User talk:Kwork2/Archive 3

April 11 block

{{gblock|1="disrupting Arbitration proceedings with inflammatory and insulting edits"|2=48 hours}} Your personal opinions are not relevant, nor welcome if they cause this level of trouble. On its face, wild and unspecific accusations of antisemitism are not welcome here, any more than using racial epithets is - the same principle as [[WP:NPA|"accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack.") You have already been warned, and now this will stop.--Tznkai (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page previously, I think it wrong of you to support the position of one side in an Arbcom case, and to remove my comments to boot. There was nothing "wild" in my edit, nor was there anything substantial that was not supported by WP:RS. Nevertheless, based on your previous actions there, I expected nothing better from you.

The fact that my edits caused "trouble", ie one side in the dispute did not like them, only proves that I put my finger down on the right spot. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I am particularly interested in your comment, above, that "You have already been warned, and now this will stop." I would like to point out that you have accused me of saying what I think is correct. I know that there are some users who are unhappy with what I said, and there have been some denials that what I said is true (without supporting argument); but there has been nothing to refute may position which is based on good sources. In other words, it appears to me that your block amounts to nothing better than WP:JDLI. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

On the dreadful effect this block has had on me:

"I've got you this time, Brer Rabbit," said Brer Fox, jumping up and shaking off the dust. "You've sassed me for the very last time. Now I wonder what I should do with you?"

Brer Rabbit's eyes got very large. "Oh please Brer Fox, whatever you do, please don't throw me into the briar patch."

"Maybe I should roast you over a fire and eat you," mused Brer Fox. "No, that's too much trouble. Maybe I'll hang you instead."

"Roast me! Hang me! Do whatever you please," said Brer Rabbit. "Only please, Brer Fox, please don't throw me into the briar patch."

"If I'm going to hang you, I'll need some string," said Brer Fox. "And I don't have any string handy. But the stream's not far away, so maybe I'll drown you instead."

"Drown me! Roast me! Hang me! Do whatever you please," said Brer Rabbit. "Only please, Brer Fox, please don't throw me into the briar patch."

"The briar patch, eh?" said Brer Fox. "What a wonderful idea! You'll be torn into little pieces!"

Grabbing up the tar-covered rabbit, Brer Fox swung him around and around and then flung him head over heels into the briar patch. Brer Rabbit let out such a scream as he fell that all of Brer Fox's fur stood straight up. Brer Rabbit fell into the briar bushes with a crash and a mighty thump. Then there was silence.

Brer Fox cocked one ear toward the briar patch, listening for whimpers of pain. But he heard nothing. Brer Fox cocked the other ear toward the briar patch, listening for Brer Rabbit's death rattle. He heard nothing.

Then Brer Fox heard someone calling his name. He turned around and looked up the hill. Brer Rabbit was sitting on a log combing the tar out of his fur with a wood chip and looking smug.

"I was bred and born in the briar patch, Brer Fox," he called. "Born and bred in the briar patch."

And Brer Rabbit skipped away as merry as a cricket while Brer Fox ground his teeth in rage and went home. From Brer Rabbit meets a Tar Baby, retold by S. E. Schlosser

The truth is that I feel very comfortable, and have suffered nothing I consider harmful. Be well. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

"I would like to point out that you have accused me of saying what I think is correct." Lets say, hypothetically, I believe that "The Chinese are a vile despicable race, animal like in nature, fit only for manual labor" and I say so on-wiki. I would be rightly blocked for saying what I think is true. Just because you think something is true, doesn't give you the right to say so - and even if it did, and you do as your conscience demands, you must pay the consequences.--Tznkai (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

In all the world there is no nation and people that I respect more than the Chinese. But putting that fact aside, it is absolutely against my principles to criticize any person for what is not in their power. Nationality, gender, level of intelligence, tall or short, etc, are in no person's power to choose, and I criticize no person for such things. However, issues such as anti-Zionism and/or antisemitism are in every persons power to choose, and people are responsible for their choices.

My comments -- that you have censored -- dealt entirely with an issue raise in the arbcom case, an issue that was not introduced by me. If you do not want that subject discussed fully, than you should have it removed as an issue. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Your comments are still there for all to see. I have determined, in my role as case clerk, that your conduct is outside the reasonable standards we hold. A simple example, is what you have stated

1. Some anti-Zionists are antisemitic (premise)
2. The group of WP editors who support this arbcom case are anti-Zionists (premise)
3. Some of the WP editors who support this arbcom case are antisemitic (conclusion)

This is about as useful and problematic as saying

1. Some Republicans are racists
2. The group of WP editors who support this arbcom case are Republicans
3. Some of the WP editors who support this arbcom case are antisemitic racists

If you cannot get why this is a problem, you are not welcome in the arbitration case pages. In case you have not been monitoring it closely, I am quite serious about this.--Tznkai

(talk) 23:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai, respectfully, I think you may have erred in your analogy above, speaking strictly logically. Your point # 3 would have to read "Some of the WP editors who support this arbcom case are racist (conclusion)" in order to mirror Malcolm's--unless I'm missing something, which is always possible. I also think it's not quite fair for people to demand that Malcolm offer a defense and, when he does, block him further for mounting one. The evidence MS offers does not support his figure of 90-100%, but it's still something that can be reasonably discussed. Is there a meaningful percentage here? Is it helpful to talk about it, even if there is? What can be done about editors who are obviously antisemites to people who have expertise in this area, but possibly not to less well-educated Wikipedians? These are fair questions, and I don't think gagging Malcolm aids the debate. IronDuke 00:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I did in fact screw up the typing, and I've fixed it above. As to the rest, this particular version of the "whos anti-semetic" debate is even less productive than the rest, and we are done with it. You're sure someone is an anti-semite and that it is relevant to how they edit the project then you know where the evidence page is.--Tznkai (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's really a reply to what I said, but I won't insist on one. IronDuke 00:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai, it seems you are trying hard to make me loose all confidence in your ability to think rationally. Of course some Republicans are racists, as are some Democrats, Liberitarians, Socialists, Communists, etc. (As are also some Americans, Germans, Japanese, Israelis, Nigerians, etc.) To mention one difference, out of many, anti-Zionism does not deal with any issue but one, and that one issue is a set that includes nothing but Jews.

If I were to say that I think over 90% of Zionists are Jews, I suspect you would not find that comment either untrue, or insulting. If I say that I think over 90% of anti-Zionists are antisemitic (showing at least some small dislike of either Judaism or Jews) you find that grounds to issue a block, even though I did not accuse any individual of anything but whining, and even though I supported what I said about anti-Zionists as a group with a reliable source that says that there are elevated numbers of antisemites among anti-Zionists.

If you can not understand these things, and I am not confident of the answer, you should not be be dealing with this arbcom case. In fact, in my view, a major problem this arbcom case is administrators who are sure they understand the issues, but have no understanding of antisemitism -- because they have not studied the subject -- and see no need to consult with administrators who do understand the subject. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, as a factual point, in my previous (and apparently final) arbcom case edit, the figure I used was "over 90%", not 90-100%. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

hey malcolm, maybe it will help you understand the objections to your statements more if you look at it another way. if you changed your example and you were to say 90% of zionists are racist, then that would be comparable to what youre saying about anti-zionists, and would be insulting and offensive. untwirl(talk) 14:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sure there are Zionists who could be classified as racist. In fact, I know Zionists who I consider racist. But racism is not the issue in this discussion; because Judaism is a religion, encompassing many diverse cultural aspects, and there is no Jewish race.

As for anti-Zionism and antisemitism, my own observation is that, even if they do not begin that way, anti-Zionists tend to drift into a certain degree of antisemitism over time. Judaism really is pretty permeated by Zionism, and for many (most?) Jews there is no real separation made between their Judaism and their Zionism. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec):::but antisemitism is racism. and there are ethnic jews who don't practice or adhere to judaism who are nonetheless still classified as jews. but even if we leave the race out, if you are calling anti-zionists antisemites, it would be comparable to calling zionists supremacists. and even though there is a percentage of each group that falls under those descriptions, isn't it unfair to apply them generally to the entire group (or 90%+ of them)? cant you see how that isn't helpful, and only fuels animosity? there are many reasons other than 'hating jews' that people can be against zionism, as there are many reasons other than feeling superior that people can embrace zionism. cant we all agree that there are people with good and bad intentions on both sides of this dispute and to edit neutrally we must try to look at things with understanding for each view? untwirl(talk) 16:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no Jewish race [1], and antisemitism is not racism. As for your saying my view is "comparable to calling zionists supremacists", of course saying that Zionism has resulted in apartheid, and calling Zionist nazis is worse, and I have heard quite a bit of that.

Low level antisemitism, like low level bigotry of any kind, is such a common thing anyhow. I really do not think there are many people in all the world who can honestly claim they have no such biases, and most who do make that claim are just not very good at analyzing the contents of their own psychological constitution. I made it clear in the last arbcom edit that I was talking about is low level ("garden variety") antisemitism, and I think the cries of protest were not very credible, because those editors -- who feel so intensely about their anti-Zionism -- are making a claim to be free of something (bias) that very few people can honestly claim. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Shedim

Thanks, I recently linked to shedim and the article seemed rather casually assembled. I added the "Further reading" list myself as a result of related research, hoping someone interested in the subject would pursue the matter. I'm not sure any of the sources listed provides information on the folklore given in the article, nor on visual depictions. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a couple of print sources, and a PDF book, and was planning to eventually rewrite base on those. One complication is that some sources use the Hebrew word "shedim", and others just translate that as "demons". Virtually every source discussing demons in Jewish sources are discussing shedim.

By the way, I found this image [2] of Lilith (queen of the shedim) in wikimedia commons. It might be interesting in the article. Lilith is the queen of the shedim, and Asmodeus and Samael the kings. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Notification of injunction relating to West Bank - Judea and Samaria

The Arbitration Committee, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria, have voted to implement a temporary injunction. It can be viewed on the case page by following this link. The injunction is as follows:

Due to his repeated failure to abide by reasonable standards of conduct in arbitration, Malcolm Schosha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing the pages of this arbitration case. He may, at his discretion, send his comments directly to the Committee via e-mail.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your recognition of my contribution to the arbcom discussion. On behalf of the Logical Contributions Committee, I acknowledge your statement of WP:JDLI. [3] -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon

Just a reminder about WP:3RR. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon

I saw your explanation in your edit summary. The point is that we don't make editorial judgments. Atzmon may be 100% wrong, but the proper way to indicate that is to cite a WP:RS that says he's wrong. Otherwise, using the word "claims" makes a value judgment on the part of the encyclopedia. See WP:WTA#Claim.

As I said I will not return to that point. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon/Sandstein

Hello. I really don't appreciate being called a "regular" when I've made exactly two edits to the article, one in 2007 (to revert vandalism) and one on Wednesday. I only came to the article because of your invitation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot about you. So far, aside from your gripe about one word in an edit (that is now changed), I don't remember your saying very much about the article, and the main issue of BLP violations. And, yes, I assumed that you came to the article from WikiProject Judaism. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I made a suggestion in response to the RfC: Talk:Gilad Atzmon#Different suggestions. In fact, Sandstein's suggestion is similar to mine, except that I think Atzmon's anti-Zionism and antisemitism are notable while he doesn't seem to think so. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

My own suggestion was to remove the quotefarm, including the "Politics" section which is still in the article, and just summarize the content from the most reliable sources. I think that would be the best solution, but I doubt if that will happen because editors on both sides of the dispute want the quotefarm that supports their view of Atzmon. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of your deletions in Noah's Ark Zoo Farm

The diff is here. I readded the section because of the reason given in your edit summary "True, but without a source mentioning the statement is WP:OR." If you believe the problem lies with "Bush's views contradict scientific consensus about radiometric dating and evidence of common descent" which doesn't have a source attached to it, I believe common sense and things that aren't original research are relevant. I believe that it is an undebatable point that Bush's views and the mainstream scientific consensus are incompatible. Also, it would have been more prudent to keep the sourced second part of that sentence and only removing the unsourced statements because another editor might think you were removing content in bad faith with a false edit summary. Sifaka ^talk 21:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

User name

If your old user name is not in use, there should be no issue; post a request at WP:CHU. If your old username was taken by someone else, it depends on whether or not GFDL-worthy edits were made, but it is much less likely. f you still use the old username across most other wikimedia projects, you may have a case for usurpation. -- Avi (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

Yeah, I do that for all my articles. At this point I'm more concerned abouta behavioral dispute. I'll probably be blocked/banned. Every Nableezy report has been successful, so I don't see why this wouldn't be either. Oh well, maybe I need a break. Thanks for the suggestion! Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If you don't do anything extra to provoke the situation I think you should be okay for now. Better to be careful about WP:BAIT, because in that sort of situation you are fighting in the conditions others have chosen as being to their advantage. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

But the baiting never ends. It's all about escalation. It starts with a revert, or a content dispute, or even a user grudge. It's especially frustrating when the same editor constantly reports me. The P and I articles are unique in that it's so dogmatic and ideologically-based, consensus is difficult without immense and discussion. If a large enough group from one side can get in a single article, you can almost guarantee it will become a fork one way or another. This occurs on both sides and I absolutely despise it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Its just a distraction from editing. I have said some pretty blunt things here (by Wikipedia standards), but have had my reasons when I have, and the reasons never has anything to do with feeling pissed off. If I should feel momentarily angry, I keep quiet about it because showing an angry reaction just gives satisfaction to the editor doing the baiting. Why get angry and say things that wind up on AN/I when that is just they want, and when you know that your being angry makes them happy? So, instead of getting angry at the idiots and telling them to put their edit where the sun doesn't shine, try to remember that they are doing the best as they understand it, and that sometimes thugs get lonely too. Anyhow, if I were to call them schmucks, they could just take that to administrators and maybe get me blocked....although on some occasions I thought it would be fun to do that, and so I did.

We ought...to imitate Democritus rather than Heraclitus. For the latter whenever he went forth into public, used to weep, the former to laugh; to the one all human doings seemed to be miseries, to the other follies. Seneca, On Tranquillity of Mind, 15.2

Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to think my demeanor was relatively relaxed before the incident, relative to the topic and other users. I've butted-heads with Nab so often (where both of us have been blocked) that when he reports me for one-on-one disputes again and again, I can't help but assume BF. So when I respond, I project from that attitude. It is my opinion the original characteristic of wikipedia (collaboration) is being manipulated, and those who don't like it either deal or get blocked.

Currently I'm trying to come to a mutual understanding and I think I'm there, but some users are still pushing for a topic-ban at administrator noticeboard. Feel free to comment. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I just did add a comment. I think this editor is just trying to jerk you around, and you may be making things worse by trying to explain away every stupid accusation he/she makes. Don't worry so much, everything will be ok. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

So I shouldn't respond? The user who posted the proposal for topic ban is an admin, so I'm not so sure "everything will be ok." Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Belated response

Yeah, I removed that template by mistake. I couldn't respond because wikibreak enforcer didn't let me log in. best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:AE notice

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Malcolm_Schosha_and_templating_the_regulars

The two edits that caused two blocks were

Concerning antisemitism, from my point of view Nishidani's suggestion ("If there are anti-Semites in the I/P area, I think you should get your evidence together and make a case before arbitration, as it is an extremely serious charge...") is complete nonsense. It seems to me that, in the context of WP, accusations of antisemitism against users are a special case of Wikipedia:Don't be a dick. It is troubling to deal with antisemitic dicks but (speaking for myself) it is something that I learned to live with. The suggestion that the problem could be settled by an arbcom case shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what antisemitism is, and how Jews cope with the problem of antisemitism.

The garden variety antisemite does not wish that he/she could have been in charge of the gas chamber at Auschwitz. They are just people who do not like Jews, who may occasionally make snide remarks, and show a general pervasive attitude of dismissiveness and disrespect. My personal view is that probably 90-100% of the users who initiated this arbcom case, and who support it, are in that category. Fighting back that level of antisemitism, which is so common, would be like fighting back the tide; and although Jews might complain about it, they virtually never try to make any kind of case -- with formal charges -- about it. Its just one of life's crummy annoyances. Getting rid of the average antisemite, would be like trying to get rid of the average dick: unfortunately hopeless.

and the clarification of my previous statement

Oppose. Those on one side of the Israel/Palestine disputed articles are anti-Zionists. It is known that a high percentage of anti-Zionists are antisemitic [4]. It is not WP:NPA to point out a statistical fact about a group. Also, garden variety antisemites are not all that big a deal, even if sometimes their positions are very problematic. It is important to understand that saying something is antisemitic can not be assumed a comparison to Nazis. In fact I know of cases in which low to intermediate level antisemites risked their own lives to save Jews from Nazis, because (apparently) their foundational morality was stronger than their more superficial prejudices. It needs to be remembered that there are levels of antisemitism, and there are important differences in those levels [5]. I see this particular item in the case is just an effort to gag editors, who have complaints, by ignoring the sources that support the claim, and by unfair accusations that such statements amount to calling editors Nazis. That is nonsense. The general statement that there are antisemites among anti-Zionists, as a group, does not need diffs because the statement is supported by WP:RS, and it is not -- in any case -- the extreme accusation it is made out to be.

It seems to me that, in the context of WP, accusations of antisemitism against users are a special case of Wikipedia:Don't be a dick. It is troubling to deal with antisemitic dicks but (speaking for myself) it is something that I learned to live with. The suggestion that the problem could be settled by an arbcom case shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what antisemitism is, and how Jews cope with the problem of antisemitism.

The garden variety antisemite does not wish that he/she could have been in charge of the gas chamber at Auschwitz. They are just people who do not like Jews, who may occasionally make snide remarks, and show a general pervasive attitude of dismissiveness and disrespect. It is my personal view is that probably over 90% of anti-Zionists, (including WP anti-Zionists) are in that category. Fighting back that level of antisemitism, which is so common, would be like fighting back the tide; and although Jews might complain about it, they virtually never try to make any kind of case -- with formal charges -- about it. Its just one of life's crummy annoyances. Getting rid of the average antisemite, would be like trying to get rid of the average dick: unfortunately hopeless.

This is a clarification of my previous statement on the subject. (My reply was delayed because of some whining about my pessimistic view of the situation, which whining -- combined with an administrator misunderstanding the meaning of my edit -- resulted in my getting sent into wiki-exile.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

These two edits earned me two blocks and an arbcom injunction against further participation in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Workshop:

===Malcolm Schosha restricted===

1) Due to failures to abide by Arbitration norms Malcolm Schosha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is restricted indefinitely from editing this arbitration case. He may, at his discretion, send his comments directly to the Arbitration Committee via e-mail.

I was glad to have the opportunity to explain my views on this subject. The blocks were of no concern because that I think I did the right thing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

James Lindsay Deleted

Hey,

Not particularly surprised nor discouraged. However, I was curious if Sandstein's involvement could be considered a COI? He voiced concerns about my behavior at the noticeboard and endorsed Nableezy's POV if I remember correctly. This is purely a question and am not accusing/implying/insinuating the administrator acted out of protocol. But considering events in the past involving myself and a significant majority of users who voted "delete", I believe it is a fair question. Sand also blocked me in the past, I think. again, question...I'm not totally familiar with the AFD process and its complicated structure. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Sandstein tries hard to be fair. That is not to say I always agree with him, but in this case I don't think any administrator would have (or could have) counted the AfD vote and gotten a different outcome. A combination of factors, which include biased news coverage of Israel, and latent low level antisemitism cropping up in left of center political groups (they do a pretty good job of hiding the reality of that, even from themselves, by renaming it anti-Zionism) makes such vote counts increasingly weighted toward the Palestinian side in the Israel/Palestine dispute discussions. It is a worsening problem that is not a new problem either, as we know from statements such as this [6]. There was a popular Israeli song in the 1960s, "The whole world is against us", which I think is still often played. It is a perception that is hard to avoid. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Sandstein's judgment was thorough and precise. I have yet to see an AFD with such a long rationale (over 3 paragraphs.) Thank you for the response. Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Anti-Zionism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. RolandR (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Two were together so, according to my understanding, what I have at this point is not counted as three reverts.

NB: if other editors did what I previously requested, and resolved differences on the talk page, there would be no reverts by editors on either side of the issue. Please take this to the talk page, because important changes to disputed articles should be discussed on the talk page before, not after, changes are made. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Heyo RolandR,

I'm thinking you should have reciprocated with one for CasualObserver'48 on top of the notice posted for Malcolm Schosha. Both seem to be active on a similar level.

p.s. To be frank, I'm not sure you should be a watch-keeper for this article. Possible expertize aside, I believe there is a bit of a conflict of interests issue (no offense intended).

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

The duration of the block is 72 hours. Here are the reverts in question. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kwork2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Two of the reverts were done together, so (since those two count as one) there were only three reverts. Also, It would have been nice if I had been notified that the 3RR had actually been filed against me, so I would have a chance to explain this. Moreover, as can be seen in the article history, I was not edit warring alone, but two other editors had two reverts each. It can also be seen in the edit history, that since the change was made to content long in the article, and because the article has been in the past highly disputed, I had repeatedly requested that they discuss the change on the talk page before, not after, the change was made. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were notified at 14:32 to stop reverting, your last revert was at 14:46. It should also be noted that administrators don;t have to wait until your fourth revert before blocking you. If evidence is clear that you intend to perpetuate an Edit War, especially after being warned to stop, you may be blocked at any time to stop that edit war, regardless of whether you have technically violated 3RR or not. Evidence was clear here, since you reverted after being warned to stop. Plus, even if we count clusters of edits, you did revert 4 times: 11:52-11:54...13:02-13:37...14:12...14:46. And continued debating over the technicalities of which of this should or should not count as a revert will be seen as needless wikilawyering and are unlikely to result in a successful unblock request. If you wish to be unblocked, you need to convince administrators that you will not return to the same behavior that got you blocked. -- Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Two of the reverts were done together....Nope. You have 4 separate reverts. Also, having to count this carefully is a bad sign that you are pushing the line William M. Connolley (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see this. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I always did have trouble counting reverts. The whole thing is pretty funny really. Blocks seem to be based on a strange idea that WP is doing editors a favor by letting them edit, and that blocking them will be considered by editors as something bad. But, personally, I keep wondering why I am wasting my time here when I when there is plenty of other stuff I could be doing.

"I've got you this time, Brer Rabbit," said Brer Fox, jumping up and shaking off the dust. "You've sassed me for the very last time. Now I wonder what I should do with you?"

Brer Rabbit's eyes got very large. "Oh please Brer Fox, whatever you do, please don't throw me into the briar patch."

"Maybe I should roast you over a fire and eat you," mused Brer Fox. "No, that's too much trouble. Maybe I'll hang you instead."

"Roast me! Hang me! Do whatever you please," said Brer Rabbit. "Only please, Brer Fox, please don't throw me into the briar patch."

"If I'm going to hang you, I'll need some string," said Brer Fox. "And I don't have any string handy. But the stream's not far away, so maybe I'll drown you instead."

"Drown me! Roast me! Hang me! Do whatever you please," said Brer Rabbit. "Only please, Brer Fox, please don't throw me into the briar patch."

"The briar patch, eh?" said Brer Fox. "What a wonderful idea! You'll be torn into little pieces!"

Grabbing up the tar-covered rabbit, Brer Fox swung him around and around and then flung him head over heels into the briar patch. Brer Rabbit let out such a scream as he fell that all of Brer Fox's fur stood straight up. Brer Rabbit fell into the briar bushes with a crash and a mighty thump. Then there was silence.

Brer Fox cocked one ear toward the briar patch, listening for whimpers of pain. But he heard nothing. Brer Fox cocked the other ear toward the briar patch, listening for Brer Rabbit's death rattle. He heard nothing.

Then Brer Fox heard someone calling his name. He turned around and looked up the hill. Brer Rabbit was sitting on a log combing the tar out of his fur with a wood chip and looking smug.

"I was bred and born in the briar patch, Brer Fox," he called. "Born and bred in the briar patch."

And Brer Rabbit skipped away as merry as a cricket while Brer Fox ground his teeth in rage and went home. From Brer Rabbit meets a Tar Baby, retold by S. E. Schlosser

The truth is that I feel very comfortable with the edits I made, I have no regrets, and a block is not something that I consider harmful. Be well. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Could be you are right.

I've always found it concerning how a user involved in the edit-warring can warn an opposing editor. Especially in highly-controversial articles, the idea that warnings are motivated for ideological purposes rather than concern for the article cannot be dismissed. I've been blocked several times as a result an edit warring user reporting me. If I had reported the user first, he/she would have been blocked. Certainly this constitutes a COI? It just isn't right and so I personally consider these actions as a violation of Wikipedia:Gaming the system. Cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't report 3RR any more. It makes me think of kids always snitching, trying to get the other kids in trouble with parents, or teachers. Juvenile mentality. And WP actually encourages all these squealers. Amazing the crap that goes on here. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Malcolm,

RolandR may be a person with a conflict of interests but he's still permitted to note you if he believes that you're resolving disputes by reverting rather than by discussion. A response to such a notice should not be another revert as it is damaging to the collaborative nature that the project hopes to achieve and could induce, as it had in this occasion, some form of sanctioning. Keep weary of accidental promotion of "Drama" and feel free to note me if there's something that gives you great concerns and you believe it should be looked at.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Editors are free to act as they think best. I tried to make clear my view of certain behaviors, but that was with no expectation that anyone would, or could, change because of what I say. Nevertheless, I fail to see how having editors eternally informing on each other, over infractions of wiki-rules that exist no place but WP, contributes to WP's "collaborative nature", or to collegiality. Instead of collegiality, looking at WP:AN/I, WP:AN3, WP:ECCN, WP:M, WP:AC/N, etc, what is seen is a wiki-land of informers and accusers who are endeavoring to ruin their editorial opponents, and to help their editorial allies.

As for my getting blocked, I certainly have no regrets because I have not acted unethically, and because I have plenty to do without WP. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

“ Yeah, I don't report 3RR any more. It makes me think of kids always snitching, trying to get the other kids in trouble with parents, or teachers. Juvenile mentality. And WP actually encourages all these squealers. Amazing the crap that goes on here. ”

Beautifully said, Malcolm. Thank you very much! P.S. I see above that your own personal Nurse Ratched has been heard from again. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is one of my all-time favorites. Not least because of the scene in which McMurphy asks the group why they don't run away. One by one, they answer that they are there voluntarily. And Nurse Ratched smiles benevolently. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A Stoic's Stoic

After my final wiki-demise (indefed), this link would be perfect to keep on my user page [7]. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you been banned? Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No. I was indefed a couple of times though. There are plenty of editors, including administrators, who are gunning for me; and it appears that Gwen Gale has a dream of being the administrator who brings about my final WP demise.....she has blocked me three times (two of them were reversed on review), and played a part in other blocks I have gotten, including this one. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, banning is one of the weirdest and most disgusting aspects of WP. It often amounts to nothing better than a wiki-lynching; as can be seen, for instance, in the community banning of a user here [8]. The sad thing was that even after the shitty treatment he wanted to get re-instated so that he could continue to contribute to WP. Another sad case was the banning of ScienceApologist, an excellent editor who is still trying to contribure to WP even after his banning (Duvora has has an article about that contribution on her blog [9]). -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the rapid expansion of wikipedia forced a more vigilant, and at times almost mob-based process of punishment and sanctions. I like to believe mistakes are rare, but as I become more and more involved first-hand in how the system functions I can say without doubt there are some serious holes. What I really resent is this demand for everyone to be sensitive. In the real world, at least in the world of higher education, if you do something retarded someone will call you on it. But here, if a user comes off as above the required civility, the focus is now on that rather than the article or actions of the user who acted retarded. I also think it's way too easy for editors to punish users they might not like during disputes. I consider that far worse than heated or hostile language within discussion pages. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Logic

I want to add a little to the discussion on logic the thread on Antisemitism [10], and my effort to apply logical argument to the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism.

• If it is true that the majority of anti-Zionists are antisemitic, then it follows that the majority of WP anti-Zionists are antisemitic. (premise)

• The majority of anti-Zionists are antisemitic [11][12]. (premise)

• The majority of WP anti-Zionists are antisemitic. (conclusion)

This frames the argument in the form of Stoic propositional logic, rather than the more Aristotelian term logic that I used previously. Also, this argument is really an inductive syllogism, rather than the more common deductive argument I first use; and admittedly relies on a statistical probability. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Your logic is not really sound. It is possibe (though unlikely) that WP anti-Zionists make up a small group of the total set of anti-Zionists, but that they are all non-antisemtic, so while it remains true that the majority of AZ are AS, its possible that it is not true that a majority of WPAZ are AS. From a statistical POV, that is unlikely. LuvGoldStar (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is a fairly strong inductive argument. Of course, the objections you have would apply equally to the larger set of all anti-Zionists, and I assumed that objection would be made. It is an inductive argument, but there are sources the support the premises concerning the larger set of anti-Zionists....two of which I have included. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I should add that I am speaking of low level (garden variety) antisemitism, which is very common. I have heard of cases of low level antisemites actually put that aside and risking their own lives to save Jews from Nazis. We see the best (or sometimes the worst) in people only in emergency situations. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, I'm just saying the argument is not locically (in the sense of logical induction) sound. LuvGoldStar (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know the argument is sound, within the limits of an inductive argument. For my present purpose, a probability of a percentage is all I want to argue. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

In any case, it os an argumnet that you probably should not be making on wikipedia. LuvGoldStar (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of administrators who seem think that anti-Zionists are a marginalized minority group, and that I am making biased comments against those sensitive and delicate souls. I got three blocks in a week over that. If I was going to back down on the issue, I would have before now. I do not intend to pursue the issue further, but after the blocks, think it is important to clarify my thinking up to this point. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I was just trying to help you avoid further blocks. LuvGoldStar (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Common Sense

Heyo Malcolm Schosha,
If a bad source is used to support a better one, then the bad one can clearly be removed without damaging an honorable verifiability of the content (see also: WP:COMMON).
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Its hard to care because its just one more worthless WP article that virtually no one will ever read.

It appears that WP:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Proposed decision will be giving out topic bans all around. Since WP:NPOV only works when opposing POVs are argued out, and since it is known that years of topic banning, and blocks, of users have changed nothing for the better, it is impossible to conclude this attempt by the arbitration committee to force users to be nice will work any better than the past efforts. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg

Concerning Jayjg: He has not been here for a month. Considering the treatment he has gotten that is not surprising. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

For 3 years I have been here, he has been the target of all attacks. Each time, there is a probmel on an article linked to the I/P conflict, we can read Jayjg, Jayjg, Jayjg... From my point of view, if he was not a Jew, that would not be the same. That is pure antisemitism and disgusting.

But the whole decision is no sense. The message of the Arbcom is : "leave us alone, or we will ban you !". Ceedjee (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree about Jayjg...and about the arbcom decision which will accomplish nothing good. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg would be last person I'd expect to get a virtual death-sentence. What a joke. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg is not blocked, but banned from editing anything in the Israel/Palestine dispute area [13]. He was also "stripped of status and privileges" [14]. The way I see it is that the schmucks on the arbitration committee gave those who initiated this arbcom case the item on the top of their wish list. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Consider Jayjg was most notable for his involvement in the I/P articles, I'd imagine this translates into a virtual death sentence. By striped of his privileges, does that mean is he no longer an admin? Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Query on neutral word choice.

Hi Malcolm,

I've left a query for you at the bottom of the thread at User talk:AGK#Exodus from Lydda, regarding neutral word choice.

Hoping to hear your response soon,

AGK 12:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Official warning

[15] Note, you need to stop while you are ahead. rootology (C)(T) 17:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been warned for disagreeing with your bullshit views. What a very impressive method of arguing your point. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked you 24 hours for personal attacks and posted it for review here. rootology (C)(T) 17:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|Since Rootology was actively involved in an argument with me at WP:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard, it seems improper for him to block me. It should have been referred to a completely uninvolved administrator, per Blocking policy. Also what he warned me about, and what he actually blocked me for, were two very different things, and there was no civility warning. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)}}

NOTE: Block already lifted by Rootology [16] at 14:09 UTC —Travis^talk 19:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

(Autoblock cleared just now by me.) —Travis^talk 19:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved to ANI for more visibility. rootology (C)(T) 17:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You said that already. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I think he was pointing out that at first he posted to WP:AN but then moved it to WP:AN/I, a different place, for "more visibility". Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 18:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

As for "148 revisions restored", I never asked that they be removed. I certainly have no objection to restoring them, and always wondered why they were gone. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

NB: Now I have been blocked for disagreeing with that beloved administrator, Rootology. I would had posted this edit to the WP:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard if I had not been so rudely interrupted by Rootology's block coming first: "NB: I still have not read here a rational explanation of why Jayjg had "privileges" removed. There was one argument supporting the view that it was irrational but okay if arbcom says so." Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I have unblocked you. I strongly caution you to strictly adhere to both WP:AGF & WP:NPA going forward at all times. You have a frighteningly long block record for such a short time--any user collecting so many blocks so quickly is almost always "thisclose" to an indefinite block. Please change your ways. rootology (C)(T) 19:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You blocked me when you were angry at me, which is certainly understandable, but not the recommended procedure. Yet, instead of an apology, you tell me to change my ways.

In regard to my abrasive edit (above), I am sorry if I hurt your feelings. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but I can assure you I was not angry in any way. I blocked you strictly for your personal attack, WP:ABF (which is against policy) and in conjunction with your history of such actions per your lengthy block record. Seriously--please change, or you will end up blocked entirely indefinitely, under any username. rootology (C)(T) 19:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You were quite angry, and obviously so.

Yes, the block record is long, but a number have been reversed, as was this one. I am quite aware that I do not fit in harmoniously in WP, and have long assumed that eventually I will be indefed. I am actually surprised I have lasted here this long. I do things the way I think right; and, although there is plenty of complaining about me, no one has said I never contribute anything useful. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm: Rootology was previously uninvolved. He is now giving you good advice. You should heed it. ++Lar: t/c 19:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

He was involved in a discussion that, on his, part became rather heated.

I am not sure what you mean by "good advice." I do not act in a way the I consider unethical, or say things I consider that are outside the bounds of rational discussion. Moreover, if feel that I have gotten too rough in a discussion, I never hesitate to apologize. That considered, if I have said what I think is right, and that results in my getting sent into wiki-exile, I am willing to pay that price. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

OK then, have it your way. Given that you have removed my response, with "remove soapbox/lecture" as the (rather snarky) edit summary, I'm going to take my comments to you as read, with no need for further friendly advice or second chances from me, meaning I'm going to move out of friendly advice mode and into "don't do the things you were warned about again, or you'll be blocked" mode. Hope that helps clarify matters. ++Lar: t/c 19:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Be assured, I have done nothing here at WP that was not intended to benefit WP.

As for your threat, "...I'm going to move out of friendly advice mode..." I never expected more. Feel free to do your worst. There is nothing you could do that I could not live with happily. And what worse can you do to me but send me into wiki-exile? I can live with that outcome, and leave without regret. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't threaten. But perhaps you and WP are not meant for each other... ++Lar: t/c 03:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• You wrote "...I'm going to move out of friendly advice mode...". That is a threat.

• There was an important and lengthy dispute concerning your misuse of CU privileges, in which Jayjg was peripherally involved. During that dispute, and afterwards, your comments made it clear that you intended to punish him for his involvement. Considering that, I would appreciate your refactoring your claims to be an 'uninvolved' administrator. (Don't bother noting that the ArbCom whitewashed your highly inappropriate activities in that affair; because that was just another glaring example of how the -- more or less current -- ArbCom picks favorites.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm: I've looked at some incidents you were involved in and I'm seeing a pattern. If someone brings up an issue you often respond by attacking that person instead of addressing the issue. Let me point o ut that an admin merely trying to work to resolve a situation is not "involved". Warning you does not make an admin involved. You also seem to reject advice and have a disdain for arbcom, which is your right but I assure arbcom is not the big evil you think it is. Terms like "whitewash", and "picks favorites" and the like show that you appear to be here to be adversarial rather than build the encyclopedia. Just in the last six weeks or so you've been blocked 5 times. It's in your own best interest to cease the behaviors that cause this. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Rlevse, thank you for your comments on my talk page, which I understand to be well intentioned.

You wrote "You also seem to reject advice." I understand this to mean that that I disregard threats of sanctions.

You wrote "I assure arbcom is not the big evil you think it is." I never used the word "evil." What I said is that I think the arbcom decision was a mistake, and that it will do no good. On the other hand, dispite my doubts, I certainly hope that it does improve the editing situation in I/P articles.

You wrote "an admin merely trying to work to resolve a situation is not "involved"." Rlevse, the administrator who blocked me, blocked me for the content of an edit that he thought insulted him personally. In my view that is a very involved (and angry) administrator.

You wrote "It's in your own best interest to cease the behaviors that cause this." I behaved in the way I considered rational and ethical in the context of the situation. I am sorry that we see things so differently. In my editing of WP I have done only what I consider the best for WP, and consider that an obligation. I also understand that some WP users, including administrators, do not agree with me.

If you think any of my views on these things need further clarification, please ask.

Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Block template missing

Since there is no block template, I have no means to request a review.

Since Rootology was actively involved in an argument with me at WP:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard, it seems improper for him to block me. It should have been referred to a completely uninvolved administrator, per Blocking policy. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock}} is the typical way to request an unblock. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 18:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Antisemitism

Please take the trouble to read an edit before reverting. [17] Contrary to your assertion "this issue" has not been discussed at all. The sentence contradicted itself because someone had removed a hyphen in a sentence which was describing two variant forms of the hyphenated version ("anti-Semitism" and "anti-semitism"). Both are listed in the lede. The next sentence discusses the unhyphenated form. None of this has an relevance to the much-discussed question of which form should be preferred in the title or main body of the article. Paul B (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Arguing about a hyphen. Okay, and thanks for your contribution. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You removed a warning about edit warring on Judaization of Jerusalem with the summary "rm BS" then went to Self-hating Jew and edited warred. You leave me no choice but to block you for edit warring. You must learn to work in a consensus environment. Blocked 55 hours. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That warning was a template left by someone who is Malcolm's ideological opposite. I don't see his reaction as being extraordinarily strong; I wish WP:CIVIL extended to the use of "BS," but I find that's very rarely the case. I'd also add that Malcolm is being baited mercilessly. He's actually doing a lot better than some editors with that, though he could, of course, do better. IronDuke 03:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

NB: The warning was for two reverts, the same as user:Nableezy, who left the warning, but for some reason Nableezy neglected to send himself a warning. In any case, I did not make any more reverts to that article, and, by established WP tradition, have a perfect right to remove anything from my own talk page that I want to.

But, if Rlevse had requested that that I return the template, I would have; and usually I do keep such warnings on my talk page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kwork2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked without warning, for removing the template of an earlier a 3RR warning from my user talk page. By WP tradition, users are allowed to remove such content from their own talk pages If it had been a big deal I would have restored it, and have actually left most such warnings on my talk page. There was no warning about other 3RR problems. To sum up, I was blocked for something that is not a blockable violation of any WP rule, and that was done without any warning or request that I return the block template to my user page. As far as I know I am not in violation of 3RR at Self-hating Jew. (I might also mention that I had brought up the difficult editing situation at Self-hating Jew on Sandstein's talk page.) [18]) -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were not blocked for removing a template. You were not even blocked for removing the template with an edit summary of "remove BS". You were blocked for persistent edit warring after repeated warnings and blocks about it, and for showing that rather than addressing the issues, you prefer to continue your behaviour patterns. You need to learn how to edit collegialy. You need to learn how to interact with others without being acidic and casting aspersions. "I wasn't warned for this particular instance" is not a defense. Your block log is evidence of sufficient previous warnings. Don't edit war. Not even once. Declined. ++Lar: t/c 12:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC))

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Looks like Br'er Fox has thrown me into the briar patch. Of course, as usual, it will be thought that throwing me there will hurt me; when actually, like Br'er Rabbit, I am perfectly comfortable in the briar patch because that (not Wikipedia) is where I am at home.

As I have said previously, I consider many Wikipedia users, and particularly administrators, socially dysfunctional computer geeks with no normal interpersonal social skills. To compensate for that lack, they live in the virtual world of Wikipedia, where they pretend that enforcing perceived violations against Wikipedia rules (which rules exist no place but Wikipedia) is actually doing something worthwhile. That personality defect, so common among Wikipedia users, does not make them charming company, and getting thrown out of WP and into the real world is always a refreshing change. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have reset your block to 72 hours for the personal attacks (targeted at the blocking and reviewing admins, among other editors) above. If you carry on with these attacks while blocked, your talk page may be locked and the block lengthened further. Edit warring, incivility and personal attacks only harm the building of an encyclopedia and have a chilling effect upon editors who wish to help build and write articles. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gwen Gale. Its always such a pleasure to hear from you. If the extended block is for my saying

I consider many Wikipedia users, and particularly administrators, socially dysfunctional computer geeks with no normal interpersonal social skills. To compensate for that lack, they live in the virtual world of Wikipedia, where they pretend that enforcing perceived violations against Wikipedia rules (which rules exist no place but Wikipedia) is actually doing something worthwhile. That personality defect, so common among Wikipedia users, does not make them charming company, and getting thrown out of WP and into the real world is always a refreshing change.

as I did above, then I certainly stand by all of that; including "getting thrown out of WP and into the real world is always a refreshing change."

So, if you (or some other beloved administrator) want to test that, to see if I really will remain happy with my life even after being indefed, then feel free to do your worst. However, I do want to make clear that my statement about WP users was not intended to be limited to just two administrators, but is a more general statement about all those many users who live a virtual (and therefore dysfunctional) life on and through Wikipedia. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, it was that piece of work Lar who upheld the bock by Rlevse. It will be noted, then, that my pointing out Lar's misuse of administrative privileges, in a discussion above, did not have any "chilling effect" on him. Strange that Gwen Gale should be so worried that my edits will have such a chilling effect. Just more bullshit, I suppose. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Too funny. Nableezy is notorious for editing to "the line" and then warning those who engage. I've been blocked like 3 times because of his hostile editing tactics and reporting those who revert his edits. Manipulating the corrupt tattle-tale system to benefit one's agenda...total bollocks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and the general WP problem of administrators, including those on arbcom, who are dysfunctional failures living their life as a wiki-life (frequently in the basement of their parents house), at home no place but in front of computer screens; human failures lacking interpersonal skills, emotional maturity, intellectual honesty, and ethical values. They have no real life, but presume to dress up as adults and play pretend on WP. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein's description of Oakland CA ("There is no there there"); then I think of Rootology, Gwen Gale, Lar, and Rlevse, it is clear that there is no there up there. Empty skulls wearing administrator's hats. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Say what you like about me, I don't care, but I have reset your block to indefinite for ongoing personal attacks on the others despite the warning I gave above. Moreover, I think you've made these attacks and named user names so that you can later claim that these admins (any admins) are somehow "involved" with you and hence, owing to "conflict of interest" cannot wield the admin bit to deal with you. About that, you are mistaken. You may carry on attacking me as you please (although some other admin may have something to say about that), but if you attack any other editor on this talk page again, I'll lock it. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Gale. I have no intention of claiming the involvement of you, and the other administrators, as an excuse to appeal my permanent block. In fact, I am satisfied with the outcome. I said what I had to say, and I see no reason to cry over the consequences. I am satisfied that this break with WP will be better for me, and I am having no trouble at all finding other things to keep me busy, and I think more usefully busy than editing WP. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for ongoing and unending personal attacks whilst blocked for edit warring and personal attacks. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Kwork2/Archive 3

I've posted notice of my action at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Malcolm_Schosha. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, since I have no intention of appealing the block, feel free to remove this page whenever you care to.

However, since I have edited under my own name, I would appreciate it if you, or someone, would remove the "blocked user" template and replace it with the "retired user" template. That change will do no harm to anyone. Thank you for that, and goodbye. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I recommend we give Malcolm's userpage a courtesy blanking after the ANI thread is closed.--Tznkai (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Blanking would be fitting, there is no need to "badge" someone's own name. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The comments about me on AN/I are a laugh. It has been well worth getting blocked just for the amusement of that alone. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This comment comes under the interesting catagory

Malcom's way was to strongly attack admins trying to deal with him, then claim they were "involved" and "harassing" or "out to get" him. Hence Malcom said I was involved, but I never was. I always hoped he'd settle down. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)</blockquote

Gwen Gale is very involved, to the point that on an occasion when DGG overturned one of her many blocks of me, he suggested that in the future she let other administrators handle future problems with my editing. Of course she ignored that. Every other administrator involved in this particular imbroglio, is also involved in one way or another.

But, as I said previously, I do not intend to make an issue of this, or appeal the block in any other way. I am not enjoying the company.

As for Sandstein's cheap shot comment (because I can reply only here): he's blocked for displaying poor social skills by ranting about the supposed poor social skills of others, I say everything I say with my own name on it, and take full responsibility for every word of it. That is opposed to some of the sneaks, whiners, and liars that have made comments about me while hiding behind WP aliases. And please note: making abrasive comments is a wiki-crime only. I have made such comments to the face of many people when I thought it justified, and that despite the arguments that I am actually friends with many of them. All the offenses I am accused of are offences no place but WP. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Malcolm. Yes, they are only "wikicrimes", but when you use any website, you need to be aware of and honor their local policies... or not, as is everyone's right. But if you don't honor that site's rules--whether it's Wikipedia, or some message board, or some mail list, isn't it reasonable that you would eventually be removed from that site, forum, or mail list? rootology/equality 20:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me make it clear, no matter how much some editors complained about my editing, I always considered it a responsibility to aim for NPOV. Anyone has a right to disagree with my editing, but those who claim that my editing intentions were anything other than improving WP are liars. As for my abrasivness, it has been mostly limited to my own talk page. No one is required to read it.

All the whining and complaining has come from others who want me out of here, and not from me. I do not enjoy most of the company here, and I will leave without any sadness. I am happy with the outcome, and have other things to do. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Reading the comments on AN/I, I want to make two points clear

1. The comments all seem to contain the assumption that getting permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia is a misfortune. I certainly do not see it that way. I have no regrets, and I am happy with the outcome. As I see it, the only reason that I could have for regret is if I had acted unethically, or stayed silent about issues that needed outspokenness. Since there is, in my view, nothing bad about having to stop editing WP, there is likewise no reason to feel bad about that outcome. In fact I am happy that I have acted properly according to my best understanding of what is ethical.
2. Virtually every comment on the AN/I thread seems, to one degree or another, rather self-serving; both those favoring my banning from WP, and those few opposed. An interesting demonstration of the Rashomon effect.

Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Arrivederci

Since my final wiki-exile is near and I will soon no longer be able to edit my talk page, I want to say, So long it's been good to know you: [19].

Well, it was good to know a few of you....but certainly not all of you. For those few, Goodbye. Ciao [20](or if you prefer [21]). Shalom, [22]. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy life away from Wikipedia, Malcolm, and stay true to yourself! Kindest regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Salve Guido. Things can get really crazy trying to edit WP, as you know from your own experiences. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Clean up

I started the article on Islamic pattern design about two weeks ago, but at this stage it is just a fragment that conveys no real information. Because the article, to be complete, would need lengthy, and quite technical treatment (of symmetry groups, for example [23]), I think it would be best to delete the article. Any editor competent to deal with the subject would be better starting with a completely new article so that he/she could deal with the subject as they choose; and I think it would be a good idea to delete this fragment. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested speedy delete for you. Shame though, seems like an article you could make into something interesting and informative. Just wanted to say this was not my intended outcome with the warning, I just wanted you to explain beyond your edit summaries as to why that edit was 'good'. Best of luck to you, Nableezy (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

As for the 3RR warning, it was a small thing turned into a big deal by administrators who used it for their own purposes. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I wanted to leave you a message warning you not to allow yourself to be baited but... too late, I guess. Good luck... IronDuke 01:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I tried to do the right thing at the AN/I. I'm not sure what's going to happen, but whatever the result I wish you good luck. It's been fun.  :) Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wikifan. If that very intelligent administrator, Lar, wants support for baiting, he could refer to this statement by Sandstein [24]. I don't have time to search the Self-hating Jew talk page now, and it is quite possible that other editors have done some re-editing there to hide their original statements (doing that is pretty common in situations like this). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I want to describe a series of events, and then draw a conclusion.

I made a series of edits on the arbcom noticeboard, pointing out that the arbcom decision removing of some Jayjg's administrative privileges was irrational because he had never misused those privileges. That got Rootology and Lar pissed off, and Rootology blocked me and then reversed his when block when he cooled down a little and realized it was a bad block. After some further argument with Lar and Rootology, Rlevse showed up and blocked me with this

You removed a warning about edit warring on Judaization of Jerusalem with the summary "rm BS" then went to Self-hating Jew and edited warred. You leave me no choice but to block you for edit warring. You must learn to work in a consensus environment. Blocked 55 hours. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That was despite that, by accepted WP usage, a user has the right to remove anything he wants from his own talk page, and that I had not violated (as far as I know) 3RR. What had happened at Self-hating Jew, is that Rd232 reverted my efforts to make content conform to the requirements of WP:ASF, which is integral with WP:NPOV. He followed that up by removing a reliable source he disagreed with. Despite that, I was the one who got blocked. (Concerning Peter cohen's strange accusation that my calling Finlay an apologist for British Muslims is a BLP violation, he aparently does not understand that the word apologist means no more than "one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something"[25]. The term is not an insult, and the article Finlay wrote in defense of British Muslims fits that definition. I did not say there was anything wrong with his defense of the Muslim community, just that his views needed to be balanced with other sources in the Self-hating Jew article. I noticed that Peter cohen did not mention in his AN/I edit that he got no support for his complaint at the BLP noticeboard.)

In conclusion, I have made it clear that I do not consider leaving Wikipedia a bad thing. Quite the contrary. I can no longer imagine circumstances that would motivate me to waste more of my time trying to improve any WP article. I have other things to do with my time, and will not edit WP again. Abbastanza

I do want to think those few who tried their best to help: I appreciate your kind efforts. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

On combining ignorance with viciousness

This is not concerned with me, but is a very short defense of, or apology for, Stoicism, and particularly concerns the very problematic dismissal of Stoicism made by Malik Shabazz on the AN/I thread

At the top of Malcolm's Talk page he all but states that he is unwilling to edit in a collaborative manner. "I'm going to do what I think is right, whatever the consequences." That may be an admirable attitude for a Greek philosopher, but it doesn't bode well for an editor in a collaborative project such as Wikipedia.

Aside from the problem of Malik quoting me as saying something that I did not say, his dismissal of Stoicism[26], the most influential philosophy of the Hellenistic world, as inconvenient, or unacceptable, for use by Wikipedia editors is problematic. I will not fill up a lot of space with this, but it needs to be noted that Stoicism is considered by many reliable sources to have been important in both Christian and Islamic philosophy [27][28]. On of the early Church Fathers, Origen, had Stoic training, and the Enchiridon of Epictetus (and it is Epictetus who I quote on the top of my talk page), has been studied by Christians (including in monasteries) virtually since the founding of the religion. Perhaps the so knowledgeable, and kindly, Malik would explain why Stoicism has no place in Wikipedia. Or, if he can not do that, perhaps Malik would be so kind as to refactor his apparently biased comment about Stoicism. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)