| Revision as of 22:03, 20 January 2009 view sourceKwork2 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,283 edits →Self-hating Jew← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 07:22, 31 July 2022 view source WOSlinker (talk | contribs)Administrators855,531 editsm Fix lint errors | ||
| (493 intermediate revisions by 67 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{archive box|box-width=10em| | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| * ] | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |||
| * ] | |||
| |counter = 2 | |||
| |algo = old(7d) | |||
| |archive = User talk:Malcolm Schosha/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Archive box| | |||
| *] | |||
| }} | |||
| == 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 ] on this topic prior. thanks. ] (]) | |||
| == Hitbodedut == | |||
| Malcom, I sent you the link to that place in the article. Did you visit it? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :All I saw was three sentences on the Kabbalah talk page. Is this what you mean? | |||
| :<blockquote>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)</blockquote> | |||
| :It is interesting, but it does not site a source. ] (]) 22:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Query == | |||
| Malcolm, hi, I've been reviewing the discussions at ], 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, --]]] 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. | |||
| ::#This article is about a claim of a new type of antisemitism. | |||
| ::#Tariq Ali is not a reliable source on the subject of antisemitism. | |||
| ::#Therefore it ] 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.) ] (]) 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. --]]] 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. ] (]) 23:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Heh, alright, sounds good! Thanks for understanding. :) --]]] 23:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It was played out already. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 13:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Civility == | |||
| Malcolm, would you please consider refactoring this comment, to remove the '']'' portion? Thanks, --]]] 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, --]]] 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. ] (]) 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.''".<br> | |||
| 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. <tt>]•]</tt> 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. ] (]) 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 ] 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.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 20:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{3rr}} ] (]) 19:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Malcom, I'm sorry to do this, but you should be keenly aware of ] by now. I've blocked you 24 hours for breaking it at ]. 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. ] (]) 21:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] {{#if:24 hours|You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours'''|You have been '''temporarily ]''' from editing}} in accordance with ] for {{#if:3rr, edit warring|'''3rr, edit warring'''|]}}. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below, but you should read our ] first. {{#if:] (]) 21:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)|] (]) 21:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block1 --> | |||
| 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, ], 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 21:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=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: ::<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 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. ] (]) 22:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)|decline=below you state to be happy with the block, so you're either trolling or not complaining; either way, a review is unnecessary. --]] 22:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| 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. ] (]) 22:33, 18 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 . 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. ] (]) 22:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Spare me. If you want the unblock reviewed, post an unblock template. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 22:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I don't understand your question. ] (]) 23:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I really do feel cheated getting a one week block without the template to commemorate it. ] (]) 23:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] {{#if:24 hours|You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''1 week'''|You have been '''temporarily ]''' from editing}} in accordance with ] for {{#if:3rr, edit warring, incivility|'''3rr, edit warring, incivility'''|]}}. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below, but you should read our ] first. This message added at user's request by {{user|Looie496}}, who is not an admin and does not claim any authority.</div><!-- Template:uw-block1 hand-edited by user:Looie496 after subst--> | |||
| Thanks, Looie496. You are a gentleman and a scholar. ] (]) 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 {{fact}}. ] (]) 19:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :"...the usual bi-weekly block..."? ] (]) 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 {{fact}}; 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.) ] (]) 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). ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 17:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :What I read about civility violations is this: | |||
| {{Retired|date=September 2015|reason=}} | |||
| :<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> | |||
| :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? ] (]) 18:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| . 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, . 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. ] (]) 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? | |||
| ::<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> | |||
| ::Where did the disruption occure? Show me the justification for your block. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 19:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <blockquote>'''''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</blockquote> | |||
| ===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. ] (]) 15:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Summery=== | |||
| == September 2015 == | |||
| 1. I was given a 24 hour block by Gwen Gale for violating 3RR, even though I had only three reverts. | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px">]To enforce an ] decision and for violation of your unblock conditions, you have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''1 week'''. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. <p>If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the ] (specifically ]) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. --><span style="font-size:97%;">{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE{{!}}arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN{{!}}administrators' noticeboard]]. ''Your reason here OR place the reason below this template.'' ~~~~}}</span>. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the ] on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (]), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. ''']]''' 03:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC) <hr/><p style="line-height: 90%;"><small>'''Reminder to administrators:''' In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a ]: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" ). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."</small></p></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock --> | |||
| 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. | |||
| Salve LFaraone. NB: What you wrote at the time is: ''You are topic banned from all pages related to (a) The Israel-Palestine conflict and relations between Israel and Palestine; and (b) Judaism, both broadly interpreted.'' I went by those words, which you wrote yourself, and I am satisfied that I remained within the parameters of what I agreed to with you. | |||
| 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. | |||
| This one week block is completely unimportant to me, and would be unimportant to me even if you made the duration twenty years. I agreed to what you stipulated, (even though I considered part of your demands, and all of your demeanor during the discussion between us, be insulting) because I had a single goal I wanted to accomplish. That goal has already been accomplished, and that is quite enough for me. | |||
| <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> | |||
| I wish you well. | |||
| 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. | |||
| ] (]) 12:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| '''NB''': At the time LFaraone gave me this one week block, I emailed him asking how he could justify blocking me on grounds that were not in the agreement I made through him with arbcom. He never responded, and neither has any other member of arbcom attempted to justify his action. ] (]) 11:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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). ] (]) 14:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 07:22, 31 July 2022
 Archives |
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
September 2015
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the ] or ]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. LFaraone 03:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" ). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Salve LFaraone. NB: What you wrote at the time is: You are topic banned from all pages related to (a) The Israel-Palestine conflict and relations between Israel and Palestine; and (b) Judaism, both broadly interpreted. I went by those words, which you wrote yourself, and I am satisfied that I remained within the parameters of what I agreed to with you.
This one week block is completely unimportant to me, and would be unimportant to me even if you made the duration twenty years. I agreed to what you stipulated, (even though I considered part of your demands, and all of your demeanor during the discussion between us, be insulting) because I had a single goal I wanted to accomplish. That goal has already been accomplished, and that is quite enough for me.
I wish you well.
Kwork2 (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
NB: At the time LFaraone gave me this one week block, I emailed him asking how he could justify blocking me on grounds that were not in the agreement I made through him with arbcom. He never responded, and neither has any other member of arbcom attempted to justify his action. Kwork2 (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)