User talk:Kwork2/Archive 2

Hang in there

Don't let User:Akhilleus aggressive tone and refusal to follow the WP:NPOV policy frustrate you and stop you from continuing to edit Jesus myth hypothesis, as that seems to be exactly his stategy. Some people dont seem to be able to see past their own POV and feel the need to turn articles into ways to advance that POV. That's exactly what we don't need on Wikipedia, and if you give up he'll succeed. DreamGuy (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I second that Malcom, hang in there. I will read up on the dispute and see if I can help. Stay cool Albion moonlight (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: "Christian religious nuts"

Listen, you need to tone down the rhetoric^[1] and observe civil discourse & etiquette. Hope I won't need to remind you again. Thx. Regards, El_C 12:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop making personal attacks. Comment on content and sources, not on other editors. If you can't learn to do this, you'll be blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I got this under control. El_C 13:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that you are issuing a warning about an item on the talk page that is over two months old. And all the more since I already said I am finished editing that article: [2]

But if you think that justifies sending me back into wiki-exile, go ahead. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I thought it was from today! (that's the impression I was given; that's there's an emergency) El_C 13:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I really have been trying to keep my sarcasm under control. That is not so easy for me, but I am trying. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, my apologies for the oversight. I just naturally assumed from the tone of Akhilleus' plea that it was from today. But I should not have glanced so superficially, regardless of anything, so I take full responsibility for this unexpected & unwarranted discord. El_C 13:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The editing of that article has been always difficult. I had asked Vassyana to take a look at the situation [3] because I have a lot of respect for his opinion. But He is having access problems, and this accusation may have poisoned things now anyhow. But whatever the case, I do not intend to do any editing of that article again. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Not as gracious as I expected, but sure, whatever. Goodluck elsewhere. El_C 13:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, I also (carelessly) thought that link was from the last day or so. No warning was needed at all and I take it back. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Listen to Sirubenstein

I do not really kow that much about the sources in question but the user in questions comment at the bottom of that page make a valid point about contextualizing those sources. I trust Sirubensteins opinions in general. And it certainly doen't seem worth fighting or losing sleep over. Albion moonlight (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

New anti-Semitism

You say "both sides." I thin there are more than two sides.

Tariq Ali is on the editorial board of the New left Review which makes him equivalent to an academic in that he wries and reads and regulates contributions to an important academic forum.

I think your comments may help clarify how we identify his point of view but in no way justifies removing his view. All notable views get included. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Vase1r 800.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Vase1r 800.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Vase2r 800.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Vase2r 800.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Vase3r 800.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Vase3r 800.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

vase images

Malcom I saw the above notices. These images look to me as though they're likely to be your own work but you should pick a license and put more information about each of these photos on their image pages and if that's not enough, may need to send verification to WP:OTRS (this last step may not be needed though). Gwen Gale (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gwen Gale. The three vases are my own work. I know that there is more information needed, but it is difficult for me to figure out the process and I may not have time for it today. Thanks. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me know if or when you need any help then. :) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

license

First thing to do is to pick a license as soon as can be, GFDL or Creative commons. I much rather like creative commons licenses (you can pick whether or not you want attribution, if derivative works are ok and whether commercial use is ok). I think GFDL is way too heavy. Hence, since I'm biased about it, I can't say which would be more helpful for you. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've added cc licenses to each page as requested (by the way, I'd forgotten that on Wikipedia one can't forbid commercial use and still upload an image as free, see strike-out above).

Please add NPOV image descriptions! These images could float about on sundry networks for centuries or longer and maybe it's at least worth trying to help folks know what they are. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I like your vases Malcolm. Kudos. Albion moonlight (talk) 09:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

your intentions

Hi, I am sorry if I misunderstood or misrepresented your intentions. My comment was a reaction to one specific comment you made on the talk page. All I meant to say is that we editors often add views we personally find ridiculous or a laugh or just factually wrong - if doing so is consistent with our NPOV policy. Tariq Ali has a view about the "New Antisemitism" it does not matter whether his views are supported by facts; what matters is whether they are notable. The article should include his views not as authoritative statements about Israeli or Zionist history, but as an example of a certain kind of view about Israel and Zionism. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand you position on Tariq Ali...although I do not agree. A particular difficulty is that the section of the article where that paragraph was originally located is now deleted [4]

I had suggested the deletion [5], but it was deleted without discussion of the implications, which I did not want to happen. So the problem now is that (I think) the Tariq Ali does not belong where it is now, with the more scholarly discussion, and the section where it logically fit was deleted by csloat. I think this whole long argument could have been avoided by being more cautious about that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

What you say here makes a lot of sense. If you could find a new context/section for the quotes, that would be acceptable to you, you would make a big step towards ending this particular conflict. I think the context is at least as important as the quote itself (the context in which Ali wrote; the context in which we discuss the quote in the article). Slrubenstein | Talk 16:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The simplest solution might be to return the Political Directions section to the article -- with Tariq Ali's paragraph returned to there. It will still be a quote farm, with the disputed paragraph being a contributer to that. But, perhaps, in an article as disputed as this, large amounts of direct quoting may be unavoidable.

I do not know if other editors will agree it, but I could live with returning that section to the article as a compromise solution to the dispute. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm--FYI I replied to your query on my talk page. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 17:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I recommend bringing your compromise suggestion to the article talk page; it seems a reasonable solution. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

New antisemitism

I'll try to get back to the article as soon as possible, but I'm a bit pressed for time right now, and fruitless discussions with rude, close-minded, and biased individuals who aren't particularly interested in policy isn't as high on my list of priorities as other things. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify. I was horrified by the behaviour of csloat - not even understandable, just against, whatever. Since he is the first to answer to my note, I wanted to tell you that.--UbUb (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Horrified why? Because I disagreed with you? I've been more than civil here so I'm not sure why you directed such an uncivil comment at me on someone else's talk page. Anyway hope you have a good day. csloat (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

welcome back!

Hi Malcolm,

Thanks for your note. I really don't know much about that topic. What would you recommend as a good starting source? Also, welcome back -- change of heart?

Best, Renee Renee (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on New antisemitism. 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) 21:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Thank you for the warning, but you are the one who made four reverts in about 6 hours. I'm not going to report you, since I was reverting you as well, but it appears that you are the one who should be careful about violating the 3RR, since you did violate it quite blatantly. Now perhaps you will abide by the consensus? Thanks. csloat (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Four?! O shit. I never was any good a counting. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The back-and-forth of edit warring never helps. You both might want to think about keeping yourselves to 1rr for awhile. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, certainly you are right about reverts.

This situation is very frustrating. You might notice, above that csloat denies I offered a compromise. But I did. Its an offer I mentioned to Slrubenstein too, in the "your intentions section", just above here [6]. When I just looked for the compromise offer on the article talk page, I could not find it, and hope it was not deleted. It would not be the first time I have seen editors make convent changes to a talk page.

In any case, in editing situations like this, I do not get angry and I do not give up. Thanks for the advice, I appreciate it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

New Antisemitism

Hi Malcolm - I think you raise a very, very interesting point on my talk page. I have to preface my remarks by letting you know two things, if they aren't obvious to you already: first, I have not really worked on the New Antisemitism article; from what i have seen it is very contentious and frankly I'd rather not get involved in the arguments. Second, the only motive I have had in supporting the inclusion of material by Tariq Ali (and Yehuda Bauer) is my desire to see a wide range of diverse views represented, not just because this complies with NPOV but because in principle I think it makes for more interesting and informative encyclopedia articles.

Now, as to the point you raise, you may be right. But I can think of one counterargument. Ali, Bauer, and whomever else you and others would agree are "reliable sources" on this topic are secondary sources because they themselves are analyzing or opining on other texts - the zombie photo, for example, or graffiti in Paris, or a speech given in London, or whatever. I would suggest that these things - photographs, signs, posters, graffiti, statements, pamphlets - are the primary sources and lectures, articles, and essays that debate as to whetehr these things are evidence of a New anti-Semitism, the same old anti-Semitism, or are simply not anti-semitic (but rather anti-Zionist or anti-Israeli policy) are secondary sources. This is the view I would favor. But I do think your point is intersting and worth considering.

I would add one last point. I think that if you are right it means that there are some phenomena to which the primary/secondary source distinction simply does not apply, because they are as you point out so recent. The question is, how does our NOR policy apply? Some people think NOR means editors cannot rely on primary sources. But I would argue that if there are no secondary sources, or all secondary sources are also primary sources, then this interpretation or provision of NOR simply does not apply. I would say that WP:SYNTH becomes the crucial element of NOR that we have to apply - editors can use sources without getting bogged down in arguments as to whether they are secondary or primary as long as it is crystal clear to everyone that the editor is not synthesizing anything.

A final remark - these are just some thoughts I have I wanted to share with you since you took the time to write on my talk page. But in general and in principle I think the best-qualified people to deal with these conundra are the editors working on an article. Yes, I have posted a few comments especially recently on this article's talk page, but I never added (or deleted) any content. So I do not think I am really qualified to make any definitive comment on your question. I guess if the conflict escalated to the point where there was an RfC I would post something like what I just said, above - my views on how NOR relates to this stuff ... but I would only do that if it reached an RfC and the views of outsiders were explicitly (and generally) being sought. Short of an RfC I really think those editors who have contribued gthe most stable content to the article, or who have been active on the talk page the longest (say, over six months) are the ones who should hash this stuff out. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I was sure you would be a good person to ask.

It is not my intention to raise this question on the article's talk page because, at this point, I am not sure how much significance it has for the article, if any. There does seem to be some peculiar problem with the article, but I can not quite put my finger on it. Perhaps, with time, an intuition will flash and I will understand just what about it bothers me.

In any case, I probably will not have much to do with the article for now, and suspect that my presence will not be missed. There was a reason for my entering the discussion when I did, but at this point that reason is of no importance.

Once again, thanks for your reply.....and for your patience. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No need to thnk me for my patience, I could say the sam to you - WP is all about misunderstanding and confusion and taking time to sort things out. I never questioned that you meant well; in the end pehaps we just have a difference of opinion. Anyway, I would indeed be glad if my musings here were at all helpful. Ultimately I think most issues in Wikipedia shoud be resolved through patient (if at times contentious) negotiation between good faith editors, this includes how to interpret and apply policies as well. Good luck contributing to other articles, Slrubenstein | Talk 03:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Message left on my talk page

Discussion about what? Removing non-free images? Like how we have discussion before removing pictures of penises from featured articles? No. That's not the way it works- it's up to those who wish to include non-free media to convince everyone else that it's needed, not the other way around. Trust me, removing images contrary to our non-free content criteria is pretty standard stuff- myself and others do it every day. J Milburn (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry this removal process was so rough- I guess I treated the article as I would have treated a character list, discography or article on a children's film, when the best course of action would have been something a little more conservative. I'm only human, hopefully I'll improve my methodology for next time- I'll certainly choose to contact the WikiProject (which seems to be very efficient) if I come across similar articles with the same issue. Thanks for seeing it through. J Milburn (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Stoicism

No problem and thank you for working on such nice things, I love philosophy too! Cheers. — Orion11M87 (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

I have reported your disruptive activity to WP:AN/I. Hopefully administrative intervention will encourage you to follow dispute resolution rather than just lying on the talk page and pretending you aren't making the edits you are obviously making. csloat (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Malcolm

I just wanted to say hello and note that it's great to see here. I find Wikipedia frustrating at times, but i also know that, as the largest repository of information currently on the web other than raw search-engine lists, it is never a complete waste of time to edit here. I was surprised to see you show up for the AfD on the DOS -- i myself don't usually follow that debate, but this group has links to other groups that made it interestng to one such as myself. If the article goes, then those links go -- which makes understanding the way the world works a little more difficult for the next generation -- which is why i fight for the incluson of such articles. But you know that already, i suspect. Anyway, great to see your name around, and i hope we find a few more pages of common interest in times to come. Catherineyronwode a.k.a. "64" a.k.a. "Nameless Date Stamp" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

New Thought

This article in hardly complete Creative visualization is used in every branch of New Thought. Follow the link. 69.86.63.13 (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I added reference.69.86.159.34 (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi the comparison of how many external links the Catholic article has no bearing on and the New Thought page wiki does not have any set number of external links. I will revert those which have a bearing on NT. Thanks66.108.92.43 (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

DOS AfD

Catherineyronwode has removed upon request the offending remarks from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daylight Origins Society. I doubt that we can get through this without some degree of rancor, but I would at least like to get the worst of the sniping off the AfD page. Would you be willing to strike or remove your off-topic comments? I am making the same request of Orangemarlin. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If OrangeMarlin removes the sentence that is insulting to Catherineyronwode, my comment upon it would would become pointless, and I would be very happy to remove that edit also. (But please note that, in my view, points on uncivil edits are not ever "off topic". In fact, I added my comment after Catherine remove the source of your own complaint.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, the discussion is closed now. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Esoteric Astrology

Hi Malcolm, What do you think of this? I don't quite understand what s/he's saying (other than that the signs were reversed?)? Thanks, Renee (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I never read AAB's Esoteric Astrology; and, although I know it presents a different approach to astrology, I do not know anything about the differences. The statement could be correct, but it certainly is not helpful as an explanation, so that alone makes it problematic. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Barry Long

I have responded to your comments on the Talk:Barry Long page. Thank you. 78.151.255.93 (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I replied on the article talk page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Quotes

I certainly didn't add the quotes, I just highlighted what was already there. I thought you were planning on doing something with them, otherwise I would have removed them myself. By all means, feel free to remove them. NJGW (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks

This edit is a personal attack. Stick with the topic and not with the editor. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop complaining. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I know plenty of Italian, thanks. "Capice" when used in an English forum is typically used as a put-down. Also, not a good idea to talk back to the user above ... pick your battles properly BMW(drive) 23:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

BMW, I know nothing about pop culture uses for that, or any other word, but I did live in Italy for seven years.

I say what I think is needed, not what will win me popularity points.

For when Vespasian sent for Priscus Helvidius and commanded him not to go into the senate, he replied, "It is in your power not to allow me to be a member of the senate, but so long as I am, I must go in." "Well, go in then," says the emperor, "but say nothing." "Do not ask my opinion, and I will be silent." "But I must ask your opinion." "And I must say what I think right." "But if you do, I shall put you to death." "When then did I tell you that I am immortal? You will do your part, and I will do mine: it is your part to kill; it is mine to die, but not in fear: yours to banish me; mine to depart without sorrow."

I should put this on my user page. I have been sent into permanent wiki-exile twice, and if it should be necessary to leave again, then that is what I must accept. So if you think I have done something to send me into wiki-exile, go ahead. Let me know if what I have said is not clear. Understand? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

How about this ..."don't bite the hand that [helps] you"?? BMW(drive) 23:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about giving you a hard time. (But please remember, I was not the user who made the complaint. I was the object of the complaint. In that regard, if you think I am in violation of WP rules, no need to do me any favors, but do what you think is right.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agreed that this was an editing issue early on, and don't feel you were giving me a hard time (I'm reasonably thick-skinned) - but I do believe that you proved in WQA that you can be uncivil, and don't give a shyte about it when confronted ... that won't do well later on. BMW(drive) 11:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no point in my giving an expanded explanation of my reasoning. Perhaps I do not belong here, and should leave those who do in peace. Certainly, I can be abrasive in certain circumstances, and since your skin is thinner than you want to admit, you felt it; and it is natural that you would want the source of irritation removed. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) That would go outside of my firm, personal belief that "everyone has something to add to Wikipedia". Yes, I saw your abrasiveness. Yes, I pointed out a few spots that would obviously be thought of as insults. Other than that, meh. ɃMW(drive) 21:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Your edit at WP:FTN

Do you have any idea what happened with this edit to the section on Polytheistic Reconstructionism? (Note the changes to the two posts previous to yours.) I've seen you around enought to know you're not a vandal. Could it have been some kind of server or browser error? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea. All I did was add my edit. I suppose it could be something I caused inadvertently, although I don't know how. (But "don't know how" pretty well characterizes my bewildered efforts here in Wikiland, where my lack of computer know-how sometimes does make problems.) If you figure it out let me know. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Categories

I've put the articles back into Category:Kabbalah. Now please get off my back (re your comment in the move discussion). Bob (QaBob) 17:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Negative comment

No worries. My edits certainly looked boneheaded! Wiki was displaying only old versions of the article when I was editing for most of the last hour or so. Had to clear my cache to get it to function properly. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for for edit-warring at Psychic[7][8][9][10][11]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. 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. Elonka 19:24, 6 October 2008 (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:

Only three of the edits were the same edit. At least one was reverting what turned out to be a WP computer glitch (see section above this one). And, since the issue was resolved, the block seems a little late and pointless. Additionally, I did not get a 3RR warning. Not only that, I can't believe that you would do this to an editor (i.e. myself) with such a sweet disposition and with such sensitive and easily hurt feelings. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have been an editor long enough to be aware of what edit warring means, and you should also be aware that you may be blocked for edit warring even if you don't technically revert the same exact text more than three times. You are clearly edit warring over the article, and since you have shown no signs that you intend to stop this behavior, you will not be unblocked at this time. Should you give admins assurances that you agree to stop this behavior, and that you also understand that you will be blocked again if this behavior resumes, then someone may feel better about lifting this block. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:20, 6 October 2008 (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.

You've already been warned about 3RR in the past, on a different article.[12] As for the reverts, they don't have to be reverts to the same text, they just have to be reverts of what other editors are doing. As for your sweet disposition,[13] erm, I could send flowers if you'd like? Or would stickers with rainbows and unicorns be better? --Elonka 19:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

O shit! That means I may actually have to to some work now to keep busy. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think much of your POV, but this was a ridiculous block by an involved, very involved, admin. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you think my POV is. I admit I can carry tenaciousness to an extreme on occasion. Other editors who have that same quality, but find themselves on the opposite side of an editing disagreement, might not enjoy that characteristic. Personally I admire editors who try hard to do what they think is right, even when I do not agree with what they think is right. However, in this particular case, I doubt if you would have opposed any of my edits.

I do think it is a mistake for an administrator to get involved in that situation, which may seem a little acrimonious, but in which the editing process is moving forward. Seeing that several editors were working on the article at that time, and that none of the editors had complained to an administrator about edit warring (a term which did not really describe that situation); then for an administrator to get involved with blocks and warning of blocks, was really disruptive with unnecessary wiki-lawering. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

However, I complained to you about your edit warring, and you ignored it, removing my warnings from your talk page. Next time, in the same circumstances, I will complain to an administrator instead, since you don't heed friendly warnings, thinking yourself to be always in the right. Bob (QaBob) 12:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Your warning was on the Psychic article talk page [14], and I did not see it until after I was blocked. (You had the same number of reverts as me, or perhaps one less.) If complaining about me to administrators will keep your comments off my talk page, that will be a welcome development. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

As a motion amending the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to pseudoscience. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here. --Elonka 19:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This ruling says:

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

Well, if not pseudoscience articles, what is the best type of article to edit for someone who can't quite manage to meet "expected standards of behavior"?Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe try for something that is listed at WP:MISSING but isn't within the scope of Wikipedia:General sanctions. Which still wouldn't be 100% safe, but it stands a better chance of putting you deep enough in the stacks, that you can work more independently. Which would mean that you could just go ahead and write, without having to worry about negotiation and consensus-building every step of the way. Personally, I enjoy filling in gaps in the topic area of medieval history, as it's very rare that I run into a conflict when trying to expand articles about a 13th century priest or a medieval Egyptian capital. :) If you enjoy scientific topics, Wikipedia:List of missing journals is a good place to help out, and could definitely use the help! --Elonka 21:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Trigger happy administrators

In her explanation of why she blocked me, Elonka gave five diffs:

1. [15], was where I moved a sentence to the talk page for discussion [16], which is (as far as I know) universally considered acceptable editing practice. (I do not know what all the red is on that edit, because all I did was remove one sentence, which went to the talk page.)
2. [17]
3. [18]
4. [19] were, all three, reverts of one disputed edit with Bob (QaBob).
5. [20] was intended as a revert of an edit by ScienceApologist, who had just reverted the entire article to an earlier version (the result, it turned out, of a computer glitch he had), but which may have reverted QaBobAllah's revert of the same overwrite, and made just ahead of me. When I realized the edit was a mistake, I apologized to ScienceApologist for the negative comment. This edit had nothing to do with edit warring.

Because of Elonka's apparent misunderstanding of my edits, and the following typical WP administrative trigger happy application of administrative powers, I got blocked while QaBobAllah got a warning for doing the same thing. It is not that I expect fair treatment from administrators, but it would be pleasant if I did. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair question, let me try to explain: Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR/Administrator instructions, admins are advised not to block an editor for edit-warring, unless that editor has first been clearly warned about the WP:3RR policy. Such warnings are usually issued with the {{3rr}} template. When I looked at the history of QaBobAllah's talkpage,[21] I could not locate any record of QaBobAllah (talk · contribs) receiving a 3RR warning, so I went ahead and issued one.[22] If he would have continued edit-warring after that, he probably would have been blocked. However, he wisely chose to stop voluntarily, so no block was necessary. If for some reason in the future he resumes edit-warring, he can be blocked without warning, since there will be proof on his talkpage that at least one good faith effort was already made to educate him about the policy. As for your own actions, the best way to avoid further blocks, is to only use the "revert" button when dealing with vandalism. Using revert on an established editor accomplishes little except to escalate a dispute. Some editors follow a self-imposed "1RR" rule, meaning that they will only revert once, and then take things to the talkpage if there is further disagreement. The simple fact of the matter is that revert wars are completely ineffective as a way of changing an article. Editor A reverts, Editor B reverts A, A reverts B, back and forth, but it accomplishes nothing except to disrupt the article, and to increase blood pressure and stomach acid. See WP:MASTODON. Instead, the most effective way to implement a change is either to edit the article to try and find a compromise which both editors can live with, or to discuss the matter on the talkpage: Build consensus, request comments from other editors, start a thread at a dispute resolution noticeboard, or possibly request mediation. There are many ways to deal with disputes on Wikipedia, but revert-warring is pretty much at the bottom of the list. --Elonka 18:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, the problem with your reply (as I see it) is that

1. You did not respond to my point that much of what you used as a basis for blocking me was not really a basis for blocking me.
2. What you did write is a combination of vague generalities, wiki-lawering, and platitudes about how Wikipedia editors are supposed to act which has no connection to how they actually do act.

My own general views on editorial conflicts is that there is nothing wrong with some interpersonal conflict; and since it is part of human nature, WP efforts to suppress it rather are unnecessary (not to mention futile) if there is evidence of editorial progress, and if it has not become mean spirited. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you to a point. There are a few disputes that I keep an eye on, where editors get into a bit of a tussle, but I tend to stay out of it. Because in between the pushing and shoving, the article seems to be making slow progress, and neither of the editors involved seems to be overly concerned with the tone of the discussion, and no one else on the project seems to care enough about the topic to have an opinion. Which doesn't mean that I go completely hands-off... There are still various markers I watch for, at which point I'll step in as an administrator. One is when the dispute seems to be escalating outside of a small contained area, and overflowing to other articles or editors. Another would be if I see indications that some outside editors are reluctant to step in, because of the heat on the talkpage. Another is if an article is undergoing so many back and forth reverts, that it's getting difficult to tell where the "stable" version is, and editors are approaching 3RR. The last criterion, is what was happening at the Psychic article. Multiple editors either passed 3RR, or were teetering on the edge. I could have opted to just protect the article so that no one could edit at all, and indeed, I think that many administrators looking at that situation would have opted for page protection. I, however, dislike protecting articles except as an absolute last resort. Instead, I prefer to identify the editors that are using "revert" as an editing tool, and I tell them to cut it out. As for your point about how Wikipedia editors are supposed to act, not having any connection to how they do act, well, I'm not going to argue that that happens sometimes. This is a big project, with thousands of articles flowing in every day, and disputes are inevitable. However just because sometimes editors ignore policies, does not mean that the policies are okay to ignore. --Elonka 16:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I just wandered in and made some changes to the article that I think were logical....and got into (what seemed to me) a small dispute. Truthfully, I did not notice until later just how contentious editing this article has been. Five archived files for the talk page in less than a year says a lot. That is an indicator that I usually look at before getting involved with editing. Considering that the article is rather low priority for me, and knowing that that it is so easy to get stung by worried administrators, you are not likely to see much of me there in the future. So administrative actions can be a reason for editors staying away too. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

References

I made a revert of your edits here. The reason I did so is that the "ref name" allows one to refer to the same article in several places. Please see WP:CITET for more information. It makes for a cleaner article when the same ref is used multiple times with the ref name code. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I put in what seemed a better source, because it was directly from the Gallup site. If I was wrong about that, then it should be removed. In any case, I have decided that the Psychic article is not worth the trouble involved in editing it, and I think I would rather put my time and effort into articles on subjects that actually interest me. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism

You are in violation of the three-revert rule. Please self-revert now, or you will be reported. CJCurrie (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Those were edits, not reverts. I changed a disputed sentence and tried to improve it. It was you who are engaged in edit warring. Please stop. (If you think you have a basis for your 3RR accusation, report it here [23].) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have now.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

I have blocked you for 48 hours for edit warring on the Anti-Zionism article. Despite believing that you are "editing" and not edit warring, you should have worked out the dispute on the talk page rather than constantly rewriting. Please do not think that you haven't violated 3RR, because you have. If you wish to contest this block, please use the {{unblock|Your reason here}} template. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 12:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Please also see WP:GAME. "Editing" like that, as you put it, is still considered reverting. Thanks. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 12:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering our past history it seems more that a little problematic that you have blocked me. But I have no doubt that you are sure that your are doing the right thing; and I am, likewise, sure that I have done the right thing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Scarian, I feel cheated that I did not get the usual block template with this block. It looks more decorative on the page. Also I value them as ethical equivalents to a Purple Heart. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Admins don't always have to use the block template, but sure, I shall leave one. I left the above message indicating that you can request unblock using the unblock template. It's the unblock template that places this user talk page into a category which is then checked by other admins. But, sure, I shall honour your request. About "our past", I vaguely remember what went on, but, seeing as there were no problems between us (you and I), per se, I can honestly say that I bare no ill feelings towards you whatsoever. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 14:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Anti-Zionism. 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. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 14:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If Scarian had taken a look at some of the discussion that occurred concerning the disputed sentence, such as this, from Jayjg, [24] he might understood that the editing situation was different than he assumed.

Additionally, there is a conflict of interest problem in his block. Scarion states on his user page: I am a far-left wing liberal who supports socialism and communist values[25]. Considering that the dispute involved the Anti-Zionism article, anti-Zionism being the standard leftist code word for their version of antisemitism, there is a perception of conflict of interest in his blocking me from editing the article; particularly so since his action left editors more favorable to his (perceived) POV to continue with their editing of the article. I am not saying that another administrator would have acted differently, but I do think Scarion was certainly the wrong administrator to have acted in this dispute. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it shouldn't matter. I never paid any attention to the article whatsoever (except to the check the diffs, of course). Your argument is subjective. It's strange that you think it plays any part in this, are you self-admitting that your edits were biased to one side? What would a right-winger admin have done? Let you go scott-free? Actually, I don't really understand your argument at all. I leave my POV at the door and I have never edited any politically charged article (except removing vandalism, of course) and I have never taken any administrative action against anyone because of a politically charged article. If you wish to be unblocked, please use the unblock template above, otherwise please could you stop leaving messages here. Thank you. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The perception is bad. I do not claim that an administrator with different views would have acted differently, I said that the perception of neutrality is lacking. It is not an issue of left politics, but the simple fact that the political left has shifted to an Anti-Zionist stance. (I would be surprised to find that, in other respects, your political views are different -- or more to the left -- than my own.) This was not intended as a personal criticism of your good intentions. Meaning well is one thing, insensitivity to the issue involved is another. I am sorry if this has hurt your feelings, because that is certainly not my intention.

I will make an unblock request soon. As far as I know I have a right to use this page, which is for now my only means of communicating on this web site. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, now that I have tried, I can't get the unblock template to work. With my lack of computer know-how it would probably be better if I was not editing WP anyhow. I suppose that is the only permanent solution to my many annoyances with WP. Non fare pasta. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

unblock request

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:

Since I have not been able to get the unblock request template to work for me, I am putting it here (see below) under a separate heading:

Decline reason:

Good faith edits are not considered vandalism, but may well be reversions (where the only question is whether you are substantially returning an article to a previous version). In this particular case, you have reverted other editors' edits repeatedly, which is specifically forbidden. Please discuss disputed changes on the article talk page instead of repeatedly redoing the same edits when your block is over. — Coren ^(talk) 23:19, 28 October 2008 (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.

Coren, thanks for reviewing the block. I appreciate that things have progressed to the point of conceding that the edits might have been made in good faith. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• I have come to think that, in many cases, the administrative blocks of users for "edit warring" (which is really nothing but some editorial dissonance, that is in a wider sense integral to human nature), is far more disruptive to the editing process than the problem it is intended to cure. Also, unfortunately, many WP editors have become adapt at manipulating these badly thought out rules to gain their own editing goals, thereby forcing their POVs into countless articles. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Malcom, please keep in mind that as a terciary reference source, Wikipedia is not truth (TM). Hence, its rules may now and then seem nettlesome to you, moreover when they do indeed spin out systemic bias which can show up as blatant PoV in some core, high traffic articles. We do what we can. Speaking only for myself, when I want to tell folks about my own sometimes outspoken takes on truth, I write a book, or talk about it somewhere other than on en.Wikipedia. Meanwhile, you were edit warring, which always hurts the project, whether or not the edit warring is in good faith or supports the reliable sources on a topic. You can try carrying on breaking the rules but be careful, because blocks for this kind of thing tend to get much longer, quick. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, I appreciate your kindness and helpfulness, but disagree with you. Not about WP:Reliable sources, which is not an issue for me, and which played no part in this block. The problem is WP attempting to impose a reign of good human relations, which is well intentioned but misguided because a certain amount of friction and disagreement to a integral to human nature, and so is unavoidable.

As for your accusation that I was edit warring, that is a WP term which, as far as I know, has no place in philosophical ethics. I do not think I did anything ethically wrong. Moreover, if you examine the context of what occurred on the talk page [26], you will see that the disputed content had the support of another (highly experienced) editor who was not participating at the time (perhaps in disgust over the incivility of some other editors), and that the content had so many reliable sources to support it that it was almost ridiculous. In my view the administrator who blocked me for 3RR, by that, did far more to disrupt the editing process than I had done by my edits.

Once again, Gwen Gale, I appreciate your kindness, helpfulness, and good intentions. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Once one becomes aware of this private website's rules, if one knowingly and steadfastly breaches them, one will indeed be ethically wrong, because in so doing, one would be trying to usurp someone else's private property as their own. The owners of Wikipedia (WmF) give community consensus sway on their website, this website, in most areas: The rules grow from this community consensus and hence are the rules of the private owners of this private property, this website. If you don't abide by the rules of this private website, not only would it be a strong hint that you have strayed from Anglo-Saxon notions of ethics having to do with private property, but sooner or later you'll be blocked altogether from editing here. There are many interactive websites and otherwise editable ways of doing stuff on the Internet. Maybe this one isn't for you. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if I get blocked permanently, then I will stop editing. The owners of WP have a right to impose their rules for participating, but they do not have a right to impose a reign of thought control, and I do worry that Wiki-speak is starting to develop into a sort of Newspeak. Since I am willing to live with the consequences of my editing (as in the present case), since I do not ever make edits that are not made in good faith, and since my edits are always based on the foundational WP concept of WP:reliable sources; I am willing the leave the rest for others to decide. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it is my observation that it is a natural tendency for groups such as WP to want eliminate members who are critical, believing that it is disruptive of (the hoped for) smooth flow. That is always a mistake because it reduces the possibility to correcting many problems, but the inclination to remove the irritants usually wins out. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Editing on this private website is wholly voluntary and truth be told, they do have a right to impose thought control or any other lawful activity they please: They could even ask that everyone wear pink panties whilst editing. If they did these things, I'd find something else to do with the time I volunteer, is all. I'd rather wear white ones, although pale pink tights can be ok, I'd have to think about that one. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Gwen Gale, I think I have made my views on this pretty clear. That is the part that is up to me. All the rest can be decided by those with wiki-authority to do as they choose in matters concerning the web site. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but they likely will and you'll likely wind up blocked indef. Meanwhile, here's a handy cheat sheet (you might want to make your own copy before it gets deleted). Gwen Gale (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's something you might truly find helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, there is one point in the previous discussion that I did not mention, because I assumed it is obvious, but perhaps it was not. The explanation I gave for my edits [27] represents what I thought was true. If I was wrong, that is what is known as a mistake. I do not consider getting blocked an effective editing strategy, and would not intentionally violate 3RR.

My explanations above are my views on WP efforts to legislate good human relations, which I consider well meaning but ineffective. But my disagreeing with WP rules is not to say I ever break the rules intentionally. I assumed that it was obvious to you that I value rational behavior, but -- as I now think back over your replies -- perhaps the was not your assumption. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Malcom, no worries, I've always thought you're rational. However, it has seemed to me that you have, with clear foresight and thoughtfulness, been heading yourself towards an indefinite block, rather than acknowledge and follow rules you don't agree with. There is no need to do this. Either way, sooner or later you may indeed come to understand that edit warring (making lots of reverts other than to tamp down straightforward vandalism) always hurts the project, even when the reverts themselves seem editorially ok, which is why edit warring isn't allowed. You'll find that the same techniques used for skirting edit wars (discussion, thorough citation of reliable sources and NPoV wording along with steadfast civility) also tend to stabilize articles. Meanwhile some articles will indeed take months or even years to grow and stabilize into truly NPoV tertiary references and getting there is often messier than most of us would like. More or less, sooner or later, Wikipedia builds helpful articles. The process is often not time-efficient but the work is done by unpaid volunteers so it carries forth anyway, the goals are worthy and very long term (so rare these days) and the outcome speaks for itself, Wikipedia articles in dozens of languages are noted among the most widely consulted general reference content in the world. The pith is, if you want to help out, you're very welcome here. Do what you can: Find reliable sources, cite them, write helpful content supported by them, talk about it with other editors when the need comes up. If you do this, you'll sway article content more towards where you think it should be, not always as much and sometimes, hardly at all, but you'll leave behind a helpful wake of edits from which readers can learn and upon which later editors can build. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gwen Gale. You always do such a nice job explaining the WP party line .

It is not that I disagree, it is just that I frequently have to deal with editors who see nothing wrong with writing edit summaries such as this [28], in which edit G-Dett is reverting Jayjg 's inclusion of the same disputed sentence over which I got blocked. I have often wondered if it is that many administrators don't understand the crap that is going in here, or if they know but just choose to ignore it.

My point above (yesterday) was that it is useless and silly for administrators to jump on one editor for 3RR in an editing situation that was previously made toxic, and in fact made toxic by intention, by other editors who are pushing their own POV into an article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett didn't stray outside the bounds of the three revert rule, you did. Yes, calling Jayjg's edit "vandalism" was untowards and warnable but most experienced admins learn to ignore this kind of endless, low-level noise at articles with lots of religious/nationalistic back and forth. 3rr, however, is another tale. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That is too mechanical an approach because there are other factors (some far more intangible) that have a much bigger effect on the editing dynamics of an article than 3RR. The one time I got someone blocked for 3RR, I regretted it because there was added disturbance, and no benefit. Since then, even when I could have filed 3RR complaints, I have passed on it, and I think editing has gone better without it. But I have no further expectation of changing your thinking, so (from my perspective) this discussion is just one more failed experiment.

In any case, as I have already represented to you, my getting blocked was a result of my misunderstanding of the ground rules of 3RR. If you believe that, or not, is of no particular concern to me, and it is just water under the bridge. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying you won't violate 3rr or edit war again? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I said that I consider this discussion to be a failed experiment. Your question proves that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This discussion was meant to talk about your block for 3rr. If you violate 3rr again, you'll likely be blocked for much longer. If you want to try and change Wikipedia policy, WP:VPP is >>>>>> that way. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I have no interest in the block. Its water under the bridge. If you, or any other administrator, should think it will do some good by expanding the block from two days, to two months, or two years, I can live with that. (Although, for some reason, the block seems to be expired. You might want to check, because that is probably a mistake.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You were blocked for 48 hours and the block has now automatically lifted. Happy editing! Gwen Gale (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your message. I was not offended at all, so no worries here. I have never paid much attention to Anti-Zionism. And I do apologise if you felt that I was in the wrong position to block. Right now, more than ever, politics is a very heated debate and it can always lead to clouded judgement. As you said above, this is just water under the bridge and I hold no ill feelings towards you at all in any of our previous discussions. If you want to work on any articles at all together just drop me an e-mail (As long as they don't concern politics, of course ;-). Cheerio! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Scarian, I appreciate your very pleasant and kind reply. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

SPAM or not spam?

I undid a revert today, I would like to explain. It is the first time (unless I have forgotten) that I have ever un-done a revert of a change that I made. In fact, this is the only time I know of -- other than when I myself did an (undo) of one of "my own" edits -- when any change I have made, has been un-done.

The reasons why I made (and UN-reverted) that change

(the change that got undone) (by you) First, I knew that there is a book with the exact same title as the wikipedia article that I was editing. I am not sure whether that book is "notable" enough to have its own wikipedia article, but maybe it is. In any event, I wanted to avoid the risk that readers would think that the book and the wikipedia article (the one that I was editing) were both about the same thing (in the sense of being, both about magic). If the Practical_Kabbalah(book) article did exist, then there could be a disambiguation page. But, I am not sure how to do that. I considered starting an article about the book, but I hesitated.

Previous time when I tried to write (start) a WP article

I have only written a "new" article before once, and it was sorta ill-fated. It was due to a red link that SOMEONE ELSE had created -- (so I thought I was repairing a "red link" situation that was in need of some repair). It later turned out (light years later), that the red link was due to some kind of mis-spelling, or typo. But of course I did not know that; and I put some quantity of work, in to creating the new article. (Probably it was not "completely" wasted work; the part that did not duplicate the old article, probably did get "merged" (saved) to the old article, before the new article went away. [-- and, the spelling difference -- the one that had caused the red link -- I think it was one that involved a capitalized initial letter of a word, something like that -- what a chicken feed "typo"!...] But anyway, it was a strange experience.

What should be done now?

I do not want to get in trouble, or anything like that. The article Practical_Kabbalah seems to be pretty sure that the phrase "Practical_Kabbalah" always refers to something that involves magic. I am not sure how well known (or, "notable") the book Practical_Kabbalah(book) is, but any reader who has seen it (seen the cover) but has not read the book, might be at risk of being misled. This risk of mis-understanding is a concern to me, even if, ("in the opinion of certain experts"), the author of the book was wrong to choose the title that he chose. ((actually, maybe it is possible that the book contains some explanation of why the title was chosen, and maybe the author knew that it would be ironic or something, and would be at odds with some common use of that phrase; but if so, I am not familiar enough with the book, to know that.))
I am open to hear what you would suggest, in order to try to avoid mis-understanding, while at the same time trying to live by the rules, like, that stuff has to be notable, or whatever.
I [think I] understand, that you can just do your (undo) "again", since it would only be the second time. However, I would ask, that we could try to reach some kind of agreement first, in the talk pages, before proceeding. Sorry if I am getting the wiki etiquette wrong.
I do not dispute that, when you thought you were removing "SPAM" (the first time), that you really thought that there was no possible justification for it. Now I would claim that, the justification might not be good enough, but -- in my opinion -- it is not "SPAM". It was perhaps, a misguided effort (in some way) by me, but well meaning.
I hope we can make some progress in reaching some kind of agreement. Should we maybe bring in some other person to help?
I am going to be out of town (from my home, where I live) Nov. 6 --> 13, 2008. (I live in Glendale Arizona, and I plan to be in Texas). I will probably have my laptop PC with me, which has wifi, and I might be able to get on the internet occasionally. But, in case I am away from the net, (e.g. if 48 hours passes and I have not replied yet, to something) then please feel free to phone me. My user page on WP has a link to my Facebook page, which shows my cell phone number. If you can't get to that, then

Can the phrase "Practical Kabbalah" actually be used in different ways?

PS: There is an entry in the "Visitor Comments", (with an answer to the question), that can be seen at "http://www.kabbalaonline.org/Safedteachings/otherkab/Keys_to_True_Prophecy.asp". If you read that, maybe you will understand the meaning better than I do. (if you do, then, good!)
In any event, I think it might help to shed some light on, the nature of the possible "mis-understanding" that I was originally concerned about (and, motivated by). Maybe the article Practical Kabbalah actually should have a more complete explanation, of the extent to which it is possible to use that phrase in more than one way. [that is, if it is (possible)]. Your advice "if any" would be appreciated. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the above (long) URL has changed ... I think the page is now at http://www.kabbalaonline.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/380559/jewish/Keys-to-True-Prophecy.htm instead. ...and even then, apparently the only "reader comments" shown, are from within about the most recent few months or so; therefore I suspect that those OLD "reader comments", that I was trying to provide a link to, might be lost forever now, unless someone has them in a cache on their hard drive, or on a flash drive, or on a backup tape or something. They [those OLD "reader comments", that I was trying to provide a link to] also "might" be available from whoever runs that web site, but I'm not sure how one would even find out, how to request them. Sorry.

Sorry (also) for having to "edit" a page that is supposed to be just an "archive". Even when I tried to use WebCite, it did not seem to be able to archive the web page in question. Just "FYI"... --Mike Schwartz (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"Censorship" edit

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. It's just someone trolling, and I believe they've been blocked now. More disturbing was when User:Liftarn removed comments protesting the IP editor's personal attacks, but left the original attacks there. Disturbing, as I said, but completely unsurprising. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

this might be of interest to you

check out my addition to the Red Army Faction article (section on antisemitism).

Telaviv1 (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeh. When I was first studying in Florence back in 1967, another student (who was florentine) told me that when WW2 was over most of the fascists became communists. At first I thought that could not be true; but, when I looked into it, it turned out to be so in many instances. Thanks for the link. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD of European Jews for a Just Peace

Hi Malcolm

Just to remind you that you should have let me know about the AfD. Someone else alerted me, but I neglected to watch the page I created, therefore I wouldn't have known. Cheers. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I tend to assume that editors have the articles they have created on their watch list. I have not exactly tried to keep the AfD a secret, and there is even related discussion I took to the Village Pump[29], which you are also welcome to comment upon. (RolandR voted on the nomination yesterday, so I don't know what he is kvetching about.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

why I didn't comment

This is not a personal attack, it's a claim, which is why I made no comment on it. Please keep in mind, no other admin has yet to deem it as a personal attack, either. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? I consider this very much a personal attack:

Admins reading this should be aware that Malcolm is committed to the view that anti-Zionism implies anti-Semitism, and virtually all his editing at anti-Zionism is aimed at pushing that point of view, against the consensus of other editors. The thread here is just the latest of several attempts to game the system in order to overcome consensus. looie496 (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

And my actual name is involved also. I will take the subject up again. Hopefully it will not take too long before I get to it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI

I'm ready to discuss your issue but not in that thread. It's just too complicated to deal with two things at once. Start a new thread if you would like, and I'll respond to it as quickly as I can. Looie496 (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

(responding to message on my talk page) Fine, let's do it here. I'm going to be out for the next few hours, (it's 11 AM on Saturday here), but when I get back to the keyboard, I'll outline my reasons for saying that. I'll watch your talk page, so we can keep the discussion in one place. Looie496 (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, a quick question before I go though -- do you claim that you are not a proponent of the view that anti-Zionism implies anti-Semitism, or only that you have not been trying to push that point of view in the article? Looie496 (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that there is often an intended antisemitism, and almost always some element of unconscious antisemitism. But you need to understand that, in my view, even many supporters of Zionism are to some extent antisemitic. Although I am not at all religious, in this I tend to the traditional Jewish belief that thoughts not acted upon carry no burden of responsibility. I was told of a man in Poland who viciously insulted the Jews of the village at every opportunity, but when the Nazis invaded Poland he risked his own life by hiding Jews in his house. Go figure. As far as the article is concerned, this [30] explains how I see its problems. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Looie496, just to make it clear, what I want to resolve, in discussion between us, is this [31]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I knew that. It's been hard to find the energy for this because I don't think you'll take the result seriously in any case, but here's my evidence (expressed in the third person, which is not intended as an insult):

First I note a bunch of prior editing to New antisemitism, which is basically a code word for anti-Zionism viewed as antisemitism. This is not strictly relevant to the anti-Zionism article but it is noteworthy that the thrust of the edits is to support the validity of the term "New antisemitism" and diminish or disparage criticism.

Concerning anti-Zionism, which was the article I refered to directly, Malcolm has made about 80 edits since Oct 27. Here is an assessment of them. I'm not going to claim that everything here is perfectly accurate, because many of the diffs are very complicated, but I believe that this captures the thrust:

• Oct 27: First edit changes "The relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism is debated." to "The relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism -- and if is an example of,[2] cover for,[3] or overlaps with[4][5] antisemitism -- has been much debated.[6][7][8]" violated 3rr by repeatedly inserting variations of this against opposition. This leads to block.
• Nov 1: Two edits, one backing up the relationship between the two things, the other a copy-edit.
• Nov 2: Repeats same change after reversion, and makes other edits that replace account of Jews against Anti-Zionism with a more disparaging account. Later same day repeats this after part was reverted, and also does some copy-editing that goes mildly in direction of supporting same message.
• Nov 3: Removes new section on socialist opposition that contains no hint of anti-Semitism. Later same day, long series of edits that add section on "new antisemitism", reduce material on Jewish opposition to Zionis, and copy-edit a few things
• Nov 6: Restore some of this material that had been removed by other editors. Later same day, some reorganization of Jewish opposition section that is hard to understand.
• Nov 7: Opposes edits to anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism section that attempted to trim it down. Later same day, completely remove section on International Anti-Zionism.
• Nov 12: Replace long and detailed section on History of anti-Zionism with short section on "History and Context of anti-Zionism", where "context" is code-word for anti-Semitism. Then edit-wars over this.
• Nov 14: Reverts again to maintain his version.
• Nov 17: Adds new section starting with quote: "It is a historical fact that since the year 1921 there has been an antisemitic anti-Zionism in existence."
• Nov 18: Copy-edits apparently
• Nov 20: Supports another editor in removing material on secular Jewish opposition to Zionism. Later same day, reverts edits that lengthened this material.
• Nov 25: Removes section on European Jews for a Just Peace, then thinks better of it and reverts self, with edit summary, "leave for now, even if only a halfwit would consider it reliable"
• Nov 26: reverts to restore category:anti-Semitism
• Nov 27: repeats this reversion, and reverts to put back Jaschka Fischer quote equating anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism, then edit-wars over this, and finally takes it to ANI.

In summary, the consistent pattern here is edits that either enhance the message that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, or reduce or disparage accounts of anti-Zionism that cannot be interpreted as anti-Semitic, mostly Jewish anti-Semitism. Mixed in with this is a modest amount of copy-editing and reformatting. Looie496 (talk) 05:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Looie496, you seem to think this is going to be a trial, in which you press charges against me. If you think I am in violation of WP standards, and want to press charges against me, then you should take this to AN/I and we can continue there. If, on the other hand, you want to have a reasonable discussion, then we can discuss things here.

But, just to reply to the Jaschka Fischer issue, that material was WP:verifiable and WP: reliable source. It was another editor who added it, and all I did was defend it as reliably sourced. If you think that reliably sourced material, that is relevant to the article, can be removed just because some editors do not like what it says, it would seem that you do not much care for WP:NPOV. You need to think about that.

What I referred to when you first made your accusation against me -- and I do not recall that you ever had any complaints on the few occasions when we actually edited articles together -- I referred to this list of characteristics of POV pushing [32]. I do not think that describes my editing, and even in the cases involving reverting, it always involved reliably sourced material that others wanted to remove, or attempts to add material that was not reliably sourced. It is assumed that editors will have differing views of a subject, and if that is put into an article has reliable sources, that is not POV pushing, that is normal editing. If you think that an article should represent only the views you like, you should not be editing WP. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually I thought it was a trial in which you press charges against me -- of falsely representing your style of editing, and this was my defense against that charge. Everybody has motives for their editing, and there is nothing wrong with that. One of my goals is to establish a principle that people's objectives should be transparent, and I made that statement in ANI because I thought in that thread that you were trying to promote a certain goal without revealing the nature of that goal. Looie496 (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Looie496, when I filed the AN/I over the deleted material, I just described the problem, and asked for a solution. I did not even name the editors I think acted incorrectly (although there were diffs), and I did not call them POV pushers who were gaming the system -- even though that is pretty much the case -- because I understand that they are acting according to what they think is right; although the rule they are applying to the situation is a fallacy. Up until now I had a much better opinion of you than I did of them, but after seeing those two cheap shots in one day, and followed by a lot of self justification, I trust you less than any of them. It was most of all, I suppose, disappointing. I think we can consider this discussion closed. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Italic text

Have you seen this tool yet?

[View statistics for WP Anti-Zionism article]. It's a nifty statistics tool, just enter the name of a WP article and the month and it returns the number of views for the days of a month. I only mention this because we sometimes forget that while Wikipedia is a top ten website, that doesn't mean that each of its articles gets many views. For Anti-Zionism there are maybe 300 views on average daily. That isn't such a high number.

I'm still learning the ropes of WP, but one thing I discovered is that on high-traffic, high-importance articles with many thousands of views per day, there are a number of safeguards to to prevent tendentious editing. Many editors watchlist these articles and respond within minutes to vandalism or tendentious edits. Also, it isn't in WP policy, but you will often find one or two admins supervising these articles as wardens, and they are quick to step in with corrective action. Instead of allowing interminable discussions to grow, they will cut to the chase: revert and block.

In the backwaters of WP, articles do not have such "wardens". So when there is a conflict, you often get a clueless admin stepping in with a rote application of the WP rule book, and the results are often unsatisfying. This gets exploited by creeps and weirdos, some of whom enjoy picking on Jewish people. They will try every trick in the book to provoke you into some technical violation such as 3RR or to get you to break civility rules. Some of their devices are:

• BOUNCING BALL: start with "There was no Holocaust" -- when proven false, immediately bounce to "Ashkenazi Jews are Kazakhs" -- when proven false, immediately bounce to "The Israelis murdered the USS Liberty crew" -- when proven false, immediately bounce to "The Jewish Lobby as secret U.S. government" -- when proven false…
• PLAYING STUPID: after a dozen of posts, ask you to start again from the beginning as if nothing you said has made an impact, or replay your comments to you in a distorted form, hoping to provoke you into losing your temper
• MOVING THE GOALPOSTS: a variation on BOUNCING BALL, but staying within a topic: as soon as you prove them wrong on one point, without acknowledgement they immediately drag in one other source, one other aspect, indefinitely postponing a concession
• INJURED INNOCENCE: when you call them on their tactics, decorate them with a few choice epithets or identify their bad faith, run to Mommy and ask for an admin to punish you.

Their task is made easier when several of them band together or when they are unwittingly being helped by unsuspecting editors or admins. There is no quick fix. You can do things by the letter, slowly working your way up the Dispute Resolution ladder and soliciting increasingly wider Community input; I have seen that work, but not always. You can step away from a particular situation, in light of the knowledge that a particular Article does not get many page views on the Internet. You can leave Wikipedia altogether and enjoy the extra time gained to be with your loved ones, focus on work or a hobby. I think all of these are reasonable responses.

(Just so there is no confusion because of proximity to the thread above, the above comments specifically do not apply to Looie496.)--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Goodmorningworld, my daughter is home today, so it is uncertain how much time I will have on the computer, and I will have to read this later....no matter how much it interests me. You might be interested in this discussion [33] Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information on the statistics tool. (I wonder if those numbers include the viewing of the editors. Sometimes I suspect that no one is reading some of these articles but the editors.) I am starting to think that it might be better to merge some of the articles. For instance, anything of value in Anti-Zionism and New Antisemitism (both of which are in bad shape) could be merged with Zionism and Antisemitism, respectively. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

GDB on ANI

Hi, could you tell me if you think my comment came off as an ad. hom. in your opinion? It is asking for strong measures but justifies them with reference to Guido's actions. I'll try to address any concerns you have, thanks Verbal chat 21:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. My only objection is to dismissing a user because he/she obviously has "problems". Anyhow, even someone who is a problem can be right on occasion. I don't actually know anything about the case, but there is nothing wrong with blocks base on editing content.

I worry that I came down too hard on this point. I don't want to make myself WP Commissar of Sensitivity....and I would hardly be the right person if there was such a thing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

refactoring comments

Malcolm, please don't re-factor the comments of other editors as you did here. It is misleading and disruptive. Although you claim a personal attack was made, what you refactored was someone's outlook on how you have edited project pages. You've been warned before about refactoring comments, if you do this again, you will likely be blocked from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, I did not remove a single word. Yesterday I asked Jpgordon if there was a rule against such refactoring [34], and he did not seem to know of one, so just what are you planing to block me for?

I suggest that you back off and let another administrator handle this, because I have come to think that you have developed a bias against me. At minimum, I wish you would figure out how to spell my name. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You indeed removed much more than a single word, you removed at least a whole paragraph starting with, Nobody would guess you've been warned (3 times?) for re-factoring TalkPages and then reminded again when you've carried on doing it...

Whether this was a careless mistake (removing a large swath of content without knowing you had done) or a way of trying to further mislead editors (by saying "I did not remove a single word" when this is clearly not true), your behaviour, either heedless or intended, has become disruptive and I have blocked you 72 hours for disruption. As for bias, since that first time you emailed me for help in trying to re-establish your user account, I have overlooked edit warring, incivility and tendentious editing by you. Meanwhile, your ever-growing block log speaks for itself. However, I'm sorry for mis-spelling your first name. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale wrote: I have overlooked edit warring, incivility and tendentious editing by you. Meanwhile, your ever-growing block log speaks for itself.

Really? I do not recall having asked you to overlook anything. Moreover, you seem to be trying to present it as though I am some sort of weird page vandal, stalker, or troll. In fact my edits are rational. But, although what you wrote above, makes it clear that you dislike me, why did you not give a reason for going from a warning to a block without my having done anything? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruption. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. 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. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Following Gwen Gale's warning she went ahead and blocked me for 72 hours. I do not see what the cause was for going from a warning, to a 72hour block, without anything having changed. It is not as though I reverted what she restored to the page, I did not do that.

Also, to the best of my knowledge I did not change or remove a single word of text. If there actually was any text that I inadvertently removed, all she need to do was point out the problem, and I would have restored it. In fact, the way it is now on the Village Pump is exactly what my change was, because all I did was change two words that formed a separate heading back to text under the heading for my thread. as can be seen here I changed "===Arbitary Break===" to <-- "Arbitary Break" -- which I outdented [35]. If Gwen Gale had explained that there was text missing, I would have gone back and corrected that.

But even putting that misunderstanding aside, I do not see how it is possible to go from a warning, to a 72hour block, without anything having changed. It is not as though I reverted what she restored to the page, I did not do that. Let me just repeat that: I do not understand how, or why, Gwen Gale went from a warning to a 72 hr block without my taken any action to justify that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding: see diffs below that prove PalestineRemembered, not me, deleted the content

Done. This block wasn't particularly kosher given the circumstances. I've unblocked accordingly. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

NB:I am still blocked. If you guys think I can understand the auto-unblock instructions you are overestimating my computer abilities be a significant amount. I will not bother to restore the help-me template because it seems that no one can help. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

{{helpme}} Apparently I have been unblocked (as can be seen just above), but the block is still in effect and I can not edit -- making it impossible for me to even leave a note on MZMcBride's talk page. I would appreciate some assistance with this. Thank you. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You're shown as unblocked over here [36]. If it is just your id that is blocked in error somehow, you should be able to log out and edit - which isn't very satisfactory for your real edits, btu may be able to free you up to chase the access problems.

I think it may be my IP number that is blocked. I will try e-mailing the administrator who unblocked me, but he/she may be logged out. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This [37] is the diff from when I had this problem and asked for it to be sorted. It seems to be just an unblock request.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

{{Autoblock}} has instructions on what to do in that case. --Amalthea 14:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I know that sometimes if someone has recently been blocked on your IP address, you can sometimes get prevented from editing yourself. There is a tag somewhere to achieve this. If that's causing the problem, you may be abel to get round it by resetting your internet connection, that is if your IP address is dynamically allocated. I'm leavign the help tag untouched in case someone has other ideas.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

{{helpme}} I can not get the appeal request to work. You can see the text above. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. --Amalthea 13:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem was the with the equal signs in the parameters, which throw MediaWiki's template parser off. It helps to name the first parameter explicitly then, with "1=". Cheers, Amalthea 13:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I doubt if you will be back to see this, but thanks for the help. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Anytime. ;) --Amalthea 17:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

{{helpme}} I requested a review of my block many hours ago, and there has been no response. I am not expecting anything (requests for a block review are about as effective as a letter to Santa Clause, or the Great Pumpkin) but I would appreciate the courtesy, nonetheless. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This page lists all the people requesting an unblock. There are currently nine people on that page which means you're not the only one waiting for someone to look over your request. Wait a while and an administrator will come by. Good luck! --DA Skunk - (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The so-called refactoring

I am including diffs related to the so-called refactoring, up to the point that PalestineRemembered, not me deleted content:

1. this is PalestineRemembered's original edit [38]
2. this is my following edit. As far as I can see everything in PalestineRemembered's original edit is still there [39] All I did was change two words from subheading to outdented regular text.
3. this is PalestineRemembered's revert. NB: he seems to have lost some text in the revert:[40]
4. I reverted PalestineRemembered without noticing that he had lost some text [41]
5. PalestineRemembered reverted again, did not notice that text was missing[42]

I think this enough to establish that I did nothing wrong, but that the change was made by PalestineRemembered -- if intentional (intending to get me blocked), or an accident , I do not know. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

He didn't "lose the text," it's still there after his edit, you're the one who removed it. Your list above misleads, because the edit you cite in item 5 happened before (18:18) the edit you cite in item 4 (18:21), not after. This is all part of the time-wasting muddle, worry and disruption caused by refactoring talk page comments. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a paragraph gone from his original edit (aside from what this dispute is about). As for the bull shit PalestineRemembered added to the very bottom, I did not see it, and as far as I knew I retained all his edit. Moreover, when I said I had not removed anything, why did you assume bad faith, instead of explaining and seeing if I would correct it? Why would I say something intentionally wrong if it was provable I had done it. As far as I knew the only change I made was a subtitle to an outdent. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that refactoring others' comments is at best unnecessary and can be disruptive. But I don't understand this block. You warned him to stop and he didn't continue. He seems to have, in good faith, reverted PalestineRemembered's re-promotion of the section heading without realizing that he had made other comments in the same edit. (BTW, #3 and #5 above are the same edit.) That's careless... but he only did it once. Mangojuice^talk 17:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale has edited against me on pages that involved Israel/Palestine issues, and I do not think it is appropriate that she should be acting as a blocking administrator in this case. Even it it was not intentional harm, she has become predisposed against me. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way,Mangojuice, I am sorry if I duplicated a diff. I have said more that once that in a more perfect world someone as computer incompetent as I am would not be allowed to edit Wikipedia. The editing programs are not that user friendly, and I do get confused by diffs. (My areas of expertise are elsewhere.) I think I have had about enough anyhow, because in my view WP has become a virtual police state. If I accidentally removed some of PalestineRemembered's bullshit edit, just restore it. It had no business on the VillagePump anyhow. This block is insane. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If I accidentally removed some of PalestineRemembered's bullshit edit? Malcolm, you're not helping yourself here. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, You are trying to present me as "out of control" when I am actually just "ticked off." Anyone who thinks I am out of control can read the whole VillagePump thread in question, and decide for themselves [43], as well as improvements I made to Stoicism, Kabbalah, Celtic knot, Jose de Creeft (that I created), Islamic interlace patterns (that I created), and other articles that I have improved without controversy, edit wars, or refactoring. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging that you removed content. If you agree to never refactor talk pages (other than your own) anymore, I'll unblock you. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You are asking me to make this promise to hide that you have blocked me improperly. I have not violated any WP rule that you can name, and saying that I am "disruptive", in this case, amounts to nothing more than you do not like it, and do not like me. I did not refactor anything, and if something got accidentally deleted, all that was necessary was to restore it. Moreover, while I edit under my own name you are making these accusations, that make me sound no better than a common pick-pocket, while hiding behind a Wikipedia alias. Anyone who does a Google search under my name, will see these misrepresentations and lies.

Disruptive? If what I did bothered PalestineRemembered, I have no regrets; and anyone who reads the thread [44] can decide for themselves if I was disruptive, or if the disruptive editor was PalestineRemembered. In my view, I have done nothing that was unethical, or vicious, nor have I even broken a WP rule (for what little they are worth when compared with the value of ethical issues), but rather it is you and PalestineRemembered who have acted viciously while hidden behind your WP aliases. This accusation is disgusting, really, and I have no expectation that things will get better. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I blocked him after the warning because he claimed he hadn't removed any content, although he had. Hence, I saw a risk of ongoing disruption to the project. So far, he hasn't acknowledged that he removed content, either meaning to or not. If he agrees not to refactor talk page comments anymore, ever, I'll happily unblock him now. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

a short philosophy lesson (for anyone who has an interest in such things)

"Has someone made the house smoky? If the smoke is moderate, I will stay; if it is excessive, I go out: for you must always remember this and hold it fast, that the door is open. Well, but you say to me, "Do not live in Nicopolis." I will not live there. "Nor in Athens." I will not live in Athens. "Nor in Rome." I will not live in Rome. "Live in Gyarus." I will live in Gyarus, but it seems like a great smoke to live in Gyarus; and I depart to the place where no man will hinder me from living, for that dwelling-place is open to all; and as to the last garment, that is the poor body, no one has any power over me beyond this. This was the reason why Demetrius said to Nero, "You threaten me with death, but nature threatens you." If I set my admiration on the poor body, I have given myself up to be a slave: if on my little possessions, I also make myself a slave: for I immediately make it plain with what I may be caught; as if the snake draws in his head, I tell you to strike that part of him which he guards; and do you be assured that whatever part you choose to guard, that part your master will attack. Remembering this, whom will you still flatter or fear?" Epictetus, Discourses, 1.25.18-25

Epictetus was born a slave, studied Stoic philosophy while still a slave, founded his own school in Rome to teach Stoicism after being freed, was exiled by the tyrant Domitian, founded a new school in Nicopolis, and lived to became one of the most famous Stoic teachers. Remarkable. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Your IFDs

I noticed you had trouble listing some of your images for IFD, so I fixed it for you. Those are actually pretty nice pictures of vases. If you really want them deleted, you can edit each image page to put {{db-author}} on them and an admin should delete them soon. But if you don't mind, I'd rather transfer them to Wikimedia Commons than have them deleted. Just reply here to let me know what you think. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 17:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The images were only to have something on my user page; and, since I am leaving, would rather delete them. I am glade you liked the vases. I made them about 11 or 12 years ago, and they were some of the last pottery I made. Thanks for your help. I appreciate your kindness. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruption and repetitive WP:IDHT violation. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Smashville^talk 19:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You have been told numerous times that it is against the rules to refactor and remove other people's comments in the manner in which you did. You have been pointed to the guideline, yet you still selectively choose which parts of comments and guidelines to read. In addition, you were specifically told to drop the matter here or you would be blocked, but instead an hour later decided to continue to pursue it. --Smashville^talk 19:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stand by as I contact the blocking admin.  Sandstein  22:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The original block was bad (and was overturned as such). The extra block for complaining about the first block is well beyond bad. Smashville, I won't ask you to reread WP:TPG, I'll just ask that you reread your own blocking post. "You have been told numerous times that it is against the rules..." next to "You have been pointed to the guideline..." A rule, interestingly enough, is not a guideline, or vice versa. That's why it's called a rule. IronDuke 22:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The block has been lifted by the blocking administrator.  Sandstein  22:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Smashville has decided to see if calling my defense of my editing "trolling" will be a more effective way of getting me to shut up. A look at [45] finds this statement: Trolling is a deliberate, bad faith attempt to disrupt the editing of Wikipedia. Ignorance is not trolling. Genuine dissent is not trolling. Biased editing, even if defended aggressively, is in itself not trolling.

I suspect, incorrectly I hope, that Smashville is shopping around for a WP rule or guideline that he can use to get me to shut up because he does not want to deal with my complaint honestly. Perhaps the intent is a good-hearted to defend that wonderful administrator, Gwen Gale, from my mean criticism of her overturned block of me. (No one reading what Smashville wrote when he reversed his own block would know that the accusation Gwen Gale made when she blocked me was not upheld in review.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Two separate admins saw fit to block you. It might occur to you that you're doing something wrong. If you want to demonstrate some good faith, you should drop this entire thing and go back to normal editing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think your original block was harsh, but this isn't helping. Take a few days to relax and just forget about it. You've had your say and both blocks have been reversed. Let's just get back to normal - it's not worth the drama. All the best, Verbal chat 14:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't call your editing "trolling". I said to stop it before it became viewed as trolling. There's a huge difference between someone saying, "You're a troll!" and "Don't do this because some people might construe your actions as trolling." --Smashville^talk 16:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Refactoring revisited

On Smashville's talk page you requested "further explanation" of which of these behavioural guidelines describes what you did whan you made this edit. Before answering your request I should say that I fully accept your assurance that you had no intention of altering PalestineRemembered's words when you made the edit. Nevertheless, the answer (which, in my opinion, should be obvious to anyone who takes the trouble to check the appropriate diffs carefully) is that the edit in question quite clearly violates this guideline:

• (***) As a rule, do not edit others' comments, including signatures. Exceptions are described in the next section.

because it is not covered by any of the exceptions listed, including the one which you have repeatedly cited to try and justify it.

The edit of PalestineRemembered's, which you reverted, did 3 things:

• It restored the 3rd level header "Arbitrary Break" which you had previously turned into ordinary text;
• It removed the following text:

"It is also noticeable that the first material you fought for is highly inflammatory, almost calculated to permanently the collegiality that needs to exist between editors."

from his previous remarks. Since you had already replied to those remarks, it would have been more appropriate for PalestineRemembered to have struck the text out, rather than removing it entirely. Nevertheless, since he did remove it, he obviously no longer wished it to appear in his remarks;

• It added a further comment—i.e. the one you have since alleged to be off-topic.

The effect of your subsequent reversion was not only to delete the allegedly off-topic comment that PalestineRemembered had added, but also to reinsert the remarks of his which he had deleted. None of the exceptions to the behavioural guideline (***) cited above say that it is permissible to reinsert parts of another editor's remarks after he has removed them. Moreover, that reinsertion also seems to me to violate the following instruction:

"Never edit someone's words to change their meaning ...

which appears in the preamble to the list of exceptions to the above-quoted behavioural guideline.

Please feel free to do what you please with the above remarks (subject to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, of course). However, I have no wish to enter into a long-winded discussion on the matter, and it is unlikely that I shall want to reply to any response you have. So if you do respond, please do so here, rather than on my talk page.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not edit anything in PalestineRemembered's comments. I reverted an edit without the intention of changing anything but of the subheading to an outdent (the outdent was so what he said would stay prominent). I have no idea how anything else got changed, but that. One of the reasons I intend to cut back on my editing of Wikipedia is because I do not fit in very well here, and one of the reasons I don't fit in is my inability to deal with WP editing programs and procedures. To get anything, but the most simple edits done is either difficult or impossible. You can check my recent edit history to find examples of where I had to ask for help. Even diffs are a problem, and I make plenty of mistakes.

It is not a crime to make a mistake, and I resent the accusations that came with these mistakes. I think it would be nice if more were done to simplify WP editing. But, even without that, a little understanding of the problems faced by those who lack computer skills would be nice.

I have not tried to hide anything in this dispute, and if there is anything I have not made clear, please ask. But, in my view, a lot of argument could have been avoided by just assuming my good faith, and allowing me to correct my editing mistake instead of the hair trigger block. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I might also add that the guideline you mention cautions against editing the comments of another user, which I have never done....at least not intentionally. I have deleted off topic comments, which is allowed by guidelines. But, as far as I can see there is no block penalty even for editing comments. That is, I assume, why Gwen Gale accused me of one thing (refactoring comments), but had to resort to blocking me for something else (disruption), which is absurd. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Editing includes deleting. Wikipedia:Talk#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable notes that Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being blocked or banned from editing Wikipedia. I'm not going to go on about this with you Malcolm. If for whatever reason you can't put written words like these together in a way which meaningfully links up with your behaviour, I suggest you slow down, be way more civil and politely ask for further guidance when someone warns you or questions something you've done. I do wish you all the best. Please let me know if you want your pictures restored, I'll do that for you anytime you ask.. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines specifically allow deleting off topic discussion.

I have decided to cut back my editing of WP, if not end it altogether, which is why the images on my user page are unnecessary. I removed most of the info too. The passage of time has not changed much, and I do not fit in here any better now than previously. I mentioned, above, that anything beyond the most simple edit is beyond my capacity. WP is not very user friendly for a computer illiterate. But there is also a dispositional incompatibility; and, recent blocks aside, it is pretty clear that I will only continue to pile up 3RR violations. We have discussed this before.

As you know, I can be very aggressive in making a point. Sorry if I walked all over your feelings with my steel toe work boots. As for the disagreement itself, I would like to think that it resulted from nothing more than the, sometimes unavoidable, Rashomon effect. I wish none this had occurred. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Mr Schosha wrote:

"I did not edit anything in PalestineRemembered's comments. I reverted an edit without the intention of changing anything but of the subheading to an outdent (the outdent was so what he said would stay prominent). I have no idea how anything else got changed, but that."

But I have just explained to you in gory detail exactly how it was that something "else got changed". Since I have no idea how I can make that explanation any clearer, I shall not attempt to do so. But until you have learnt enough about the editing tools to understand it, I would strongly advise you to avoid reverting anyone's edits except your own. It is your responsibility to ensure that any edits you make (including reversions) conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and if your understanding of the effects of reversion is so poor that you cannot understand how you made the mistake that you did, then you should avoid using it I believe you would be well advised to avoid reverting other people's edits until you do. Wikipedia has a sandbox where you can become more familiar with the editing tools by playing around with them to your heart's content (or you can create your own sandbox as a subpage of your User page for the same purpose).
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 18:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

David_J_Wilson, please review WP:CIVIL and WP:No personal attacks. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, you aren't being fair to David here. He is patiently and in good faith telling you what happened, and where the confusion may lay, and he is not violating CIVIL or NPA. I would suggest you take a wikibreak to cool down a bit -- there's no point in making any more enemies than you need to. Does that sound like a good idea? IronDuke 19:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I read: ...if your understanding of the effects of reversion is so poor that you cannot understand how you made the mistake that you did, then you should avoid using it until you do

I consider such statements problematic. Not that I really disagree with the content itself, and, in fact, I already said I intend to limit my WP editing. In fact I don't understand why he is pursuing this line of argument after I said that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think he's trying to help (as am I). But I sense you get the point. IronDuke 19:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure about him, but I do not doubt your good intent. But, "help" with what? I had no intent to remove anything in that disputed revert. I don't intend to edit other users comments in the future either. I am sorry if there was a mistake....but it was fixed in a few seconds. This whole thing was a trip down the rabbit hole. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that far more was made of this than was needed. There was a mistake, and I think David was only trying to point out to you where it was. No big deal. IronDuke 19:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the comments were uncivil or not, any perception that they were is apt to obscure the message I was trying to convey. If Mr Schosha thinks that the now refactored version is still uncivil, he should feel free to remove it entirely (which he is perfectly entitled to do in any case, since it's his talk page)
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 20:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I remove such stuff, but usually not. It depends on if there seems some value to the discussion. You seem to be doing what you perceive as the right thing, and I certainly have no objection to that. When you initiated this discussion you wrote I have no wish to enter into a long-winded discussion on the matter, and it is unlikely that I shall want to reply to any response you have. So if you do respond, please do so here, rather than on my talk page. So I made a minimal reply, and assumed you had no interest in a real discussion, i.e. an exchange of views with real attempts at understanding the others words. If I am wrong, give me a sign that you have some respect for any person's view, aside from your own. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's Bury the Hatchet

You, me, everyone. I've had an absolutely horrible past couple of days...my kitten passed away today after a very short battle...and I do not mean to take it out on you and I am certain Gwen was not taking anything out on you personally when she blocked you. Can we bury the hatchet and move on? --Smashville^talk 01:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That is cat-astrophic. (And before you think I'm being "catty", be aware that I like cats.) First order of business after burial: Get a new cat. In short, move on. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would be good. Smashville and Baseball Bugs, what I said to Gwen Gale, Sorry if I walked all over your feelings with my steel toe work boots. As for the disagreement itself, I would like to think that it resulted from nothing more than the, sometimes unavoidable, Rashomon effect. I wish none this had occurred, applies to all who were involved. I regret that this whole mess, and would be happy if we could put it behind us. I am glad you have given me the chance to say that.

Sorry about you cat, Smashville. Cats become real family members, and when they are gone it is very difficult. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Losing a cat can be very hard and sad. They're often like little people and I think they're very self-aware and have feelings. We had a cat once who even imitated our speech when he came in, meowing "Wahlloh!" spot on with the same melody and cadence as we did when saying "Hello!" to him (he was very smart about other stuff too and very friendly/cuddly, but had a thing for fighting other boy cats over his turf, he was a jerk about that and almost got himself killed a few times). When I look a cat in the eyes, I get the canny notion there's indeed "somebody home" behind them. Yeah, house cats have evolved to be this way, to get along with us, but I don't think it's mindless behaviour.

Malcolm, thanks for the kind words. If I was too harsh with you, I'm sorry. Last week wasn't the most thrilling I've ever had editing Wikipedia. I'm very happy at the thought we may be able to get beyond this. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, kudos to all the above editors. I had been avoiding this page, afraid of what I might see. You all have restored my faith in humanity -- or Wikipedia, at any rate. Threads like this one are all too rare.

Smashville, condolences re your cat. Losing a pet can be worse than losing a human loved one -- pets don't ever judge you. (Well, okay, cats do sometimes get that supercilious look in their eye...) IronDuke 01:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:IDHT violation

if you remove the Political allegiance from the infobox of Haaretz due to the argument of "unless it is owned by party then it should not mention Political allegiance" then it will be a violation of WP:IDHT since I and other have shown you that there is no such policy in wikipedia.Oren.tal (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oren.tal, I've checked your edit history - stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you of "violations". It's uncivil and is hardly good faith editing. --Smashville^talk 20:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Shlomo Sand, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Don't remove essential content. If you think it needs better sourcing, request it. RolandR (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you give some specifics of your complaint? The only thing I removed was unsourced material. which is allowed. I did not remove a template, but added one because the article seems to fail to establish notability. My edits contained explanatory edit summeries. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

An editor was nice enough to set up my archiving. Would you like me to ask if he'd be willing to do the same for you? If so, how long do you want unused threads (discussions) to stay on your talk page before being archived? Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It is getting embarrassing asking for help at every turn. I think I will wait, but thanks for offering to help. Very kind of you. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I can do it for you...it'll take me like 2 minutes...just let me know. --Smashville^talk 03:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

re: Shlomo Sand

Do you mean this link? -- Nudve (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Incivility

Heyo Malcom,
While discussion is a tad heated, it does not mean that personalized "Very impressive [yet venting] sounding." commentary and congrats for "wiki-lawyering."[46] are quite proper and I would request that the Wikipedia civility policy would be upheld.
With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC) fix 18:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I want too far, and I regret it if I hurt your feelings. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

No hard feelings here. Just requesting that you avoid taking "veiled" digs at fellow editors. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I will remember to keep my "digs" unveiled (as much as I hate unnecessary nudity). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

reliable source?

Malcolm, do you have a reliable source for this. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It is sourced in the article (or at least was), and is mostly information that I did not add and seems to have been in the article for some time. Although the material was reverted several times, no one has disputed that he did belong to Matzpen (a group that no longer exists). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What is the source (could you link it here please)? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Its in Hebrew Conversation with Shlomo Sand, by Asaf Shor, Me'asef, 10 December 2004 (in Hebrew). This is all I can find in English at the moment [47] (not much time now), and it could not be used in the article. Most sources seem to be in Hebrew, French, Italian or German. As I say, no one (so far) is disputing that he belonged to Matzpen. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The blog's not a reliable source. Could you please quote the Hebrew text (please quote it in Hebrew) at Conversation with Shlomo Sand which you believe supports the edit you want to make? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I found this [48], which seems to be the source for most of the biographical material. The author seems widely published [49], including many articles in Haaretz. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you please quote the text, in any of these articles, which you believe supports an assertion that he is "anti-Zionist"? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, what was reverted by Palestine Remembered did not say Shlomo Sand was anti-Zionist. It said he joined the anti-Zionist group Matzpen [50]. Matzpen is antizionist, as is said in this article about Michel Warschawski, which is a book review that can be read here [51], i.e. He joined Matzpen, a kind of Israeli New Left, Trotskyist-influenced and anti-Zionist movement. The statement that Sand joined Matzpen has never been contested. The objection was to mention that it was Communist and Anti-Zionist...which is incontestably correct, and verified information. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the edit for me and again citing the source. The assertion would have more weight if there were other, stronger sources saying this, are there any? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sure there are other sources, but I do not have time to search now. (Personally, I would have preferred to let all this wait till the controversial book is published in English, when there will be far more sources to work with.) In any case Sand's membership in Matzpen is not contested. The problem is editors who do not want an anti-zionist organization described as anti-zionist. I really do not understand the reason for that opposition. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

With only one source, a book review, as support for the assertion that the org is anti-Zionist, I don't think it carries enough weight to support the assertion against consensus. I think you should drop this until you can find more reliable sources. Either way, I see no need for admin action and it would likely be more helpful if you use the article talk page for this, instead of ANI. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You are being ridiculous. The problem is I have little time for this today. The source is good, a well known writer for Haaretz. Here [52] is another: A titre d’information supplémentaire, Sand est entré en 1967 au Matzpen, un parti anti-capitaliste et anti-sioniste

There was not an opposing editor involved who denied the information was correct. That certainly does justify taking it to AN/I. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no question that Matzpen was an anti-Zionist organisation, as our article on the group states. See for example, the History article on its own site, which states: "The organization is committed to a socialist revolution based on councils elected by the workers, is opposed to Zionism and calls for recognition of the Palestinian people’s national rights.".[53] A recent supportive film, advertised on the group's site film, and with which many former members collaborated, is called "Matzpen:Anti-Zionist Israelis".[54] The dispute, as discussed elsewhere, is over the redundant statement "he joined the anti-Zionist Matzpen", rather than the simpler "he joined Matzpen". RolandR (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not redundant because few readers will know that Matzpen is anti-Zionist unless it is said. That is important information because Sand has written a critical book on the issue of Zionism. You will have a hard time convincing that all those reverts were really over worry about a word being "redundant." Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder

A discussion of Guido den Broeder's conduct and status as an editor has begun at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Improper_use_of_MfD_page.3F

I've alerted you since you are on his "respected user" list WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

And the discussion (of sorts) continues at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Guido_den_Broeder. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Archiving (more)

All done. It should run tomorrow and that red link in your archive box should become blue. --Smashville^talk 17:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hitbodedut

Malcom, I have written something in the talk about Hitbodedut. I would like to know what your opinion is on it so that we can edit it. DAVIDYDAVIDY (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi DAVIDY. I looked all over, and can't find what you wrote. Exactly, where is it? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kabbalah#Origins_of_Terms DAVIDY (talk) 04:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

D'oh!

It seems I started your archive at Archive #2...nothing wrong with being a little different? --Smashville^talk 17:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I probably would not have noticed if you had not said so. It is not a problem for me, and I am just happy to have it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism

Yes, you missed the immediately preceding silent deletion by the same IP. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it's easy to miss these things. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

self hating jew

malcolm, please respond to my questions and not just accuse me of reverting (which you have done as well) Untwirl (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF

Hi ShevaShalosh,
In this diff, you don't "assume good faith" and insult me : [55]. I ask you to keep cool and refrain this agressive behaviour. Ceedjee (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if you do not like that, but it referred to an editing problem, and your editing, and is not a personal insult. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

So, you are ShevaShalosh... Ceedjee (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"ShevaShalosh"? seven three? You need to spell that out for me. I do not understand. My Hebrew was never good, and is now greatly deteriorated. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry Malcolm. It doesn't matter. I have just noticed I had made a mistake here above (1st paragraph). Sorry for that.

See you, Ceedjee (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi,
I made a mistake in adressing you as ShevaShalosh. Maybe because you participate on the same discussions and I made the link.
When I realized this, I also noticed that you had already answered me without reaction and I was simply amazed. But there is not accusation. Why ? You are not Shevashalosh. Ceedjee (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. I hope we can resolve the editing difficulties of the article. Thanks for clarifying. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Stoicism

Glad you liked the changes, IMO that's the best presentation when quoting somebody, it has a nice visual and drives the reader's attention to it. EOZyo (мѕğ) 17:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

apology

Malcolm I just wanted to apologize for stating that you failed to warn me on my talk page about your report for using the word "troll" in an edit summary. As you pointed out, I was incorrect; I regret the error. I'm posting here rather than the wikiquette page as that issue has been closed. Cheers, csloat (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Commodore Sloat. When I am trying to go faster than I should and rely on my memory (an error I make all too frequently) I make exactly that sort of mistake.

There are apparently, if it is any consolation, other editors who also seem to be suffering from Malcolm fatigue. I hope that things will go more smoothly in the future, and I will make an effort to reduce the throw-weight of my edits. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Same here. Thanks, and I hope we can edit collaboratively despite our frequent disagreements. Cheers! csloat (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hitbodedut

Malcom, I sent you the link to that place in the article. Did you visit it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DAVIDY (talk • contribs) 22:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

All I saw was three sentences on the Kabbalah talk page. Is this what you mean?

Rebbe Nachman was not the person who coined the term Hitbodedut. This term comes from the Tanakh. There is a story of a female prophetess meditating in the field, and the word BDD is used, and not BNN. DAVIDY (talk) 06:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting, but it does not site a source. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Query

Malcolm, hi, I've been reviewing the discussions at Talk:New antisemitism, and I have to admit that I am perplexed. Granted, I haven't read everything in all of the archives, but of the discussions that I have read, there appears to be a clear consensus, and you appear to be taking the role of sole dissenter, edit warring against the consensus. Could you perhaps help clarify why you feel so strongly about this? Or are there discussions that I am missing, which bring the apparent consensus into doubt? Because I'm not understanding your position here. Thanks for any assistance, --Elonka 21:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Since that discussion in August I have not removed that material, aside from two recent occasions when other editors removed it, and I supported their removal of it. The reason I did that is to push to an explanation of why it is there at all. I do not consider Tariq Ali a reliable source for an article on antisemitism. Recently I explained my problem with it like this:

I have made my view of the Tariq Ali quote very clear.

1. This article is about a claim of a new type of antisemitism.
2. Tariq Ali is not a reliable source on the subject of antisemitism.
3. Therefore it logically follows that Tariq Ali is not a reliable source for this article, and the quote from him has no place in the article.

As I understand it, the answers I have gotten boil down to: we have you out voted, so your objections do not matter. Since no one has proved my logic wrong, I think I am justified in turning the screws on occasion to push for a logical answer. (Anyhow, most of the ones complaining about me have, themselves, proven records as edit warriors.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I am in agreement that some of the editors in the discussion are well-known within the topic area, and have a history of blocks or bans for edit warring and disruption. However, not all of them do, and even with those who have been blocked, it doesn't necessarily mean that they're wrong. However, I'm just not seeing a lot of support for your own view, which is why I am perplexed that you seem to be swimming upstream here. It doesn't mean that you're "wrong", it just means that the consensus appears to disagree with your point of view. --Elonka 22:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It is well established that I don't know when to give up. But I do not persist in anything if have not examined my position, considered the possibility that I am mistaken, and feel sure that I am justified. But, justified or not, I will not return to the issue until if seems there is new support for my position. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, alright, sounds good! Thanks for understanding. :) --Elonka 23:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It was played out already. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Elonka, since you seem to be dealing with is sort of thing a lot, you might be interested in my view of the general problem here [56] Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Civility

Malcolm, would you please consider refactoring this comment, to remove the ad hominem portion?[57] Thanks, --Elonka 17:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The comment was inappropriate, as it was aimed at the editor instead of the topic. Saying what you did tends not to lead to constructive discussion, it just antagonizes other editors, puts them on the defensive, and sidetracks the discussion. So please, for best results, just keep your comments focused on the content rather than the contributors, and this will be much more helpful. Thanks, --Elonka 20:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the first sentence of Slrubenstein's edit, a reply to me: I think I am with dab on this, when he writes "You implication that rejection of the JMT automatically amounts to acceptance of Biblical literalism isn't just uninformed, it's positively nonsensical". If Slrubenstein, and Dbachmann, would content themselves with saying that they think my views are wrong, instead of "positively nonsensical" (wording which is not civil), there would be no need to deal with my returning fire. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"A problem with WP is the high concentration of computer geeks with good intelligence, but little in the way of social skills.".
My thoughts exactly. Plus I'd say the employment prospects of most WP users are pretty poor, especially if they make time in their lives for over 100,000 edits. ʄ!•¿talk? 06:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There [58], Slrubenstein asked Elonka to kick my ass for making a sarcastic comment about him. At the top of this thread, you can see the impression made by her foot impacting my talk page. Apparently there was no grounds to block me, because I doubt that she would have missed the opportunity to send me into wiki-exile if she could. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

More NPOV regarding definition of the Jesus myth hypothesis

I have opened a thread about the NPOV of the very definition of the Jesus myth hypothesis Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Jesus_myth_hypothesis.2C_reliable_source_conflict and was wondering if you have any idea on what to do given we have several reliable sources that don't appear to agree with one another.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

1st unblock request

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 just took a look at the guidelines (something rare for me), and the block seems to have been imposed as punishment -- which is not allowed: ::

In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption. Legal threats, death threats, and issues of similar severity may result in a block without warning. However, administrators are cautioned that other resolutions are preferable to blocking for less severe situations when it is unclear if the "conduct severely disrupts the project". Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered "disruption". Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment. A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks.[59]

:There is no reason to think there is a need to protect the article from my disruption because I have already said that I do not intend to bother with the article. Since the only incivility was on my talk page, and not the article talk page. If my explanation seems unclear (a frequent complaint), ask and I will try to clarify. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

below you state to be happy with the block, so you're either trolling or not complaining; either way, a review is unnecessary. --fvw* 22:12, 18 January 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.

Well isn't that an intelligent comment. Fvw, I am happy to have a wiki-break. But why should I be happy that, once again, Gwen Gale has blocked me for non-existence grounds. If it is not according to guidelines it should be overturned, if you happen to think I am nice or not. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Self-hating Jew

Hi. May I recommend that you stop responding to Untwirl. That may mean that she/he gets the last word, but so be it. There's no need to answer every message of hers/his. Just a suggestion. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course you are right, as is so often the case. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. arimareiji (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Malcom, I'm sorry to do this, but you should be keenly aware of the three revert rule by now. I've blocked you 24 hours for breaking it at Self-hating Jew. Revert warring over good faith edits, even those which you might find highly nettlesome or straightforwardly wrong, is highly disruptive and hurtful to the project. Please don't edit war anymore. If a good faith edit is so untowards as to be way beyond what you think consensus should bring, bring it up on the talk page and other editors will likely pitch in, one way or another, sooner rather than later. More or less none of us get all the edits we want here, it's what we put up with for having input into this encyclopedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for 3rr, edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. 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. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, this could not have come at a better time. I really need a wiki-break. I don't feel badly about it. Although it was not my intention to violate 3RR, I'm just not good at keeping track. Anyhow, one editor who I admire a lot, User:Boodlesthecat, was blocked for a year. He was trying to do the right thing, but was outnumbered. I am sure that the edits of the users opposing were acting in "good faith," even though they are mostly schmucks, creeps, and liars. No one can live in this world, or wiki-world, without dealing with schmucks, creeps, and liars. Its just the way things are. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've lengthened your block to a week because of that blatant and sweeping personal attack on the other editors and because this is at least your third block for edit warring. Like many things in life, Wikipedia isn't for everyone. Maybe you can find a way to get along with other editors without stirring up these seemingly endless kerfluffles but either way, I hope you'll use this time off to put some thought into it. I do wish you all the best, Malcom. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

A week is even better. As I said I need a wiki-break. I knew you would extend the block over that, and would have been surprised only if you did not. But this is doing nothing to defend the article from the mean Malcolm Schosha, because I already said I will not be editing it for quite some time [60]. I decided if I am getting no support, then it is not worth bothering with the article -- particularly since no one seems to be reading it but the editors. I took it off my watch list.

Could you put a new block template on the page that shows the one week block? I would appreciate that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Spare me. If you want the unblock reviewed, post an unblock template. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If I wanted the block be reviewed, I would have written a request for that. I would appreciate your putting a block template on the page that shows the extension to one week. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

At least I know your account hasn't been compromised: Now you're trying to bicker over a block template. When does it end, Malcom? How about now? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I really do feel cheated getting a one week block without the template to commemorate it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for 3rr, edit warring, incivility. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. 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. This message added at user's request by Looie496 (talk · contribs), who is not an admin and does not claim any authority.

Thanks, Looie496. You are a gentleman and a scholar. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems that more users drop by my talk page -- to see the latest, I suppose -- than I ever realized. Perhaps I should try to do something to make things here more interesting than just the usual bi-weekly block from Gwen Gale . Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"...the usual bi-weekly block..."? Your block log says otherwise. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think there are very few users who would take that description of my problems with you, "the usual bi-weekly block from Gwen Gale," as intended to be a literal statement of fact. Strange that you would give such a literal-minded and humorless reading to what was a joke -- howbeit, a joke based on circumstances. You may, for example, remember this [61] in which you did not block me, but clearly would have liked to.

Since, as you know, I am a professional artist, and since the obligatory annual process of renewing my artistic license was completed just last month ; I reserve the right to use humor and symbolic expressions of truth as I see fit on my own talk page. (Hint: Your apparent inability to understand my use of humor, or understand the actual nature of just about anything else I say, might be a good reason for you to hand administration of my wiki-problems to another administrator.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Or, you could stop the edit warring, incivility, tendentious, confrontational editing on sensitive topics and wikilawyering which get you starring roles on admin notice boards almost every week (and that's no joke). Gwen Gale (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I did the right thing by trying to stop three editors who gang raped an article. My only regret is that I did not succeed in defending the article from them. No one who looks at their changes to that article could possibly say what they did is NPOV. Neither was my participation in the editing process of the article uncivil. It is true I have no respect for editors who wanted an article that contained their POV only. Why should I respect such editors? But my expressions of disrespect have been limited to one or two occasions on my own talk page.

As for your accusation that I am "wikilawyering," that is complete nonsense. The more rational accusation would be that I never learned WP rules. For instance it was a couple of days before I bothered to look at the grounds you gave for blocking me, and found to my surprise that there are no grounds for such a block. Despite the very bad experiences I have had with you as an administrator, I really expected that you would act according to WP guidelines.

As for my appearances on AN/I, the majority have been complaints that I took there myself -- such as the previous one about you. I do not recall many occasions when other users initiated complaints against me on AN/I, although there may have been one or two. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Malcom, you were blocked for straying from 3rr, plenty of "grounds" there, edit warring isn't allowed. Then, while blocked, you made a sweeping personal attack on the editors with whom you had edit warred. Plenty of "grounds" there too, personal attacks aren't allowed. If you don't agree with the block, or think you can address the behaviour which led to your block, please put up an unblock request. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What I read about civility violations is this:

In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption. Legal threats, death threats, and issues of similar severity may result in a block without warning. However, administrators are cautioned that other resolutions are preferable to blocking for less severe situations when it is unclear if the "conduct severely disrupts the project". Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered "disruption". Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment. A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks.

So, if there was no disruption to the article for what I said here, what was the justification for the block, when WP guidelines specifically say "Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment. As you know, there was no disruption to prevent because I as no longer editing the article. Or, if there was disruption from incivility, why did you not include diffs to prove it? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This personal attack was severe and uncalled for. Given you made it while blocked, I saw no hint you would stop making comments like this when your 24 hour block was up, so I lengthened it to a week, to prevent you from disrupting the project. There was no need to provide the diff because the personal attack was at the end of the post above mine, which I noted. Either way, I have now posted the diff. For the last time, if you wish to disagree with this block, or are willing to acknowledge and do something about the behaviour which led to this block, please post an unblock request, which will be reviewed by other admins. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You are evading my question. As I understand it, the standard for an incivility block is disruption, and there was no disruption; nor is there any indication there ever would have been any disruption. If you think there was, why did you not supply a diff showing that disruption had, indeed, occurred?

In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption. Legal threats, death threats, and issues of similar severity may result in a block without warning. However, administrators are cautioned that other resolutions are preferable to blocking for less severe situations when it is unclear if the "conduct severely disrupts the project". Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered "disruption". Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment. A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks.[62]

Where did the disruption occure? Show me the justification for your block. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

As for the unblock requests, they amount to nothing better than a letter to Santa Clause and are a wast of time. The process seems to exist to give blocked users the feeling of recourse...without an actually of recourse. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

3RR?

Gwen Gale, reviewing the edits at the article [63], I can not find where I violated 3RR. Could you take another look at that? I see 3 reverts that I made. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Listed below your 2nd unblock request. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Summery

1. I was given a 24 hour block by Gwen Gale for violating 3RR, even though I had only three reverts.

2. Feeling p.o.'d, I made a negative comment about some of the other editors of the article, saying "...they are mostly schmucks, creeps, and liars. No one can live in this world, or wiki-world, without dealing with schmucks, creeps, and liars." Gwen Gale, instead of asking me to refactor my comments, extended the block to one week.

3. A couple of days later, after I got around to checking the block guidelines for civility violations, I pointed out to Gwen Gale, that incivility guidelines recommend against blocking as punishment.

In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption. Legal threats, death threats, and issues of similar severity may result in a block without warning. However, administrators are cautioned that other resolutions are preferable to blocking for less severe situations when it is unclear if the "conduct severely disrupts the project". Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered "disruption". Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment. A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks.[64]

There is no need to protect the article from disruption because I have already said that I do not intend to continue editing the article. I had taken it off my with list. (In fact I have removed all articles involving elements of the Israel/Palestine dispute from my watch list, and will not be editing those articles in the future.) The only incivility was on my talk page, not the article talk page, there seems to have been no actual disruption, and there was never any complaint from the other editors.

4. I said I could use a wiki-break anyhow -- which was true enough, although I am unhappy with the way I got the break. I feel the whole matter was treated excessively.

5. I asked for a review of the block, but the administrator, fvw, seems to have been on his tough guy mode that night, and declined (it seems) without serious consideration.

Perhaps Gwen Gale found my comment about some other editors unwelcome. But I was p.o.'d, and still feel that the article was gang raped by editors who had a POV they were pushing. Anyone who wants can compare present version of the article [65], with the version I tried to defend, and decide for themselves which is more NPOV (not to mention comprehensible). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

2nd unblock request

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:

1. I was given a 24 hour block by Gwen Gale for violating 3RR, even though I had only three reverts.

2. Feeling p.o.'d, I made a negative comment about some of the other editors of the article, saying "...they are mostly schmucks, creeps, and liars. No one can live in this world, or wiki-world, without dealing with schmucks, creeps, and liars." Gwen Gale, instead of asking me to refactor my comments, extended the block to one week.

3. A couple of days later, after I got around to checking the block guidelines for civility violations, I pointed out to Gwen Gale, that incivility guidelines recommend against blocking as punishment.

In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption. Legal threats, death threats, and issues of similar severity may result in a block without warning. However, administrators are cautioned that other resolutions are preferable to blocking for less severe situations when it is unclear if the "conduct severely disrupts the project". Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered "disruption". Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment. A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks.[66]

There is no need to protect the article from disruption because I have already said that I do not intend to continue editing the article. I had taken it off my watch list. (In fact I have removed all articles involving elements of the Israel/Palestine dispute from my watch list, and will not be editing those articles in the future.) The only incivility was on my talk page, not the article talk page, there seems to have been no actual disruption, and there was never any complaint from the other editors.

4. I said I could use a wiki-break anyhow -- which was true enough, although I am unhappy with the way I got the break. I feel the whole matter was treated excessively.

5. I asked for a review of the block, but the administrator, fvw, seems to have been on his tough guy mode that night, and declined (it seems) without serious consideration.

Perhaps Gwen Gale found my comment about some other editors unwelcome. But I was p.o.'d, and still feel that the article was gang raped by editors who had a POV they were pushing. Anyone who wants can compare present version of the article [67], with the version I tried to defend, and decide for themselves which is more NPOV (not to mention comprehensible).

Decline reason:

Try not using the term "gang raped" to describe other editors and other admins may actual consider it. There's a talk page and dispute resolution, revert warring is not appropriate. I think I'm being generous by not further extending this block. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:29, 21 January 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.

You made four reverts in 20 hours, 29 minutes (24 hour block):

• fourth rv - 19:16, 17 January 2009
• third rv - 18:03, 17 January 2009
• second rv - 13:17, 17 January 2009
• first rv - 22:47, 16 January 2009

This is the sweeping personal attack you made while blocked (lengthened to one week). Gwen Gale (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And today, in your 2nd unblock request, you say the article was "gang raped" by the other editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Gwen Gale, I said the same, previously, thing on 19 January 2009 [68], and at that time, in your reply, you made no objection to the phrase [69], but only referred again to your previous objection. If there was a problem with the phrase, it would have been more helpful if you said so then. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
2. NB: This revert [70] was over a disputed sentence that I removed as redundant. The other three reverts were over a rewrite of the entire lead by Arimareiji that were unbalanced additions. The first revert, and the following three were separate issues, and occurred on different days. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(Replying to your added comment) They were all reverts. Edit warring isn't allowed, 4 reverts in 24 hours strays across the bright line of WP:3rr and is blockable. You don't seem to understand 3rr yet, either, which I think is also kind of worrisome (see below). Gwen Gale (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I had already lengthened your block to a week for personal attacks. That added comment of yours was one more reason why I was unwilling to unblock you. If you don't understand by now that calling the edits of good faith editors "gang rape" isn't allowed under three policies (WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF), then you will stay blocked until your behaviour shows you do understand. You are carrying on the same wikilawyering and lack of acknowledgement that has kept you blocked. You are very close to having your block extended even further. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

To the reviewing admin: Given Malcom's lack of meaningful acknowledgement as to the behaviour for which he was blocked, along with even further ongoing personal attacks while blocked, I'd support either keeping the block as it is, or lengthening the block to 10 days. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm keeping it but I would support an extension if a third request (or just further conversation) is similar. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, thanks for finally clarifying the 3RR block. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

La commedia è finita

I think I have done enough to justify my value to WP. But that does not mean that I intend to stay. I had considered the possibility that it would be enough to drop editing of battleground articles, but by yesterday it was clear to me that any attempt to continue editing editing WP would be a waste of time, and not helpful to me or other users. So when the block is expired, I will wrap up just a few small matters that still need attention (none of them contentious) and then stop.

To repeat, I have decided that is time for me to leave WP; and, therefore, I will be involve in no further wiki-disputes.

Salve a tutti, Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

would you like to be unblocked?

Would you like to be unblocked now? I will unblock you, if you make the three following promises and statements:

• I have read and understand Wikipedia's policy on edit warring along with the 3rr policy and will follow both policies when editing on this website. I will not edit war.

• I have read and understand Wikipedia's policies on personal attacks, civility and assuming good faith and will follow these three policies when editing on this website. I will not make personal attacks, I will be civil at all times and I will assume the good faith of other editors in the way outlined by the policy page.

• If I get into a content or other dispute, I will patiently follow the dispute resolution process.

All this is policy, arrived at through the wide consensus of Wikipedia editors. If you can't follow Wikipedia policy, you won't be allowed to edit this private website, which is mostly run by volunteers. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have explained my intent, above, as clearly as I know how. Thank you for your kind offer, but I see no reason why I should make promises not require of other WP users. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked users are very often asked to promise to follow policy as a condition for unblocking. Many agree to this and are unblocked. Since you don't want to agree to follow Wikipedia policy, I'm now thinking about lengthening your block to indefinite, until such time that you do agree. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, at this point you should ask some other admin to take that action if you feel it is required. Looie496 (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to block Malcom, I want to unblock Malcom. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, i just noticed this page, I am not at all sure the material cited counts as a personal attack, and I therefore think the week block for violating NPA unwarranted, and, I have therefore removed it. It named no editors. it was a general comment in very harsh language to be sure, about the general behavior of some people, on and off Wiki. It is undeniable that there are a few people meeting those specifications in the RW, and , frankly, here as well. To be sure, one could if one wanted to assume that these are the specific editors Malcolm has been reverting, but I instead interpret it a general term for those whom he is annoyed with, which seem to be quite a number of people. As Malcolm points out, it was made on his own talk page, where greater leniency is allowed. It is absolutely not the kind of attack that warrants a block without warning. The appropriate thing to have done at that point would have been to issue one.

On the other hand: the remark was not a good one to have made anywhere, there is a rather long block history in a short time, there is a pattern of edit warring, and his requests for removal of it have been done in such a manner that did not encourage people to have confidence in his subsequent behavior.

My deciding point is, that as Looie said, you seem to have gotten into a personal test of wills about him. The threat to extend the block for not cooperating with you when there was no specific violation was not appropriate. Therefore, you should take no action of any kind whatsoever in respect to him.

Now, Malcolm: I don't think it usually helpful to require prior agreement on a set of conditions--it is more likely to annoy people than calm them down. I don't want to set prior conditions, for I think it is not usually helpful to require prior agreement on a set of general conditions--it is more likely to annoy people than calm them down. In any case, the perfectly reasonable conditions Gwen set actually do apply to all editors always. I expect you no avoid anything that might be construed as a personal attack; this is best done by checking what you write before posting it, and if it is directed towards an individual, recast it so it refers to the edit or the article instead, while also removing all words stronger than "incorrect" as a characterization of anything. And the only practical way you will be able to avoid violating 3rr again is to avoid reverting altogether. Discuss the matter on the talk page instead. I suggest further, that you not concentrate of the exact wording of specific points in controversial articles--such disputes are rarely productive. The best thing to do with a difficult article, is usually to find some additional indisputably good sources.

You now have a choice: if you do mean to stop editing, you can stop. If you want to contribute peacefully, you can. Or, if you contribute in the manner you have been doing, you will receiver longer blocks, soon quite likely indefinite. IO won;t hesitate to do it myself. DGG (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to see you unblocked, Malcom. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol

I had a fun reading through your talk page, especially the Self-Hating Jew section. Classic stuff man. In my opinion, I believe that irrational and often unjustified tossing of the rule-book has definitely contributed to a lack of productivity, further exacerbating the practically unstoppable breeding of unacceptable bias. I've been punished several times (rightly so) for losing my cool and not being nice to every editor that offends me. : ) In life I've always felt people had to earn their respect, and if I believed they were acting in an inappropriate way, I will tell them. Sometimes bluntly. I strongly encourage you to avoid getting in fights with admins or groups that obviously don't appreciate the realities of humanity, human error, or in your case, dealing with situations in a humorous way. Your complete refusal to appeal to a wikipedia administrator was the ultimate portrayal of Chutzpah. Obviously it would be rather ill of me to commend you for such a thing, but I hope you catch my drift. We need people like you to maintain the balance of wikipedia, even if others disagree.

See ya around. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Congrats on Kabbalah Work

I have been following the developments on this page as my academic research is related to the historical development of Kabbalah. I was about to revert the addition of Bnei Baruch, however I agree with your approach. We have to add them at least since so much of the original sources are only available in English from them. I'm actually going to do a track on that user to make sure he never added anything else that is only promotional. I will like to offer my help as in Wikipedia I like to find sources for material. I will keep an eye out for you. Again really good job on keeping the Kabbalah article in good NPOV Wikipedia quality. This is one article that could quickly fall into disrepute.Empireheart (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There is frequently stuff added to the article that is promotional, and intended to sell books, or services, or classes. There was a link added just today by Will Parfitt. He is fairly well know, but the intention seems to be to promote his books. Also, his approach to Kabbalah is far from traditional Jewish Kabbala, which is what the Kabbalah article is about.

The links section is far too large. I hope to eventually go through the links, add material from the best of them to the article, and convert the external links into sources. There are, no doubt, also plenty of the external links that could just be deleted.

I look forward to your making some good additions to the article. Try to include sources, that is one of the article's big problems. If I should suddenly be sent into wiki-exile, keep an eye on the article. Thanks for the kind words. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Bulldozers

Hi Malcolm, at Rachel Corrie, I see that there's a dispute as to whether to include the model number of the bulldozer in the lead of the article. I personally have no preference either way, but based on the (limited) discussions on the talkpage, it would appear that the forming consensus is that it's okay to include the information in the lead. So it's probably not a good idea to be edit-warring to remove the information. You are of course welcome to continue discussing things at the talkpage, and if you feel very strongly about this, you may wish to file an RfC. But please don't make any other reverts, unless the talkpage consensus changes. Thanks, --Elonka 19:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Did I violate an armistice? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, not to my knowledge, but I'm checking the I-P articles and looking for edit-wars, to try and push people away from reverting, and back to the talkpage. That's all.  :) --Elonka 19:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I would be hard put to explain why I get involved in these arguments. Even when it is an article that gets no traffic (like Israel Shahak, or Self-hating Jew), every little change turns into a fight to the death as though it was as something as important as the Battle of Thermopylae.

Time for me to stop. I appreciate that you maintained your humor and composure in our discussions. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding, and for the kind words.  :) BTW, if you'd like something non-controversial to work on, have you ever looked into something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel/Assessment? There are over one thousand articles in the queue, awaiting someone to come along and review them and decide if they should be tagged as stub, start, B-class, etc. Some people very much enjoy article-reviewing, and while looking over the articles, you may see other places you'd like to help, that are outside of the normal battlegrounds. --Elonka 20:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no difficulty finding stuff to edit. I had plans to rework Stoicism, a subject I have studied extensively. That article is in terrible shape. There are also some articles that I created that are in stub form and need further development.

The unfair editing situation in some other articles bothers, yet I know if I get drawn further into those arguments that it will end by my getting bounced out of WP. One way or another, I seem out of wiki-rope; and I will either stop, or I will get stopped. That is my sense of the situation. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Mr Malcolm

Good to see you back and I am glad to see your return. Hey have you seen these series of articles I started? On underground cities in Asia Minor? -Derinkuyu and the Derinkuyu Underground City. Hey no better place to be a troglodyte! LoveMonkey (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You know Mr Malcolm Özkonak Underground City really reminds me of allot of the work of Antoni Gaudí. Like his Casa Milà and his most beautiful and beloved Sagrada Família. A working man can appreciate good architecture.

LoveMonkey (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi LoveMonkey. Thanks for the interesting links. Your mention of architecture reminded me of the Russian Orthodox church in Florence, Italy. I had not thought about that in a long time. The church is quite small, but I always considered it was one of the most beautiful churches in Florence....which is saying quite a lot. I do not know if there is a WP article, but there are images in Wikimedia Commons [71]. I found a little information about it here [72]. When I was living in Florence, I would sometimes walk a number of blocks out of my way just to see it. This is a pretty good photo of it [73], although none of the photos I have looked at do it justice. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful. Yes, beauty is something supernatural. It plays on our hearts and draws us to it. If I can help with anything Malcolm let me know. P.S. your story (I don't know why) made me think of St Sophia in China [74]

LoveMonkey (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Sof

Accuracy of transliteration is not spam. I transliterated the Hebrew to English for the Ayn Sof Kabbalah Community website to accurately reflect the closest approximation in English to the Hebrew. Adding the Ayn Sof site to a rare few sites listed is not spam: it is diversity. You will most likely have more time on your hands to change the spelling, if you believe that makes the most sense. However, it is a less accurate mistake that should be corrected rather than called spam.

All the best, Rabbi Alyjah (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ein Sof is very widely used, as on the Kabbalak Online site [75].Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Widespread use of something does not make it the most accurate or best choice. Shabbat Shalom Rabbi Alyjah (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

thx

Malcolm, your comments at the ANI page concerning so-called disruptive editing by me and Ohconfucius were much appreciated. You may be interested in User:Tony1/AdminReview, which I will attempt to move forward to elections and operation in late March or early April, when my work deadline passes. Tony (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Afroghost

As I said at the time, if he posts an unblock request (or asks someone to post at my talk page) with a genuine request that he won't do again what he was blocked for, I'd be perfectly happy to unblock him. I'd rather not set an expiry date though, given the circumstances. Black Kite 19:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Your WQA Comments of Late

Malcolm, please do not take what I am about to say as an WP:NPA issue, because it surely is not meant in that way. Your recent comment at WQA was made after the discussion thread had been closed, and was highly reactive and inflammatory in nature. It pained me to have to adjust the "archivebottom" tag to encompass it, simply because the thread did not need any more drama than already was present.

I noted from your userpage that you are 65. That places you at 25 years my senior. Honestly, I tend to look up to people that are physically older than I for guidance and inspiration. When I see things like this, it confounds me a bit. Come on, Malcolm, it's only Wikipedia for goodness sakes! Being my senior, you know better than I that there is way more to life than this little corner of cyberspace, and it's not worth being so reactive and hot-headed about.

Again, this is not meant as a personal attack, nor to be patronizing either. It's my honest observation. Edit Centric (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If you look up to me, or down on me, is your own affair. It is not something that is in my power. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are pained by any external thing, it is not this thing that disturbs you, but your own judgment about it. And it is in thy power to wipe out this judgment now. But if anything in your own disposition gives you pain, who hinders you from correcting your opinion? Marcus Aurelius VIII. 47, trans. George Long

Hello, Kwork2. You have new messages at Edit Centric's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Edit Centric (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget, you still owe Hrafn and Hip apologies - Hip for your incivility, Hrafn for perpetuating a smear by digging up and repeating old smears, without bothering to look into the details. I trust that you will do the right thing and apologise to both of them. Guettarda (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't make me laugh. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm serious. Apologise, stop trying to stir up trouble, and focus on being a constructive member of our community. Guettarda (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Umm this is very disturbing. I realise that you are still a relatively new member of our community, but let me remind you that trying to stir up trouble like that is never acceptable. Trying to stir up trouble, trying to drag an editor back into a fight that they have walked away from - that sort of drama-mongering is unacceptable in Wikipedia. Do not do something like that again. Consider this a formal warning. Guettarda (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is a complaint about a user, such as was on WP:Wikiquette, there is nothing unusual about pointing out that that the user has a history...if there is a history. In fact, I drew no conclusions from that user's history beyond the one point that the user was not perfect. I just gave a link, with a very brief statement.

On the other hand, you and several others continued, from that point, to make ad hominem attacks on me, and continued until the thread was closed. But you, apparently, see nothing wrong with that, even though such attacks are WP:NPA. And, in fact, instead of apologizing to me, you have made more such attacks on me here on my own user page; and then, to top it off, you have the chutzpah to ask me to apologize for something that is a figment of your own imagination? Amazing.

Go way and stop bothering me. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

3rr

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

untwirl(talk) 15:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

malcolm, please refrain from edit warring against consensus and leaving bad faith 3rr warnings on my talk page. i have refuted your straw man claims on the talk page. the current consensus to have a noncontroversial definition that fits within certain bounds looks like 7 - 2 to me. try to get the other editors to agree with you, instead of butting heads constantly. just a friendly suggestion, hopefully you and i can bury the hachet (and not in each others necks! ;) ). untwirl(talk) 15:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You have deleted content that is reliably sourced. You have also ignored my requests to discuss changes before, rather than after, making them. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kwork2. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Advice for you

Which you can feel free to erase if it's unwanted. Those guys on the AE board are right, and it's not just them being petty bureaucrats. The board you posted on is for specific sanctions on specific editors, often in specific topic areas. I don't think Cerejota is under any kind of arb topic ban, is he? I note he tried to take you to the same board -- how far did he get? What can you do? You can take it to WP:AN/I, though I'd come up with more examples than just the one of problematic (and crystal clear) violations on Cerejota's part. He's been particularly abusive lately, so I don't think it would be hard to find. That said, AN/I is a crapshoot. You may get more insults there, or people telling you it's not the complaints department (which it actually kind of is) -- but you might also get someone neutral to swing by Cerejota's talk page and have a word. Up to you. IronDuke 14:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Actually it is not a big deal that it got flicked off, and I rather expected that would be the outcome. Nothing was lost by my making the complaint.

An administrator advised me to stay away from AN/I as much as possible. Probably good advice because I have pissed off so many users (including plenty of administrators), who as a result are now gunning for me, that my filing another complaint on AN/I would just be taken as an invitation to use me for target practice. I would give AN/I a try for something important, like deletions violating WP:reliable source....but not for WP:NPA.

I particularly dislike the bureaucratic aspect of WP, and there are even core rules (like 3RR) that I believe make no sense. As for procedures, such as how to file on AE, they are beyond my comprehension.

Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. you might try WP:WQA. It's sort of useless (no one gets blocked because of it that I know of), but you can start to form a rough consensus on someone's behavior with it. AE is a specific noticeboard, the rules aren't complicated to post there, you were just in the wrong place. You might also consider, if you have some time to reflect, going to the talk pages of all the admins/editors you pissed off an apologizing -- a real, heartfelt "I'm sorry" can go a long way with a lot of users. Maybe not every single one, but the ones you think you genuinely wronged in some way (if you did). IronDuke 15:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I virtually always say I am sorry that they feel pissed off. I do regret it when people get upset over what I say. But, since I stand behind my expressed views, that does not necessarily resolve much. It is only luck (if good luck, or bad luck, is uncertain) that I have not gotten sent back into wiki-exile. At present I am trying to minimize my editing of Israel/Palestine dispute articles; and since there are other editors who do a much better job of editing those articles, my increased absence is either a very small loss, or (perhaps) a benefit. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to apologize for your views, but if you're too gruff, you can always apologize for that. Cheers. IronDuke 15:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Usually I put in words something like, "Sorry about trampling on your feelings with my hob nail work boots." Once again thanks for the advice. Much appreciated. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Sorry about that, hit the wrong "rollback" button. --Rodhullandemu 15:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for explaining. I was puzzled. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Israel-Gaza conflict

Hi Malcolm, since you've been active on Antisemitic incidents during the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict, I wonder if you'd be interested in creating Anti-Israel incidents during the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict (or a similar title). There were quite a few notable violent events against Israelis related to the conflict, for example, the shooting of two Israelis at a mall in Denmark. If you do choose to create this article, and I hope you do, I should warn you that there will be difficulty in keeping it from getting deleted, as there was in the "antisemitic incidents" article. You've probably noticed that there are users who would rather not see such content appear in Wikipedia. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been through it plenty of times with WP editors doing their worst to apply torture. But I feel disinclined to take an offer to actually build my own rack, and then to strap myself into it....and with the ratchet handle accessible to every sadistic antisemitic schmuck who comes along. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Doccia porcelain

I hope you do not mind that I have contacted you here as well as adding a citation tag. It's just that the two web links you have recently added do not support them as being 'the largest producer of the high-quality Italian porcelain tableware and decorative ware.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.238.178 (talk) 05:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The first of the two does support that. The second says nothing about Ginori being largest, but does discuss its enormous size. It is not a very important point to me (although virtually anyone in Italy will tell you Ginori is its largest porcelain manufacturer), and I think deleting the statement would be better for the article rather than leave the tag. The company is an industrial giant, and I have no interest in talking it up. My interest in the subject (not much) is because I learned pottery in Sesto Fiorentino, and worked as a potter there. But I never had anything to do with Ginori, and do not much like companies that size. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi - "The first of the two does support that." Where? The closest I can find is 'In 1965, Italian Ceramic Society (SCI) of Laveno was taken over by the Richard-Ginori Group and the Richard-Ginori Italian Ceramic Society was founded. It became the largest procelain manufacturer in Italy.' This does nto support them being the biggest now but the biggest over 40 years ago! If no support can be found I concur that deletion is for the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.238.178 (talk) 04:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you OK with the sentence being deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.238.178 (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That source is current. It says Ginori became, and still is, the largest. But, as soon as you find a source that says that another Italian porcelain manufacturer is bigger than Ginori, feel free to change the sentence. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi - are we reading the same reference? The one I see gives nothing about current size. What I see is that it became the largest in 1965. Without something considerably more current than over 40 years ago I can not see how the sentence can stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.238.178 (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi - just a courtesy message to say I'l be deleting the sentence later today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.238.178 (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon

You undid my explained edit (removing POV from a BLP), which undid a number of edits basically making his (complex) anti-Zionism appear as simple anti-Jewishness), without explanation. This is not helpful. Rd232 ^talk 22:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior in this article

Per WP:Civility I am letting you know that your constant attacks on both the subject of the article and other editors working on the article has helped create a very hostile editing environment. I am following step by step the advice in this article, starting with this note.

• POV attacks on Atzmon: "I don't see anything ambiguous in this discussion of Atzmon's antisemitism" and "Atzmon seems to have actually cultivated that as part of his public image. Antisemitism is as much a part of his public image as Groucho's mustache was part of his public image." and "It is ok to use denials of Atzmon's antisemitism, as long as you use a reliable secondary source," and "perhaps, he has just discovered that the noterity his antisemitic remarks bring is good for his business" and "The only thinking he is provoking is skinhead thinking."
• WP:uncivil attacks on other editors: "At minimum she needs to learn to distinguish between a criticism and an "attack"." and "your attitude toward Jews indicates that you have a WP:COI problem of your own in editing this article." and "Untwirl a single purpose account [15], who is usually found trying to enforce anti-Zionist and antisemitic POVs in some of the most disputed articles in the Israel/Palestine disputes." and "I have no respect for the editors here who are trying to white-wash the obvious antisemitism of a man who revels on the notoriety it brings him." and "The fact is that your whining about this article being difficult to edit is a little revolting, and I wish you would either suck it up, or find something else to edit." CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not appreciate you calling my getting in the way of your editing goals "Uncivil behavior". Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

i do appreciate your new attitude on the atzmon page. regardless of our differences i hope we can put past scrapes behind us. i try not to take all of this too seriously, so transient and all, and i bear no ill will toward you. uc bill has disappeared, btw, its too bad. he made some good points on the civility talkpage. untwirl(talk) 18:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Bravo! Wonderful! Even if there should be future disagreements, your kind and thoughtful words are much appreciated, and will be remembered. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

hey malcolm, i really dont think i did either of the things you said on uc bills talk page - i told dgg i thought you should be warned by him, since he unblocked with a caveat of keeping an eye on your grizzliness. and arguing against the removal of the block? maybe you just remember it differently than it actually happened, i looked through some diffs but couldn't find that either. like i said, my memory isnt the best sometimes so tell me if you can find me doing those things. thanks for letting me clear this up. untwirl(talk) 02:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating WP:NPA in the area of conflict of WP:ARBPIA as described at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement&oldid=281260799#Accusations of anti-Semitism. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.  Sandstein  09:36, 2 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:

I did not make any personal attack. There can not, logically, have been a personal attack without any person having been attacked.

What I did do was criticize a particular phenomena, and from a viewpoint that is supported by many reliable sources (for example [76]). I find it troubling that no effort was made to understand that there is a difference between a criticism of a characteristic expressed by a particular group, and an attack on an individual person. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Calling 90-100% of the users who initiated the Arbcom case "garden-variety" anti-Semites is absolutely a personal attack and unacceptable. If you continue making unfair and unsubstantiated claims like this, you should expect to be blocked again, for longer and longer periods. Mangojuice^talk 13:02, 2 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.

Comment by blocking admin: By your comment ([77]) that "My personal view is that probably 90-100% of the users who initiated this arbcom case, and who support it, are in that category [of garden variety antisemite]", you did attack individual users, namely, the users who initiated and supported the case.  Sandstein  11:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I should also note that, per Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Appeal of discretionary sanctions, the present block may not be overturned except through the procedure outlined at the link given.  Sandstein  11:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

In the context of my whole edit, the criticism is directed at pro-Palestinian activists in general

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.

In fact I presented the entire problem, at the level that it appears so commonly in WP discussions, as a rather average sort problem, more one of life's nuisances than as a menace. Moreover, there is an important distinction between a criticism and an attack.

But, since I am not expecting anything better, there is no need to reply.

In the edit that caused this dust up, I explained something that I consider important, and I am glad I had the chance to say it. I have no regrets, and do not mind getting blocked for doing the right thing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll reply, hope you don't mind. I was just reading over what you wrote and nodding my head approvingly at your general remarks about antisemitism, but had to stop nodding when you said 90-100% of the people bringing the case were antisemites. For one thing, I don't think that figure can be accurate, and for another, it doesn't matter even if it were. What should be focused on is actions: consequences for the editors who make them will naturally follow. But I do sympathize with you -- in a few of the articles I edit, there's a constant low-level hum of activity that never quite comes out and announces, "Hi, I'm an antisemite," but patterns of editing and insinuations and the repetition of certain shibboleths make it clear to anyone who's had experience in this area. How to proceed? Make better edits than they do. I've found that to be the most effective possible tool. IronDuke 15:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The 90-100% figure is what I consider the case with committed pro-Palestinian activists in general, and I have no reason to think the wiki-activists are any better. For instance, how can anyone who supports Hamas be considered anything but antisemitic? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, you're kind of repeating the personal attacks here. Calling people "pro-Palestinian activists" or anti-semites is missing the point completely. If they are engaged in collaborative editing in good faith their personal opinions are irrelevant and attacking them is unfair. If, on the other hand, they were editing to push a pro-Palestinian agenda, then that is bad in and of itself, and whether or not they are anti-semites is irrelevant. The point is, don't comment on the contributor, comment on the contribution. Doing otherwise is inflammatory which is why people get blocked for this kind of behavior. Mangojuice^talk 19:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to repeat myself, I think the point may have caused a dust up; but I consider the point I important, and I am glad I had a chance to say it. I could understand the kvetching if I was edit warring to violate WP:NPOV, but that is not what I did. I am not even a party in that arbitration case. It is just some whiner complaining he didn't like what I said. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Malcolm,

I'm the "whiner" you accused of being an anti-semite. Your statements violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and were grossly offensive. Are you sure you want to perpetuate the WP:NPA by calling me a "whiner"? Cheers, pedrito - talk - 06.04.2009 08:19

I said that, in my view, 90-100% of anti-Zionist activists are "garden variety" (ie, low level) antisemites, and that I did not see any reason to think the percentage was better for the wiki-activists. Sorry if you find that offensive, but it is what I think is true. You were not mentioned because I did not even know of your existence. I don't feel that making your acquaintance an improvement in my life either....rather what in Stoic philosophy is called a 'dispreferred indifferent', or an 'inconvenience'. As for you being a "whiner", your edit speaks for itself. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Decorum - your comments on this page, since your last block are in my honest opinion, deserving of a longer block. PhilKnight (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Refer to the quote I put at the top of this page. I have said what I think is correct. If you think you will derive a benefit by blocking me for saying that little, that is up to you. But to claim that any disruption has resulted from this little, on my own talk page, is (in my view) laughable. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continued personal attacks on this page, notably [78] and [79]. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.  Sandstein  13:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for calling Pedrito a "whiner". I was going to describe this block funny, but hilarious is the more accurate word. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, I agree with you the block's not right, and have had a good exchange with Sandstein over it; though I continue to disgaree with him, his heart (and brain) seem to be in the right place. So... what to do? Maybe think about asking for an unblock, and agree not to suggest a specific group of editors (or an individual) is guilty of being an antisemite unless you want to bring proof. Now please know that I know that there is a great deal of sub-rosa code that people use to say antisemitic things here on WP, and also that there have been studies linking anti-Zionism to antisemitism. As you said above, these facts are simply what one must put up with, on WP and in RL. But think of this: what action that you can take right now will have the best possible effect? Calling people names without proof isn't going to do it; indeed, if anything, it undermines your argument. If an editor suggested that 90-100% of the people on the other side of the arb case were likely anti-Arab, I would lose respect for that person. Is that what you want for yourself? Because losing respect means losing your ability to edit effectively here. Is that what you want? There is a place for the justifiable anger you feel -- unfortunately, WP isn't it. Just make good edits, try to avoid personal conflict, and pray the rest sorts itself out. Cheers. IronDuke 21:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi IronDuke, and thanks for you concern.

I will not be asking to be unblocked because I consider WP editing a misery, and getting blocked is a relief from that misery. I have explained a little further, below, my thinking and intent in the edit that caused the block. Actually I am surprised that I have not been banned by now. Not because I think I have done anything wrong, but because I am so out of place here. I think I will be happier when WP and I part ways. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Antisemitism

I want to go through a series of step concerning my original block, remembering that the edit I was blocked for was a comment on this in the arbcom case: "No personal attacks (NPA). 2) Accusing or implying that another editor is bigoted or prejudiced against any ethnic group without clear evidence is a violation of WP:NPA."

The steps in my understanding of the issue is as follows

1. Antisemitism is known to exist.
2. Antisemitism does not exist apart from the living people who exhibit the characteristics of antisemitism.
3. Studies have been made to determine the extent that antisemitic views permeate the populations in various countries [80][81].
4. Low level antisemitism (involving just negative attitudes) is more prevalent than high level (those prone to carry out violent acts).
5. The antisemitism that is known to exist statistically among the part of the population that is anti-Zionist, logically exists among WP users who are anti-Zionist also on a statistical basis.
6. Because statistical information is available, saying that antisemitism is present in a specific group of ten or more anti-Zionists hardly needs diffs for support because the only question is not 'if', but 'how many'.

That is the point that I made in this edit

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.

If understood as I intended this edit, it is a comment that because antisemitism is know to be common among anti-Zionists, it can also logically can be assumed that a specific group of anti-Zionist contains members who are antisemitic. If the statement is directed at a group of users who are anti-Zionist, there is no need to support an accusation that is statistically known to be correct. (Certainly, if the accusation is directed at a particular individual, diffs are needed to support.)

The only real issue is if my 90-100% figure is correct. Personally, I think my numbers (admittedly a guesstament) is close to correct, but if studies show the number is actually lower I can accept that. Even if the number was as low as 20%, there would be no need to change anything fundamental in my edit.

But the main problem, and the reason my block was a mistake, is the misunderstanding the intent of my edit. That intent was directed at refuting this arbcom case item: "2) Accusing or implying that another editor is bigoted or prejudiced against any ethnic group without clear evidence is a violation of WP:NPA". My edit was not intended as a personal attack against any particular user, and the wording and form of the statement was intended to prove why diffs are not necessary to support a general claim of antisemitism being present in a particular group, because it is know to be statistically true. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The only real issue is if my 90-100% figure is correct. Though I basically agree with this, I'd say a couple things. 1) Find the real numbers. I've seen the poll, but can't find it now (I'm almost certain it isn't 90%). Numbers would help. 2) The numbers don't matter. Even if you could prove by iron-clad logic that every anti-Israeli editor on WP was an antisemite, it doesn't make their edits wrong. That's our job: make their edits wrong -- if they are. IronDuke 23:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I was not talking about their edits. I was only interested in refuting the one item in the arbcom case: "2) Accusing or implying that another editor is bigoted or prejudiced against any ethnic group without clear evidence is a violation of WP:NPA."

I consider that item an effort to gag justified criticism by taking the entire question of antisemitism off the table. I understand why they want to do that, and it may be the single most important issue in the entire case. That is why Sandstein's action was so problematic. By blocking me, he prejudged that item in the case. It was wrong for him to do that to do that because it turns the whole case into nothing better than a star chamber trial. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to take up any more space than necessary on your talk page, but what people object to is not the accusation itself, it is the refusal to back it up with evidence. The important part of the sentence is "without clear evidence", not just the "Accusing or implying that another editor is bigoted or prejudiced". If you cannot back up the claim then you have no place making it. Nableezy (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree and disagree with Nableezy. If I say IronDuke is anti-Martian, I at least need some evidence that will back it up. "Clear" is a nebulous word here -- clear to whom? I have seen much antisemitism here that was crystal clear to me, but that would be mocked or downplayed on AN/I, for example, by people who a) don't care and b) know nothing of antisemitism. I wish those of us fighting that had more support. IronDuke 01:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I support you, but Malcolm also wrote 'Why should those who are suspect, be protected by demands for "proof"'. I agree that "clear" is not, well, clear, and way to open to interpretation. But some evidence should be presented, and if it is demonstrated that there were no antisemitic remarks the accusation withdrawn. Nableezy (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure... but I think Malcolm was making a more general point, that AZ and AS often go hand in hand. I don't think that's too controversial (though if someone wants to dispute it, I'd be willing to listen). He then takes the general to the particular, in terms of a specific group of editors, and I don't think that can be done -- or maybe just should not be done -- without evidence. Instead of lots of effort to censure Malcolm, I'd rather see efforts directed at smoking some of these people out -- and that effort must and should be led by those who love Palesinians most, IMO. I've seen little evidence of that happening, and some disturbing evidence to the contrary. IronDuke 03:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

My point is that demanding specific proof (diffs), for a general statement -- supported statistically as an ongoing general condition -- misses the point, and is (perhaps) intended to confuse the issue. If we know that a high percentage of anti-Zionists are antisemitic, demanding diffs is an illogical demand because such points are not supported by diffs but by WP:reliable sources. But, it will be noted, that my block came without any request for support at all. Sandstein threw his entire weight to one side in a dispute that is in arbitration, working with the assumption that the right is already established on one side. Personally I do not care about being blocked. The real problem is that the self-assured, no questions asked, block assumed that one side is right in an open arbitration case, and so is particularly deplorable in the context in which it occurred.

I appreciate Nableezy making some intelligent points here. A big improvement over Pedrito's whining. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)IronDuke wrote, above, that "He then takes the general to the particular, in terms of a specific group of editors, and I don't think that can be done -- or maybe just should not be done -- without evidence."

Arguments from the general to the specific are usually in the category Deductive reasoning. A typical example is

1. All men are mortal (premise)
2. Socrates is a man (premise)
3. Socrates is mortal (conclusion)

In this case my argument is

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)

I think the form of the argument is valid, which means if the premises are true, the conclusion is also true.

Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There are 2 problems with that argument: You make the unsupported premise that "the group of WP editors who support this arbcom case are anti-Zionists". Some of them may be, but others may very well not be (I dont see how being against using terminology of a country outside the borders of that country qualifies one as an anti-Zionist). That isnt the big problem though, the big one is in the actual reasoning. Even if it can be shown without a doubt that x% of anti-Zionists are antisemitic you cannot apply that generality to a specific subset of anti-Zionists that differ in makeup from anti-Zionists as a whole. Likelihood of being an antisemite rises and falls based on a number of things, from level of education, to access to the internet, and so on. If you have a statistical analysis of a group that analysis applied to a subgroup would only be valid if you can demonstrate that the subgroup has the same characteristics of the original group, and even then the connection is iffy. But the biggest problem I have with that is you by following such a reasoning you can come to the conclusion that somebody who has never once uttered anything that could be considered antisemitic is now open to the accusation of being an antisemite. If you think the above is true, fine, it is your life and you can think what you want. But the second you write the accusation and click 'Save page' you should be able to provide evidence for that accusation, not a general supposition of 'premises' followed by a 'conclusion'. When you make a specific accusation, and 90-100% of the WP users who support this case is a specific accusation even without specific usernames, you should be able to provide specific evidence that demonstrates that those people are antisemites. Just saying that the editors are anti-Zionists and so likely antisemites does not cut it. I don't want to get into an argument about this, so I'll back away from the horse now. Nableezy (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I was not expecting you to write "Hey, Malcolm, great job of thinking that out"!

Nevertheless, it is intended to show my my argument in its most simple form. I think the argument is both valid and true. I think it also makes clear that there is nothing in my argument that is WP:NPA, and that the block that was given with no questions asked, was an assumption of a violation by an administrator who thought he already knew the answers. You will understand a certain amount of displeasure on my part over the shitty treatment....even if the further block, over calling Pedrito a whiner, was funny. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is a better formal analogy to your argument:

1. Some dogs are black (premise).
2. All beagles are dogs (premise).
3. Some beagles are black (conclusion).

Do you see the problem? Looie496 (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, to explain, it seems to me that for your example to match the other two syllogisms it would have to rearranged to

A = beagles, B = dogs, C = black dogs

1. All beagles are dogs
2. Some beagles are black dogs
3. All black dogs are dogs

or

1. All A are B
2. Some C is A
3. All C is B

which is then the same form are the first two. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Your syllogism was

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 has the form

1. Some A are B (premise)
2. All C are A (premise)
3. Some C are B (conclusion)

(Here A=anti-Zionists, B=antisemitic editors, C=editors who support the arbcom case)

Instead let A=dogs, B=black dogs, C=beagles. Then the syllogism becomes:

1. Some dogs are black dogs (premise)
2. All beagles are dogs (premise)
3. Some beagles are black dogs (conclusion).

It is clear that with these values, both premises are true but the conclusion is not -- there are no black beagles. Therefore the form of the syllogism must not be valid. It is, in fact, a variant of the fallacy of the undistributed middle. Looie496 (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The logic aside, what you said was 90-100% of the editors who support the case are 'garden variety' antisemites. Not some, at least nearly all and at most all. You said that anybody who supports the case, which I am taking to mean are in favor of using northern/southern West Bank in WP's narrative voice rather than Judea/Samaria (which really is only the starting point of the case, the rest of it is of much greater importance in my view) to mean that editor is almost certainly an antisemite. Do you really think that is a valid argument? Or are you saying that specific experiences with specific editors leads you to believe that those specific editors are antisemites? And if so, why not share those experiences? I think you need to either show that to want to use northern/southern West Bank is itself an antisemitic view, which would strike me as an impossibility, or show actual incidents where specific editors wrote something antisemitic to make the accusation, and in that case you shouldn't be making a blanket proclamation of 90-100%. You think your logic is sound, that is fine. Think however you want to. But if you want to turn that thought into an action and make the accusation, at least provide some actual justification for it. Nableezy (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Looie496, to actually match my syllogism it should be A=dogs, B=beagles, C=black dogs

1. Some dogs are beagles
2. Black dogs are dogs
3. Some black dogs are beagles

Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, but even if you're right, the premises are still true and the consequent false: there is no such thing as a black beagle. Looie496 (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That was your example, not mine. Even if a syllogism is sound, the conclusion can not be true if the premises are false. In fact, I think there is a false premise in yours, and that the form to match mine actually should be

A=dogs, B=beagles, C=black beagles

1. Some dogs are beagles
2. Black beagles are dogs
3. black beagles are beagles

In that case, since black beagles is an empty set, the conclusion would have to be false.

Logic is a subject that interest me considerably, but I do not claim to be expert. I hope to spend more time on the subject now, because dealing with your objections has proved an interesting test. Thanks for raising the challenge. I will get back to this when I am sure I have it sorted out.

In any case, since there are reliable sources that say a significant percentage of anti-Zionists are antisemitic, the syllogism is not needed as a proof. It was intended only as a demonstration; and may, or may not, have succeeded in that respect. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, the word "some" is a qualifier that I used because it does not imply any percentage. There are reliable sources supporting the claim that a percentage of anti-Zionists are antisemitic [82]. My personal view is that the 90-100% number is correct, and is based on personal experience. If reliable studies showed the number is actually lower I would certainly consider accepting that. If that is what you want to know, that is the answer. That edit, with that figure, was in discussion concerning this particular item the arbcom case: "No personal attacks (NPA). 2) Accusing or implying that another editor is bigoted or prejudiced against any ethnic group without clear evidence is a violation of WP:NPA." It was intended to explain why, in my view, diffs are not necessary to support a claim of antisemitism when that claim is directed at a group and not at an individual.

As for the issue if West Bank vs Judea/Samaria, I would prefer a compromise, and I oppose having the arbitration committee decide a editing dispute.

Truth, in the great practical concerns of life, is so much a question of the reconciling and combining of opposites, that very few have minds sufficiently capacious and impartial to make the adjustment with an approach to correctness, and it has to be made by the rough process of a struggle between combatants fighting under hostile banners. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, Ch. II

Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)