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 (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:AE notice

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Malcolm_Schosha_and_templating_the_regulars

Doccia porcelain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gilad Atzmon

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

Uncivil behavior in this article

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anti-Semitism

Hi Malcolm,

I have taken your accusations of "garden variety" anti-Semitism to Arbitration Enforcement (here).

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 02.04.2009 08:15

April 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating WP:NPA in the area of conflict of WP:ARBPIA as described at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement&oldid=281260799#Accusations of anti-Semitism. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.  Sandstein  09:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

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

What I did do was criticize a particular phenomena, and from a viewpoint that is supported by many reliable sources (for example [1]). I find it troubling that no effort was made to understand that there is a difference between a criticism of a characteristic expressed by a particular group, and an attack on an individual person. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Calling 90-100% of the users who initiated the Arbcom case "garden-variety" anti-Semites is absolutely a personal attack and unacceptable. If you continue making unfair and unsubstantiated claims like this, you should expect to be blocked again, for longer and longer periods. Mangojuice^talk 13:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

Concerning antisemitism, from my point of view Nishidani's suggestion ("If there are anti-Semites in the I/P area, I think you should get your evidence together and make a case before arbitration, as it is an extremely serious charge...") is complete nonsense. It seems to me that, in the context of WP, accusations of antisemitism against users are a special case of Wikipedia:Don't be a dick. It is troubling to deal with antisemitic dicks but (speaking for myself) it is something that I learned to live with. The suggestion that the problem could be settled by an arbcom case shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what antisemitism is, and how Jews cope with the problem of antisemitism.

The garden variety antisemite does not wish that he/she could have been in charge of the gas chamber at Auschwitz. They are just people who do not like Jews, who may occasionally make snide remarks, and show a general pervasive attitude of dismissiveness and disrespect. My personal view is that probably 90-100% of the users who initiated this arbcom case, and who support it, are in that category. Fighting back that level of antisemitism, which is so common, would be like fighting back the tide; and although Jews might complain about it, they virtually never try to make any kind of case -- with formal charges -- about it. Its just one of life's crummy annoyances. Getting rid of the average antisemite, would be like trying to get rid of the average dick: unfortunately hopeless.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Malcolm,

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

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

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

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

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continued personal attacks on this page, notably [3] and [4]. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.  Sandstein  13:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Hi IronDuke, and thanks for you concern.

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

Antisemitism

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

The steps in my understanding of the issue is as follows

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

That is the point that I made in this edit

Concerning antisemitism, from my point of view Nishidani's suggestion ("If there are anti-Semites in the I/P area, I think you should get your evidence together and make a case before arbitration, as it is an extremely serious charge...") is complete nonsense. It seems to me that, in the context of WP, accusations of antisemitism against users are a special case of Wikipedia:Don't be a dick. It is troubling to deal with antisemitic dicks but (speaking for myself) it is something that I learned to live with. The suggestion that the problem could be settled by an arbcom case shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what antisemitism is, and how Jews cope with the problem of antisemitism.

The garden variety antisemite does not wish that he/she could have been in charge of the gas chamber at Auschwitz. They are just people who do not like Jews, who may occasionally make snide remarks, and show a general pervasive attitude of dismissiveness and disrespect. My personal view is that probably 90-100% of the users who initiated this arbcom case, and who support it, are in that category. Fighting back that level of antisemitism, which is so common, would be like fighting back the tide; and although Jews might complain about it, they virtually never try to make any kind of case -- with formal charges -- about it. Its just one of life's crummy annoyances. Getting rid of the average antisemite, would be like trying to get rid of the average dick: unfortunately hopeless.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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