Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:36, 21 January 2009

Archives

Archive 2 (first archive)

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Seth Material/FTNboard

hi Malcolm, i posted to the Village Pump thread which you mentioned on my Talk page. thanks for doing that. I have a different theory as regards what you were experiencing in that board and i explained it for you in that thread (that this is a Misplaced Pages problem, not just a FTNboard problem). your discussion with me about that here or on my Talk page is welcomed. I encourage you to consult my Talk Page's archive on this topic prior. thanks. -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk)

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 Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Civility

Malcolm, would you please consider refactoring this comment, to remove the ad hominem portion? 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 , 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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. — ] (] · ]) 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)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 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)

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, Misplaced Pages 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)

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

Request reason:

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.

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)

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

Request reason:

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.

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 , with the version I tried to defend, and decide for themselves which is more NPOV (not to mention comprehensible).

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2= 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. :<blockquote>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.</blockquote> :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, ], 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 , with the version I tried to defend, and decide for themselves which is more NPOV (not to mention comprehensible). |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1= 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. :<blockquote>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.</blockquote> :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, ], 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 , with the version I tried to defend, and decide for themselves which is more NPOV (not to mention comprehensible). |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1= 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. :<blockquote>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.</blockquote> :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, ], 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 , with the version I tried to defend, and decide for themselves which is more NPOV (not to mention comprehensible). |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

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 . 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)

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 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.

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 , 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)

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.

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 , 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)

• Requests for unblock