User talk:Kwork2

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

Official warning

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

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

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

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

NOTE: Block already lifted by Rootology [2] at 14:09 UTC —Travis^talk 19:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You were quite angry, and obviously so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Block template missing

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

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

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

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

Antisemitism

Please take the trouble to read an edit before reverting. [3] Contrary to your assertion "this issue" has not been discussed at all. The sentence contradicted itself because someone had removed a hyphen in a sentence which was describing two variant forms of the hyphenated version ("anti-Semitism" and "anti-semitism"). Both are listed in the lede. The next sentence discusses the unhyphenated form. None of this has an relevance to the much-discussed question of which form should be preferred in the title or main body of the article. Paul B (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Blocked

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Request reason:

I was blocked without warning, for removing the template of an earlier a 3RR warning from my user talk page. By WP tradition, users are allowed to remove such content from their own talk pages If it had been a big deal I would have restored it, and have actually left most such warnings on my talk page. There was no warning about other 3RR problems. To sum up, I was blocked for something that is not a blockable violation of any WP rule, and that was done without any warning or request that I return the block template to my user page. As far as I know I am not in violation of 3RR at Self-hating Jew. (I might also mention that I had brought up the difficult editing situation at Self-hating Jew on Sandstein's talk page.) [4]) -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This comment comes under the interesting catagory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arrivederci

Since my final wiki-exile is near and I will soon no longer be able to edit my talk page, I want to say, So long it's been good to know you: [5].

Well, it was good to know a few of you....but certainly not all of you. For those few, Goodbye. Ciao [6](or if you prefer [7]). Shalom, [8]. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Clean up

I started the article on Islamic pattern design about two weeks ago, but at this stage it is just a fragment that conveys no real information. Because the article, to be complete, would need lengthy, and quite technical treatment (of symmetry groups, for example [9]), I think it would be best to delete the article. Any editor competent to deal with the subject would be better starting with a completely new article so that he/she could deal with the subject as they choose; and I think it would be a good idea to delete this fragment. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

That was despite that, by accepted WP usage, a user has the right to remove anything he wants from his own talk page, and that I had not violated (as far as I know) 3RR. What had happened at Self-hating Jew, is that Rd232 reverted my efforts to make content conform to the requirements of WP:ASF, which is integral with WP:NPOV. He followed that up by removing a reliable source he disagreed with. Despite that, I was the one who got blocked.

In conclusion, I think I have made it clear that I do not think getting banned from Wikipedia is a bad thing. What I am saying is that if I am banned, or not, it makes no difference because I could not imagine circumstances that would motivate me to waste more of my time trying to improve any WP article. I have other things to do with my time, and will not edit WP again.

I do want to think those few who tried to be helpful in this discussion. I appreciate your kind efforts. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)