::::As far as I know the argument is sound, within the limits of an inductive argument. For my present purpose, a probability of a percentage is all I want to argue. [[User:Malcolm Schosha|Malcolm Schosha]] ([[User talk:Malcolm Schosha#top|talk]]) 19:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
::::As far as I know the argument is sound, within the limits of an inductive argument. For my present purpose, a probability of a percentage is all I want to argue. [[User:Malcolm Schosha|Malcolm Schosha]] ([[User talk:Malcolm Schosha#top|talk]]) 19:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::In any case, it os an argumnet that you probably should not be making on wikipedia. [[User:LuvGoldStar|LuvGoldStar]] ([[User talk:LuvGoldStar|talk]]) 19:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Revision as of 19:16, 2 May 2009
When Vespasian sent for Helvidius Priscus 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." Epictetus, Discourses, 1.2.19-21
If you have come to my user page with a question, or protest, about my editing, you need to know that I have done what I think is right. If it should be that I was in error, I will certainly apologize. But if it should be you want me to change what I think is right to what you think is right, I can not do that. Malcolm Schosha
Concerning antisemitism, from my point of view Nishidani's suggestion ("If there are anti-Semites in the I/P area, I think you should get your evidence together and make a case before arbitration, as it is an extremely serious charge...") is complete nonsense. It seems to me that, in the context of WP, accusations of antisemitism against users are a special case of Wikipedia:Don't be a dick. It is troubling to deal with antisemitic dicks but (speaking for myself) it is something that I learned to live with. The suggestion that the problem could be settled by an arbcom case shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what antisemitism is, and how Jews cope with the problem of antisemitism.
The garden variety antisemite does not wish that he/she could have been in charge of the gas chamber at Auschwitz. They are just people who do not like Jews, who may occasionally make snide remarks, and show a general pervasive attitude of dismissiveness and disrespect. My personal view is that probably 90-100% of the users who initiated this arbcom case, and who support it, are in that category. Fighting back that level of antisemitism, which is so common, would be like fighting back the tide; and although Jews might complain about it, they virtually never try to make any kind of case -- with formal charges -- about it. Its just one of life's crummy annoyances. Getting rid of the average antisemite, would be like trying to get rid of the average dick: unfortunately hopeless.
and the clarification of my previous statement
Oppose. Those on one side of the Israel/Palestine disputed articles are anti-Zionists. It is known that a high percentage of anti-Zionists are antisemitic [1]. It is not WP:NPA to point out a statistical fact about a group. Also, garden variety antisemites are not all that big a deal, even if sometimes their positions are very problematic. It is important to understand that saying something is antisemitic can not be assumed a comparison to Nazis. In fact I know of cases in which low to intermediate level antisemites risked their own lives to save Jews from Nazis, because (apparently) their foundational morality was stronger than their more superficial prejudices. It needs to be remembered that there are levels of antisemitism, and there are important differences in those levels [2]. I see this particular item in the case is just an effort to gag editors, who have complaints, by ignoring the sources that support the claim, and by unfair accusations that such statements amount to calling editors Nazis. That is nonsense. The general statement that there are antisemites among anti-Zionists, as a group, does not need diffs because the statement is supported by WP:RS, and it is not -- in any case -- the extreme accusation it is made out to be.
It seems to me that, in the context of WP, accusations of antisemitism against users are a special case of Wikipedia:Don't be a dick. It is troubling to deal with antisemitic dicks but (speaking for myself) it is something that I learned to live with. The suggestion that the problem could be settled by an arbcom case shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what antisemitism is, and how Jews cope with the problem of antisemitism.
The garden variety antisemite does not wish that he/she could have been in charge of the gas chamber at Auschwitz. They are just people who do not like Jews, who may occasionally make snide remarks, and show a general pervasive attitude of dismissiveness and disrespect. It is my personal view is that probably over 90% of anti-Zionists, (including WP anti-Zionists) are in that category. Fighting back that level of antisemitism, which is so common, would be like fighting back the tide; and although Jews might complain about it, they virtually never try to make any kind of case -- with formal charges -- about it. Its just one of life's crummy annoyances. Getting rid of the average antisemite, would be like trying to get rid of the average dick: unfortunately hopeless.
This is a clarification of my previous statement on the subject. (My reply was delayed because of some whining about my pessimistic view of the situation, which whining -- combined with an administrator misunderstanding the meaning of my edit -- resulted in my getting sent into wiki-exile.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I was glad to have the opportunity to explain my views on this subject. The blocks were of no concern because that I think I did the right thing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-Semitism
Hi Malcolm,
I have taken your accusations of "garden variety" anti-Semitism to Arbitration Enforcement (here).
If your old user name is not in use, there should be no issue; post a request at WP:CHU. If your old username was taken by someone else, it depends on whether or not GFDL-worthy edits were made, but it is much less likely. f you still use the old username across most other wikimedia projects, you may have a case for usurpation. -- Avi (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.
Yeah, I do that for all my articles. At this point I'm more concerned abouta behavioral dispute. I'll probably be blocked/banned. Every Nableezy report has been successful, so I don't see why this wouldn't be either. Oh well, maybe I need a break. Thanks for the suggestion! Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't do anything extra to provoke the situation I think you should be okay for now. Better to be careful about WP:BAIT, because in that sort of situation you are fighting in the conditions others have chosen as being to their advantage. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the baiting never ends. It's all about escalation. It starts with a revert, or a content dispute, or even a user grudge. It's especially frustrating when the same editor constantly reports me. The P and I articles are unique in that it's so dogmatic and ideologically-based, consensus is difficult without immense and discussion. If a large enough group from one side can get in a single article, you can almost guarantee it will become a fork one way or another. This occurs on both sides and I absolutely despise it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its just a distraction from editing. I have said some pretty blunt things here (by Wikipedia standards), but have had my reasons when I have, and the reasons never has anything to do with feeling pissed off. If I should feel momentarily angry, I keep quiet about it because showing an angry reaction just gives satisfaction to the editor doing the baiting. Why get angry and say things that wind up on AN/I when that is just they want, and when you know that your being angry makes them happy? So, instead of getting angry at the idiots and telling them to put their edit where the sun doesn't shine, try to remember that they are doing the best as they understand it, and that sometimes thugs get lonely too. Anyhow, if I were to call them schmucks, they could just take that to administrators and maybe get me blocked....although on some occasions I thought it would be fun to do that, and so I did.
We ought...to imitate Democritus rather than Heraclitus. For the latter whenever he went forth into public, used to weep, the former to laugh; to the one all human doings seemed to be miseries, to the other follies. Seneca, On Tranquillity of Mind, 15.2
I'd like to think my demeanor was relatively relaxed before the incident, relative to the topic and other users. I've butted-heads with Nab so often (where both of us have been blocked) that when he reports me for one-on-one disputes again and again, I can't help but assume BF. So when I respond, I project from that attitude. It is my opinion the original characteristic of wikipedia (collaboration) is being manipulated, and those who don't like it either deal or get blocked.
Currently I'm trying to come to a mutual understanding and I think I'm there, but some users are still pushing for a topic-ban at administrator noticeboard. Feel free to comment. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just did add a comment. I think this editor is just trying to jerk you around, and you may be making things worse by trying to explain away every stupid accusation he/she makes. Don't worry so much, everything will be ok. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not particularly surprised nor discouraged. However, I was curious if Sandstein's involvement could be considered a COI? He voiced concerns about my behavior at the noticeboard and endorsed Nableezy's POV if I remember correctly. This is purely a question and am not accusing/implying/insinuating the administrator acted out of protocol. But considering events in the past involving myself and a significant majority of users who voted "delete", I believe it is a fair question. Sand also blocked me in the past, I think. again, question...I'm not totally familiar with the AFD process and its complicated structure. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Sandstein tries hard to be fair. That is not to say I always agree with him, but in this case I don't think any administrator would have (or could have) counted the AfD vote and gotten a different outcome. A combination of factors, which include biased news coverage of Israel, and latent low level antisemitism cropping up in left of center political groups (they do a pretty good job of hiding the reality of that, even from themselves, by renaming it anti-Zionism) makes such vote counts increasingly weighted toward the Palestinian side in the Israel/Palestine dispute discussions. It is a worsening problem that is not a new problem either, as we know from statements such as this [3]. There was a popular Israeli song in the 1960s, "The whole world is against us", which I think is still often played. It is a perception that is hard to avoid. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Sandstein's judgment was thorough and precise. I have yet to see an AFD with such a long rationale (over 3 paragraphs.) Thank you for the response. Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
April 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Anti-Zionism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. RolandR (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two were together so, according to my understanding, what I have at this point is not counted as three reverts.
NB: if other editors did what I previously requested, and resolved differences on the talk page, there would be no reverts by editors on either side of the issue. Please take this to the talk page, because important changes to disputed articles should be discussed on the talk page before, not after, changes are made. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heyo RolandR,
I'm thinking you should have reciprocated with one for CasualObserver'48 on top of the notice posted for Malcolm Schosha. Both seem to be active on a similar level.
p.s. To be frank, I'm not sure you should be a watch-keeper for this article. Possible expertize aside, I believe there is a bit of a conflict of interests issue (no offense intended).
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).
Two of the reverts were done together, so (since those two count as one) there were only three reverts. Also, It would have been nice if I had been notified that the 3RR had actually been filed against me, so I would have a chance to explain this. Moreover, as can be seen in the article history, I was not edit warring alone, but two other editors had two reverts each. It can also be seen in the edit history, that since the change was made to content long in the article, and because the article has been in the past highly disputed, I had repeatedly requested that they discuss the change on the talk page before, not after, the change was made. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
You were notified at 14:32 to stop reverting, your last revert was at 14:46. It should also be noted that administrators don;t have to wait until your fourth revert before blocking you. If evidence is clear that you intend to perpetuate an Edit War, especially after being warned to stop, you may be blocked at any time to stop that edit war, regardless of whether you have technically violated 3RR or not. Evidence was clear here, since you reverted after being warned to stop. Plus, even if we count clusters of edits, you did revert 4 times: 11:52-11:54...13:02-13:37...14:12...14:46. And continued debating over the technicalities of which of this should or should not count as a revert will be seen as needless wikilawyering and are unlikely to result in a successful unblock request. If you wish to be unblocked, you need to convince administrators that you will not return to the same behavior that got you blocked. -- Jayron32.talk.contribs22:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I always did have trouble counting reverts. The whole thing is pretty funny really. Blocks seem to be based on a strange idea that WP is doing editors a favor by letting them edit, and that blocking them will be considered by editors as something bad. But, personally, I keep wondering why I am wasting my time here when I when there is plenty of other stuff I could be doing.
"I've got you this time, Brer Rabbit," said Brer Fox, jumping up and shaking off the dust. "You've sassed me for the very last time. Now I wonder what I should do with you?"
Brer Rabbit's eyes got very large. "Oh please Brer Fox, whatever you do, please don't throw me into the briar patch."
"Maybe I should roast you over a fire and eat you," mused Brer Fox. "No, that's too much trouble. Maybe I'll hang you instead."
"Roast me! Hang me! Do whatever you please," said Brer Rabbit. "Only please, Brer Fox, please don't throw me into the briar patch."
"If I'm going to hang you, I'll need some string," said Brer Fox. "And I don't have any string handy. But the stream's not far away, so maybe I'll drown you instead."
"Drown me! Roast me! Hang me! Do whatever you please," said Brer Rabbit. "Only please, Brer Fox, please don't throw me into the briar patch."
"The briar patch, eh?" said Brer Fox. "What a wonderful idea! You'll be torn into little pieces!"
Grabbing up the tar-covered rabbit, Brer Fox swung him around and around and then flung him head over heels into the briar patch. Brer Rabbit let out such a scream as he fell that all of Brer Fox's fur stood straight up. Brer Rabbit fell into the briar bushes with a crash and a mighty thump. Then there was silence.
Brer Fox cocked one ear toward the briar patch, listening for whimpers of pain. But he heard nothing. Brer Fox cocked the other ear toward the briar patch, listening for Brer Rabbit's death rattle. He heard nothing.
Then Brer Fox heard someone calling his name. He turned around and looked up the hill. Brer Rabbit was sitting on a log combing the tar out of his fur with a wood chip and looking smug.
"I was bred and born in the briar patch, Brer Fox," he called. "Born and bred in the briar patch."
And Brer Rabbit skipped away as merry as a cricket while Brer Fox ground his teeth in rage and went home. From Brer Rabbit meets a Tar Baby, retold by S. E. Schlosser
The truth is that I feel very comfortable with the edits I made, I have no regrets, and a block is not something that I consider harmful. Be well. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Could be you are right.[reply]
I've always found it concerning how a user involved in the edit-warring can warn an opposing editor. Especially in highly-controversial articles, the idea that warnings are motivated for ideological purposes rather than concern for the article cannot be dismissed. I've been blocked several times as a result an edit warring user reporting me. If I had reported the user first, he/she would have been blocked. Certainly this constitutes a COI? It just isn't right and so I personally consider these actions as a violation of Wikipedia:Gaming the system. Cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't report 3RR any more. It makes me think of kids always snitching, trying to get the other kids in trouble with parents, or teachers. Juvenile mentality. And WP actually encourages all these squealers. Amazing the crap that goes on here. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heyo Malcolm,
RolandR may be a person with a conflict of interests but he's still permitted to note you if he believes that you're resolving disputes by reverting rather than by discussion. A response to such a notice should not be another revert as it is damaging to the collaborative nature that the project hopes to achieve and could induce, as it had in this occasion, some form of sanctioning. Keep weary of accidental promotion of "Drama" and feel free to note me if there's something that gives you great concerns and you believe it should be looked at.
Of course. Editors are free to act as they think best. I tried to make clear my view of certain behaviors, but that was with no expectation that anyone would, or could, change because of what I say. Nevertheless, I fail to see how having editors eternally informing on each other, over infractions of wiki-rules that exist no place but WP, contributes to WP's "collaborative nature", or to collegiality. Instead of collegiality, looking at WP:AN/I, WP:AN3, WP:ECCN, WP:M, WP:AC/N, etc, what is seen is a wiki-land of informers and accusers who are endeavoring to ruin their editorial opponents, and to help their editorial allies.
Yeah, I don't report 3RR any more. It makes me think of kids always snitching, trying to get the other kids in trouble with parents, or teachers. Juvenile mentality. And WP actually encourages all these squealers. Amazing the crap that goes on here.
”
Beautifully said, Malcolm. Thank you very much! P.S. I see above that your own personal Nurse Ratched has been heard from again. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is one of my all-time favorites. Not least because of the scene in which McMurphy asks the group why they don't run away. One by one, they answer that they are there voluntarily. And Nurse Ratched smiles benevolently. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. I was indefed a couple of times though. There are plenty of editors, including administrators, who are gunning for me; and it appears that Gwen Gale has a dream of being the administrator who brings about my final WP demise.....she has blocked me three times (two of them were reversed on review), and played a part in other blocks I have gotten, including this one. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, banning is one of the weirdest and most disgusting aspects of WP. It often amounts to nothing better than a wiki-lynching; as can be seen, for instance, in the community banning of a user here [5]. The sad thing was that even after the shitty treatment he wanted to get re-instated so that he could continue to contribute to WP. Another sad case was the banning of ScienceApologist, an excellent editor who is still trying to contribure to WP even after his banning (Duvora has has an article about that contribution on her blog [6]). -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the rapid expansion of wikipedia forced a more vigilant, and at times almost mob-based process of punishment and sanctions. I like to believe mistakes are rare, but as I become more and more involved first-hand in how the system functions I can say without doubt there are some serious holes. What I really resent is this demand for everyone to be sensitive. In the real world, at least in the world of higher education, if you do something retarded someone will call you on it. But here, if a user comes off as above the required civility, the focus is now on that rather than the article or actions of the user who acted retarded. I also think it's way too easy for editors to punish users they might not like during disputes. I consider that far worse than heated or hostile language within discussion pages. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Logic
I want to add a little to the discussion on logic the thread on Antisemitism [7], and my effort to apply logical argument to the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism.
If it is true that the majority of anti-Zionists are antisemitic, then it follows that the majority of WP anti-Zionists are antisemitic. (premise)
The majority of anti-Zionists are antisemitic [8][9]. (premise)
The majority of WP anti-Zionists are antisemitic. (conclusion)
Your logic is not really sound. It is possibe (though unlikely) that WP anti-Zionists make up a small group of the total set of anti-Zionists, but that they are all non-antisemtic, so while it remains true that the majority of AZ are AS, its possible that it is not true that a majority of WPAZ are AS. From a statistical POV, that is unlikely. LuvGoldStar (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this is a fairly strong inductive argument. Of course, the objections you have would apply equally to the larger set of all anti-Zionists, and I assumed that objection would be made. It is an inductive argument, but there are sources the support the premises concerning the larger set of anti-Zionists....two of which I have included. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that I am speaking of low level (garden variety) antisemitism, which is very common. I have heard of cases of low level antisemites actually put that aside and risking their own lives to save Jews from Nazis. We see the best (or sometimes the worst) in people only in emergency situations. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know the argument is sound, within the limits of an inductive argument. For my present purpose, a probability of a percentage is all I want to argue. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Anti-Zionism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. RolandR (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
![[4]](https://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/rjo0652l.jpg){kind=link}