousands of Wikipedia articles. Josh Gorand (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Read your last statement back to yourself. It is self-contractictory: "neutral term meaning form of government", "widely used when referring to communist/socialist regimes". What about non-Communist situations? Actually I will tell you about its usage. It is used past and present for Communist states, right-wing states, states with one-party rule, Islamist countries, theocracies, basically any enemy of the person using it. It is used perpetually by a critic and never a proponent of the system in question. I know its definition but be honest, how often do you really find that word being used in that sense? It generally means "political system" but I find it is used synonymlously with "government" (eg. the Syrians who took up arms against "the regime" - ie. Assad; the NTC killed civilians believed to support "the regime" - ie. Gaddafi). The regime deploys mercenaries = the government deploys foreign volunteers. Can you find an example where the word is used by a political figure with regard to his own state/organisation? As for the thousands of articles to contain the word, I am one of those who switches it at every opportunity (except when it is used in quotes or on the so-far undiscovered basis that it is used for the new system following so-called "regime change" - the BBC still when discussing Libya use "the regime" when referring to Gaddafi. Sometimes "the former regime" buit NEVER on CNN or BBC, the "current regime"). So its POV status is unequivocal. Note that I am not the only editor to make these changes, it invariably improves the article and 99% of the time meets absolutely no resistence. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 00:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I wasn't denying dictatorship. I was only looking to make the language usage more amicable. You know better than I do that one event led to the next, the downfall of the dictatorship may have been the hard part but from there it was plain sailing. Eventually, East Germany came to an end even if not overnight. Since this is what was being explained, I really will not interfere with that section. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 00:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gauck: Lead
Thank you for reworking the lead section of Joachim Gauck to comply with the guidelines. Now it focuses on the essential information and looks very good. Well done! --RJFF (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree it was slightly too long before. I was aware of the problem, but I didn't think such a high profile article should have a maintenance tag for an extended period. Josh Gorand (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am German and can assure you that it is relevant, as it illustrates the state of mind of a large portion of the people, and it ties in to the Easter Marches (Peace movement). I think that the quoted text put this in a rather well written form.
Background about Germany:
Germany’s strong support for Israel in its foreign policy is just one way that the country has tried to make up for the crimes of the Holocaust. But the lessons of World War II also made many Germans strongly pacifist and thus uncomfortable with the hawkish tone and threatening language emanating from Mr. Netanyahu’s government.[1]
Please advise.
If you think there are not enough references for such a statement, then please advise what to change, rather than deleting the section ;) The text I used for the section was a direct quote from an article which I referenced.
While such general commentary could be appropriate for a newspaper article, I don't think such generalizations and material not directly related to the subject of the article is relevant for an encyclopedic article on a poem. Josh Gorand (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple users have removed these tags now. We don't accept such tagging of articles with such a high profile without a very good reason. This article in particular has been stable for years, includes hundreds of footnotes and literature references, and is very well sourced. Some material is dealt with in more detail in sub articles. Tagging of obviously uncontroversial material and material that is actually cited is not constructive. There is no agreement on Wikipedia that each sentence needs a footnote, and many editors hold the opinion that over-referencing degrades the quality of the article. Josh Gorand (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who exactly is "we" and what guideline/policy reinforces your opinion? I don't recall the part of WP:CITE that says you can remove maintenance templates you don't agree with. There are whole paragraphs without referencing and therefore suspect. Wikipedia uses maintenance templates to identify that fact. I have reverted your reversion of User:Pol098. Please discuss. Chris Troutman (talk)23:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not required to start a discussion to restore the stable version. If you want to introduce a tag to an article with thousands of readers daily, you have to start a discussion and achieve consensus for that. I see no consensus for incuding a maintenance tag, and I see no issues that merit a tag. Also, I see no sections without "referencing" at all, and I note that multiple users have already opposed your proposed tag. Josh Gorand (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PrimeHunter's point is as follows: the first link contains your statement "we don't even post it when the US Democratic Party choose their presidential candidate", and the second link demonstrates that, yes, we do. --78.150.166.254 (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to see the ANI thread looks like it might lede to a temp topic ban. No real loss though. Your robust defense of policy and common decency in the crucial early stages have already made a correct result to the RM all but inevitable. Im reminded that its almost exactly 50 years since King led his march of 250,000 souls to Washington, super charging the civil rights movement. Heavilly criticised at the time, in the years that followed, it led to the irreversible defeat of right wing advocates in the culture wars. In a way, one almost feels sorry for them, and perhaps its only chivalrous to let them have a little victory. By the way, I note that like myself you have removed unsightly banner tags from the page of His Holiness Pope Benedict. I wonder if you are a fellow Christian, and like me a moderate social conservative on most issues. If so, it makes your stand all the more admirable. Thank you! FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you make a cast-iron commitment here to not impugn the motives of others and to focus on debating the merits of the two options, it should cancel out all of the "support" votes in that ANI thread. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it would and I, personally, would be satisfied with that. Looking for a distinction between "That's offensive because..." and "That's transphobic".--v/r - TP18:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Josh, sorry but you've gone way OTT in what you've said on ANI. It's most important to be sensitive to LGBT issues, which is why I admired your earlier defence on Chelsea's talk. It's also possible to be a non prejudiced person, but not understand all LGBT perspectives. I don't have any sources to back this up, so Im just going to try asking you to take a leap of faith and accept it. Please consider striking the part of your statement about media interviews – even if one only cared about the LGBT cause, that would likely be a harmful move. You should maybe strike the part asking for a ban against Paris too, he may have made a few mistakes here, but hes actually one of our most honourable admins. Even if you dont agree, maybe you can see you're overreaching, which often risks doing your cause more harm than good. Sorry again for this uninvited advice, but I think maybe my earlier comments were unbalanced and not helpful. FeydHuxtable (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Every word Josh said on ANI was reasonable. But if you want to participate in the debate, Josh, stop with the ad hominem - at least on the article's talk page. It gains you nothing. Every reasonable person who reads the talk page sees the homo-/transphobia oozing all over it. They don't need you to point it out - at least not there. Ad hominem never adds anything to the debate at hand, and raising it on an article talk page just obfuscates and obscures the real argument. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read enough about the dispute to talk competently about it, but I did want to offer general support for you and your position on this. I think Anthonyhcole is right, to a degree, in that ad homs can forestall successful de-escalation. All the same, I think i can understand why someone would make ad homs in this sort of situation. I think it's important to have an outlet to vent that stress so that it doesnt needlessly affect the debate itself.
I use the word "needlessly" there with purpose though. It might be glib, but I cant think of any oppressed group that has made change solely by holding the moral high ground. It has always required at least a modicum of (judiciously placed) aggression (NOT violence, the two are in my mind quite distinct) to get things moving. That's not to say it's appropriate in this case -- again, havent read enough of it.
I suppose I'm rambling a bit, but I would welcome an email if you wanted to discuss things further or needed somewhere to vent about this. I should have an email this user link on my page (I don't see one for you) or just leave a message on my talk page. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄19:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'sorry about messing up your comment
Messed up your comment on Chelsea Manning, but seems you got it restored. Really sorry. I am totally out of my depth, not having edited seriously for montns and months (more like years and years). -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Too soon with word Transphobic
I am not sure how to better handle misconceptions of the term "transphobic" which was newly added to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) within the past 3 months. I had similar confusion about the word "homophobic" (last year?), which I had imagined was a medical psychological diagnosis because a few sources indicated that view many years ago. I guess remind people how not every word ending in "-phobic" is a medical term related to a neurotic condition, just as "-less" in "clueless" or "heartless" does not mean "harmless" is also a negative word. However, due to the misconceptions, many people are *certain* how "transphobic" is a grave mental insult, rather than a word which means "strong dislike" or "discrimination". At this point, I would refrain from using the term, until we can find a way to better explain the confusion of the ending "-phobic" not being a characterization of a person's mental health. Is there some related "trans-" word about disrespecting transgender, which is widely used, but perhaps does not sound like a psychologist writing "Psychosis N.O.S."? Perhaps some essays about "transphobic" could be written to clarify use of the term on Wikipedia. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to let you know that I understand and appreciate the concerns that have been raised on my talk page, and throughout the move discussion, with respect to this issue. I believe that the root of this problem lies in the ambiguity of the relevant policies, which is something that I intend to work to improve. Cheers! bd2412T20:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom case
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Chelsea Manning and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Would you be able to do me a favour and reduce the word count of your request to below 700 words? Would be hugely appreciated. The limit typically for statements and requests is 500 words but I willing to permit up to 700 given the scope and size of this dispute. It is important to keep in mind that the longer statements are the less likely they will actually be read. Conciseness and brevity throughout ones participation is the key to arbcom cases. Which is why we have such limits.
Josh, please listen: the reason several of us keep using words like "overzealous" with respect to you is not because we're closet transphobes who want to condone transphobic behavior or the maintenance of the article's title at Bradley. I, for one, have learned a lot from the debate over this issue, and wholeheartedly agree that the title of the article should now be Chelsea. But your, yes, overzealous defense of the transgendered-rights side of the debate, your hairtrigger responses to anything you perceive as transphobic is, I very much fear, actually helping the other side considerably more than it's helping yours. There's going to be another requested-move poll, and there are already plenty of people who will !vote in favor of it; I don't believe you're going to convince anyone who's not convinced already. But, the more you turn the debate into a WP:BATTLEGROUND, the more the battle's noise is going to attract curious bystanders, many of whom will be offended by the overzealous behavior of the transgendered-rights side and will !vote against the move out of little more than simple spite. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
josh, please take off the armor and drop the sword. I am undecided still but am leaning strongly towards voting for Chelsea based on commonname - the source switch is mostly there. I never 'admitted' that the guideline is an attack on you, I simply stated that your behavior and that of others (and the reaction thst garnered from many reasonable editors) inspired me that such a guideline as a reminder of the norms of NPA was necessary. It is not an attack on you or your character, it is a behavioral guideline that, as you can see, has consensus from several other editors. Please stop misrepresenting my words, this is like the 3rd time you've done so.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your Arbitration evidence is too long
Hello, Josh Gorand. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Manning naming dispute Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, currently at 1000 words and 100 diffs for parties and 500 words and 50 diffs for all others, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 1150 words and 7 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (who are listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT(talk)04:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Revolutions of 1989 online Wikipedia challenge
Hello, Josh Gorand! We are looking for editors to join the Europeana 1989 challenge, a multilingual Wikipedia Challenge where all of the participants are invited to improve Wikipedia articles related to the European Revolutions of 1989 in their own language. We have selected a short list of topics that may be improved or translated. As you have already edited some of the listed articles, we thought you might be interested, and accept the challenge. Hope that you will join us. Thanks!!!
Relax. Everything is going to turn out for the best here - it is now abundantly clear that the name of this subject following her announced name change is recognized by reliable sources as her new name, and the RM will follow suit. The best thing you can do now is just allow it to proceed, without worrying what page it is on. Also, you might want to notify interested projects. Cheers! bd2412T20:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your concern, but what good is it going to do to argue about it? There is an ultimate goal here which is bigger than that. bd2412T20:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed the "barnstar" I awarded you with. That was beyond dickish for me to do. It was wrong, and so was I.
I appologize and will not do anything like that ever again to you KoshVorlon.We are all Kosh 16:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your struck through "separate bullet point" removed
Hah! Hey Josh, I've got no barnstar for you today, but I did want to let you know that your "separate bullet point" in the #1 support position, which was moved, removed, restored, re-moved, struck, un-struck, and re-struck, all in the name of the RM nominator having !voted with the nomination itself, eventually wound up back above the #1 position, but struck through without any parenthetical explanation. I thought that it could confuse readers into thinking that the nominator had changed their mind, so I brought it up here, and your struck through "separate bullet point" was subsequently deleted. I think that is the best solution, but wanted to make sure that you knew that no one was maliciously messing around with your !vote. Kind regards. -- ToE18:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfectly ok. I had noticed that bullet point moving around a lot on its own. I overlooked the point regarding not posting a separate bullet point as the proposer. Josh Gorand (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
hate mail
Josh, if those hate mails are real, I'm sorry about that. If they came as you state through wikipedia, are you going to report the editors who sent them? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
well, as they seemed to be blocked already i didn't bother. I don't really have much faith in Wikipedia's own procedures anyway after the Manning debacle. Josh Gorand (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Were they all from the same person? Even if that person is blocked, it should be registered with arbcom, and abusive users should have their email privileges removed and their accounts community banned in some cases instead of just blocked. Those go far beyond incivility into personal attacks of a foul nature. Maybe @Newyorkbrad: might have some thoughts on this?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, any abusive use of the Wikipedia e-mail system should be reported to the Arbitration Committee via e-mail, especially if the abuse is severe or repeated. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I received various "suck a cock"-style emails from two different editors (they could of course be the same person), but I'm not interested in using Wikipedia's procedures to pursue this matter for the reasons stated above. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record
I just removed a comment by User:Tarc where he apparently stated that his vocal opposition against renaming Chelsea Manning's article (presented with the rationale "Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make a heifer become Marilyn Monroe y'know") was all really the biggest case of WP:POINT ever perpetrated on Wikipedia. I don't want to engage here on my talk page with editors who have made comments like the one cited, and if what he is now saying is really true, I don't know what is worst. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Created Awards subpage for Teamwork barnstar
I have created "User:Josh_Gorand/Awards" for other users to post more awards there, long-term. I also awarded you with another Teamwork barnstar, on that subpage, for helping the other users to better understand the issues. I guess one person's "freedom fighter" is another person's "militant" but now you know who thinks which is which. Many of us have been censored with questionable bans in wp:RESTRICT, even including some admins. Anyway, thanks for your messages, and I hope to see you working on many other articles, even if not in the recent news. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
David Gerard (talk·contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from using his administrator permissions (i) on pages relating to transgender people or issues and (ii) in situations involving such pages. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter.
The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Sexology case, not this one.
All editors, especially those whose behavior was subject to a finding in this case, are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions on Wikipedia, and to avoid commentary that demeans any other person, intentionally or not.
This request has been closed. Due to your absence, no action was found to be necessary aside from reversion of the edit in violation of the ban. In the future, please do note that topic bans apply to all pages on Wikipedia, including userspace, except for the exceptions listed at WP:TBAN such as filing an appeal to the ban. SeraphimbladeTalk to me06:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I highly doubt that any topic ban would apply to a user's own user page. This is their page and they should be able to mention whatever they like. I see no good reason to limit people in this way, and in fact, to be allowed to limit in this way would be IMHO a form of bullying. --Rebroad (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What?
Josh says: "I have allegedly been "topic banned" by the site owners from articles on transgender topics (which I hardly edited anyway)...especially for having initiated the (successful) proposal to move Chelsea Manning's article to Chelsea Manning"
Josh, you have not allegedly been topic banned, you have been topic banned (no allegations here). The reason you were topic banned is very clearly laid out in the arbcom case, and is based mostly on your behavior during first move discussion. Also, you weren't topic banned by the wikimedia foundation, you were topic banned by ARBCOM, which is the community-elected final court of appeals for editor behavior; the WMF did not weigh in on your case, and while Jimbo retains the right to overturn such decisions, he didn't (and likely won't) - but your continued accusations that this is a WMF action are false. This was an action of the community, as represented by ARBCOM.
As you state above, the fact that you initiated the second move request was not a reason for your topic ban, so your attempted martyrdom on this point is rather silly. It's also ridiculous the way you continue to claim credit for "having initiated" the move request - I now know why you edit warred on this point, because you wanted to be able to claim credit, even though at least 20 different editors worked on the evidence for that move request over a month of work. The credit for that move request should be shared, I really recommend you stop claiming it as your own.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Josh, I don't know if you will read this, but as one of the arbitrators who participated in the case in question, I wanted to make a couple of points:
(1) The hate mail issue was raised on your talk page here. I absolutely endorse what Newyorkbrad said there. You should report such matters so we can do what we can to help.
(2) The comments made by Sue Gardner on her blog and during the case were not made in her official capacity. She explicitly stated that in both places: "I’m the ED of the Wikimedia Foundation, and I’m also a Wikipedia editor. It’s in my latter, volunteer capacity that I wrote this blog post."
(3) The user talk page of Jimmy Wales is not the best place to post an open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation. There are better places to do that. Sue Gardner's user talk page, for one.
(4) What User:Obiwankenobi says above is correct. This decision to topic ban you was made by the arbitration committee of the English-language Wikipedia, not by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). The former is a group of volunteers, editors elected by other editors to arbitrate disputes. en-Wikipedia is one of many projects operating under the umbrella of the WMF. This project's ArbCom and the WMF are completely different entities.
This means (among other things) that your references to the 'owners of the website' taking action, and the decision being a 'stance' taken by the WMF, are completely wrong. You may disagree with the decision made, but attributing the decision to the right group would help. If you do read this, I hope you will take the time to correct those inaccurate statements. Carcharoth (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Josh Gorand. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
