User talk:PalestineRemembered/Archive2

Archive1

Archive 2 created - 20070803

Please do not use my user page as a talk page

Dear PalestineRemembered,

I would appreciate it if you would write any comments you'd like to direct to me on my talk page. I consider my user page to be my own domain and do not accept other editors to edit my user page. If you have any specific complaints about the page, feel free to post them on my talk page and I may consider editing my own user page for something I may have overlooked. Any edits to my user page made by other editors will be reverted immediately without consideration. --GHcool 17:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I would never normally edit someone else's UserPage and didn't realise that was what I had done until it was too late.

However, your UserPage includes words of mine, and they're quoted out of context in a way that is misleading. Readers may see the reasonable correction I'm making at [1] and puzzle why you've labelled it vandalism. Readers might even wonder whether it was WP:AGF to put my words there in the first place (I discovered there are more of the same on that page, it was only as I penned a second correction that I realised it was your UserPage I would be adding to). PalestineRemembered 17:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sikh View on Circumcision

Dear PalestineRemembered,

Sir permit me to offer my first time greetings, Sentiments & regards in your honour in a typical Sikh manner

Sir,

• Wahy Guru ji Ka Khalsa Wahy Guru Ji ke Fateh

(Punjabi Language) meaning......GOD (read TRUTH) encompases Humanity & let the victory be to GOD(read TRUTH)!!!

• jo deesyy gursikhda niv niv lagga pau jeeo!!!

('Gurbani Language', which is GOD and Guru(Master / Spritual Teacher) & start point of culture and History of Sikhism in One) meaning......Sir having come accross you, an IDOL of TRUTH (read GOD), I humbly bow before you contless times for having graced me with this wonderfull association.

I am User:Mutia on Sikhiwiki.org . Hearty thanks for visiting Sikhiwiki on the issue. Sikhs believe in nothing but TRUTH(read GOD).

Hope this meets your requirement. Feel free to call me for whatever TRUTH(GOD) nmay expect me to be worth of. It will be a service to Humanity (read GOD) a Sikh is born for. User:Mutia on Sikhiwiki 12 May 07

Thankyou.

May I go to the English Wikipedia and state that "Guru Granth Sahib in his book XXXXXXXXX, ISBN XXXXXXXXX, page 477-18, states that "If God wished me to be a Muslim, it would be cut off by itself"? Is this book available on Amazon, or can it be found in certain Sikh libraries? PalestineRemembered 16:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Community sanction noticeboard

Please see Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard#PalestineRemembered again. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

Based on the evidence of your use of fraudulent citations and other misbehavior, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I can tell you exactly where that quote about "Killers of Lord Moyne (1944) were reburied on Mt. Herzl in 1975". It's in a footnote at the bottom of p59 of Sami Hadawi's "Bitter Harvest". I have a copy of this book in hard-back, I can photograph the page and send it to you.

"According to the Evening Star of Auckland, New Zealand of July 2, 1975, "the bodies of Eliahu Hakim and Eliahu Beit-Zouri, executed for the 1944 slaying of Lord Moyne," were exchanged for "20 Arab prisoners."The bodies on being taken over, "lay in Jerusalem's Hall of Heroism and were given a military burial on Mt.Herzl." "In London, the British Government expressed its regret that Israel saw fit to honor a terrorist act in its public ceremonies. Two British members of Parliament called the ceremony the honoring of assassins' and said it conflicted with Israeli complaints of Palestinian terrorism." Labor MP David Watkins said "it was sad that 'cold-blooded murderers' should be represented as heroes." MP John Stokes said: "It makes the British people sick.""

It's unclear why this somewhat abtruse reference (a New Zealand paper) should be used, I assume there was only one outside reporter there, and he happened to be from the Auckland Evening Star. But I see no reason to dispute the evidence produced - especially when we see that the account was cited in an exchange on the floor of the House of Commons.

I request that I be unblocked. I don't claim to be an angel, but I do believe I am careful and industrious.

PalestineRemembered 19:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've provisionally reversed this, as someone has objected. However, I will note that I disagree strongly with the way you've behaved now and in the past. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

PS - Sami Hadawi's book was first published in 1963 and my edition is 1989. So the information was in circulation long before any dubious sources started abusing it. The hero's welcome that Lord Moyne's killers received is hardly some great secret. One day I might post something controversial or even badly sourced. Perhaps I should take out an indemnity. Or I could get on with writing the encyclopaedia, confident that my fellow editors will pick up any small (or big) mistakes I make in a cooperative and collegiate fashion. PalestineRemembered 21:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi PalestineRemembered, I was very happy to take your part in the latest dispute, because you were clearly wronged, but I also feel the need to say a few things here. You're right that there are POV-problems with most Israel-Palestine related pages, and that the problems tend to slant in the same direction, but I think you need to find a more effective way of countering it. I think Seraphimblade was quite right to say it's over the line to invoke the nationality of editors you find yourself at odds with. And it's no good licking your wounds and talking about how the game is rigged towards the "Zionist" view. It just sets off the wrong associations in people's minds (spurious cabals and so on), and it does little to bring honest, fair-minded Wikipedians to your side. There are a lot of them out there. Wikipedia may feel like a rigged game sometimes, but it really isn't. If you feel like you're outnumbered 5 to 1 on many issues, then encourage five intelligent, like-minded friends of yours to become Wikipedians.

Though your diction isn't my business, I'm going to take the liberty of saying I sure wish you'd stop using the word "Zionist." There are many problems with this word:

1. Its meaning is unstable. It can designate anything from Jewish attachment (spiritual, personal, historical, whatever) to the Holy Land, to aggressive apologetics for repressive state policies, to an ideology of continued territorial expansion into "Eretz Israel." There are "Zionists" in the first sense who deplore these aggressive apologetics and want nothing whatsoever to do with expansionism; throwing the word "Zionist" around as an epithet just pointlessly alienates them.
2. It's often used as a code word for Jew by antisemites. I am not saying and don't think that this is how you use it, of course.
3. Like it or not, its use as a pejorative is frowned upon, and you're unlikely to gain the support of other editors when that word keeps flying off your tongue.

Sorry for the lecture PR; you hardly seem to deserve it at the moment, while you're still cleaning off recently slung mud. I do hope you take it as a gesture of good will, because that's how it's intended. All best, --G-Dett 00:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Your point is perfectly proper, and I'd already come to similar conclusions. I'd not refered to Zionists for quite some time (all of 2007? not sure), after another person suggested it was a bad idea. PalestineRemembered 11:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

There's broad community for permanently banning you based on discussion and evidence at WP:AN/I and WP:CN. Based on that I've issued an indefinite block of your account. FeloniousMonk 23:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable.--G-Dett 00:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

I have requested an ArbCom case on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#PalestineRemembered, which you are involved. Please make your statement or comments there. Thank you! Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 00:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to respond to the Request for arbitration, please place your comments here and an Arbitration Committee Clerk will copy them to the requests for arbitration page. Newyorkbrad 00:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered and ArbCom

I am unable to make any statement about my case on the ArbCom page at [2]

I believe I have "learnt lessons" from previous comments and sanctions.

1. - I have stopped using the word "Zionist"
2. - I am as careful as I can be about my information.
3. - I am as careful as I can be about OR.
4. - I have sometimes been guilty of incivility, but I believe I have mended my ways.
5. - I have been misunderstood over comments concerning "ethnic labelling". I find all such references unnecessary and unhelpful, and have (occasionally) sought to persuade other users not to categorise.
6. - I have created at least one well-established and stable page Naeim Giladi. Only circumstances have prevented others.
7. - I have never edit-warred (good edits lost in the interests of AGF?)
8. - Despite this, I have good edits to my credit.

I have repeatedly explained, apologised and sought guidance on my UserName. I am open to suggestions concerning it.

I have been challenged to say where I first saw the "Lord Moyne's killers buried on Mt Herzl" information - I'm not sure, but it was likely in a usenet group/Forum. It would *not* have been in a group patronised by Holocaust Deniers, whom I've always despised (cites if necessary, under my real name too). PalestineRemembered 08:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The above statement has been posted by me on the RFArb page. If you have any addendum or clarification to this, feel free to post further messages here and I, or another clerk will do the needful. Arbitration Committee Clerk --Srikeit 09:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered and ArbCom, #2

PS - I would also like to be credited with never having tried to evade my bans, nor having appealed against them. I would like to think of myself as a well-behaved editor who accepts the words and decisions of those wiser and more experienced than me. After early and potentially uncivil attempts to discover policy from administrators, I have avoided any clash with them. My sole concern has been to insert good information into the encyclopaedia. This is what I was doing on three separate, different points into this one article [3] when this complaint was levelled against me. I think everyone now accepts that the one point on which I was challenged is 100% true and completely uncontroversial (both other points I was inserting into this article likely the same). Subject to correction and the feelings of my fellow editors, I believe my participation and editing should be welcome at Wikipedia. PalestineRemembered 10:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Due to the ArbCom case and the need to defend yourself, I am going to unblock you. The only thing is this: the only pages that you should try and edit on now are on this page and at the ArbCom page where your case is being discussed. Deviate from this could find you block again either by mself or other admins. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources on Moyne assassins' reburial

Statement placed here for want of a suitable place.

Since I had previously communicated with PalestineRemembered regarding material in Hadawi's "Bitter Harvest", I know for sure that he had the book since before he added the information about Moyne's assassins to Zionist political violence. So I don't see any reason to not believe his story that he used Hadawi as his actual source. Nevertheless, since the charge that he really got it from a Holocaust denial site (IHR) is still floating around, I thought I'd demonstrate the falsity of that charge. Here verbatim are the three sources in question.

1. Hadawi (1989 edition, footnote on p59):

   According to the Evening Star of Auckland, New Zealand of July 2, 1975, "the bodies of Eliahu Hakim and Eliahu Beit-Zouri, executed for the 1944 slaying of Lord Moyne," were exchanged for "20 Arab prisoners." The bodies on being taken over, "lay in Jerusalem's Hall of Heroism and were then given a military burial on Mt. Herzl.

2. IHR accessed May 14:

   Years later, on July 2, 1975, The Evening Star of Auckland revealed that the bodies of the two executed assassins had been exchanged for twenty Arab prisoners for burial at the "Heroes' Monument" in Jerusalem.

3. PalestineRemembered's first revelant edit [4]

   But in 1975, Israel exchanged the bodies of the terrorist assassins Eliahu Hakim and Eliahu Beit-Zouri for 20 Arab prisoners. The bodies "lay in Jerusalem's Hall of Heroism and were given a military burial on Mt Herzl"<ref> Evening Star of Auckland, New Zealand of July 2, 1975 </ref>.

From this it is very clear that PalestineRemembered's version is very similar to Hadawi's, even including a long near-verbatim section, and not very much like IHR's version. Consequently we can confidently conclude that PalestineRemembered did not copy the IHR version.

Although it is not the point of this posting, I'll note that every single fact mentioned in Hadawi's version is absolutely true and easy to find impeccable sources for. See Lord Moyne after a few hours for details. --Zero^talk 10:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Your powers of WP:OR are impressive, but unconvincing. PR's tract has one segment similar to Hadawi, and one shorter segment (assassins) that appears only in IHR. We can't 'confidently conclude' anything from these similarities. What we can conclude, based on PR's own admission, is that PR has already lied, twice: first when citing the Auckland Star instead of the source actually used, and then when caught lying, first claimed to have read it on Hadawi, and now on some usenet group. Isarig 14:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking at that it seems incontrovertible that PR sourced his reference from somewhere other than IHR since the IHR version does not contain the direct quotation, its inclusion in the Hadawi version conversely supports the contention that it was sourced there. --Coroebus 14:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

sorry to say, but you don't seem to understand the meaning of "incontrovertible". It' possible that he copied parts from the IHR, parts from elsewhere. We have no idea of knowing. What we do know, is that he's lied at least twice about where he got it. Isarig 14:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If he's copied parts from elsewhere (and obviously he has since the long quote isn't from IHR) then he hasn't plagiarised a Holocaust denial site ("copied his views and references from the Holocaust denial group the Institute for Historical Review...The reason he doesn't give the article title, author, or page number is because the source, Roger Garaudy doesn't.") In fact, we don't really have any evidence for this accusation at all, and it would probably be better if it was withdrawn. --Coroebus 14:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Notice the word "If" at the beginning of your sentence. Starting an argument with an unproven premise ("If...."), puts the lie to the claim of "incontrovertible"> we don't know where the quote came from, but we know it did not come from where PR claimed it did. Isarig 15:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The 'if' is now proven (by the inclusion of material from somewhere other than IHR), my use of 'if' here denotes a logical construct (if...then...). Whether he sourced from where he claims or not, it is clear that he has not plagiarised IHR - which was the substance of the complaint against him, that is incontrovertible, end of story. --Coroebus 15:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You found one word in common with IHR, you are so clever. It is even a word "assassins" that nobody could ever think of by themselves in writing about two assassins! Amazing. Actually he didn't lie at all as far as I know, and you just violated the rule about personal attacks. In fact, if citing a source's source rather than the direct source is a "lie", and you are surely not a liar, we can logically conclude that you have personally consulted the Beirut "Telegraph", September 6, 1948 [5], and can tell us what the few sentences each side of those you "quoted" actually say so we can check the context. Right? You didn't understand his comment about where he first heard of it, either. --Zero^talk 14:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. PR's recollection that he may have first come across the citation in a usenet group discussion does not in the very least compromise his citation to Hadawi. What a ridiculous idea. You hear about a book somewhere, see it cited, you go and read it, you cite the book. Pretty standard behavior in literate people, Isarig, and about 80% of one's waking life if you're a scholar.

The failure on the part of PR's accusers to come out and admit that their accusation was baseless, and the desperate conspiracy-minded manufacturing and magnification of doubt (e.g. "assassins" above) is very troubling. What looked yesterday like a careless allegation followed by a rush to judgment is now beginning to look like a calculated and relentless smear campaign.--G-Dett 15:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Weren't there a couple of weeks between PR making the first edit and Jay challenging him on it? PR may have forgotten where he cited the story from in that time. I know this happens to me at times. I'm sure I've read something in one particular source, and it turns out I read it at another. Gatoclass 20:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

He may have, but it doesn't really matter. He obviously located the materials in the 1989 edition of Bitter Harvest, as both the phrasing of his edit and the page citation demonstrate. That was the appropriate citation, and he produced it very quickly after his initial mistake of citing to the newspaper. Even if we join the editors and admins who have simply jettisoned WP:AGF in this case, it remains exceedingly unlikely that he first heard of the material on IHR, because neither IHR nor any of the spin-off usenet threads I can find cite or mention Bitter Harvest. Where he "first heard" of the Lord Moyne material, in any case, was an irrelevant and inappropriate question to begin with.--G-Dett 14:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Partial response to your statement

You have posed several questions in your statement for the arbitration case against you. I'll not be answering all of them as some are for the persons involved in the case to respond and some are for the arbitration committee. However, as an arbitration committee clerk, I will try to clarify some of the doubts you have expressed about the arbitration process.

• The case has not yet officially commenced but since a majority of the arbitrators have indicated their affirmation to accept the case, I will myself formally open the case in a few hours from now, in the absence of any unforseen objections from the arbitrators.
• The "evidence-collecting/presenting stage of deliberations" has definitely not passed. In fact, it has not yet formally begun. When the case is officially accepted, it is placed in the evidence phase where the involved parties are expected to provide evidence of the disputed behaviour at the case's /Evidence page. You are expected (& most definitely permitted) to defend yourself by providing tangible evidence to refute the claims against you, however please try to make it concise and definite (preferably in the form of diffs)
• You are expected to be civil, calm and cooperative for the duration of the case. Any breach of wiki-policies or incivility by you will be taken into consideration by the committee while making their decision.

If you have any further questions or require any clarifications regarding the arbitration process, please feel free to contact me or any other clerk. --Srikeit 13:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou. I don't wish to exhaust anyone's patience, but I have felt very much like a mushroom these 3 days, kept in the dark and fed on cast-offs.

There is something else very alarming in this case - the fear of retaliation expressed by some of the people in the "Community Noticeboard" who had been saying I should not be blocked. Then there is the extremely careful wording of all those "supporting" me, contrasting so vividly with the outspoken (even reckless) way many of my detractors have expressed their views. It's almost as if this is some form of "Star Chamber" inquisition and everyone knows the result to be pre-ordained. Can I be confident that anything I say will be listened to, or that "witnesses for my defense" will not be personally harrassed after my conviction?

Further to this subject, proceedings of this kind usually permit "the accused" to have someone to advise them on procedure and even speak on their behalf (one of the things said about me is that I sometimes compose my sentences badly). One person contacted me suggesting I might like to join the "Adopt-a-User" scheme, and I noticed he is a member of just such a scheme. After saying I'd be delighted to be adopted by him, I realised he'd already expressed opinions that were unfavourable to my case. So here we are, 3 days down the line, and I've not even got a lawyer!

Would the ArbCom feel better if they knew my real name and could verify that I'm relatively respectable and certainly not some low-life member of an anti-semitic hate-fest? I have little doubt that my detractors identified me a long time ago, it would be a shame if they were left free to spring another nasty slur which corrupted this process. PalestineRemembered 15:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello PR. First, I want to suggest that you be wary of making WP:CABALish statements, since they often don't go over well. Personally, I have a lot of faith in the ArbCom process, and expect that any future ruling will be fair. The only problem is that the process can be lengthy from what I've seen, so you'll have to excercise patience. About getting advice, you may be able to consult with Association of Members' Advocates, though I understand that process has been controversial in the past. I am sure that any of the experienced admins that offerred statements could also help you out. Regards, nadav 15:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Also, make sure to carefully read Wikipedia:Arbitration policy and all the related pages. In addition, Durova has written a very useful practical guide to arbitration, which you can read at User:Durova/Durova's arbitration tips nadav 15:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for the advice, the first I've had! Durova's article reminds me that the Arbitration Committee is probably examining 10 different cases in various stages of progress. PalestineRemembered 16:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say wishing you the best. I didn't read your concerns as CABAL-ish, but there are many who will, and Nadav's advice on the whole seems excellent. I have confidence in Wikipedia's procedures, and am confident that those who review the evolution of your edits will see the severity with which you've been treated, as well as the exemplary good faith with which you've responded to it. Wikipedia can't afford to lose your intelligence and energy.--G-Dett 17:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi PalestineRemembered,

"The original accusation could get me thrown in prison or fined EUR10,000s…"

I wouldn't worry about that: nowhere is there any law against citing something cited in the website of a Holocaust denier without checking the source or crediting said denier. Anyhow, it's been shown that you probably didn't do this. I'm sure you can understand why Jayjg was upset when it looked like you had - I don't even know you, and I was, too. Sorry to have jumped the gun.

So, you're not banned. The question is, do you want to go through a lengthy and nerve-wracking arbitration that could conceivably lead to your being banned or other nasty findings and sanctions? Also, is it possible that some who would like to see this, not because it will help you in any way, but because it will subject others to inconvenience and distress along with you? It's at least worth considering. Since you didn't actually request arbitration on your own, I'm not clear what you want, but if you just want to go on editing with improved behavior, as you said in your statement, it would make a lot of sense to make this clear at WP:RfArb. My thoughts, at least. Someone will probably then open an RfC in which everyone can make their complaints to one another without being threatened by blocks or bans.Proabivouac 02:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, if I may offer some advice on your evidence. Arbitrators will not take much notice of vague generalizations such as those you have made. I recognize the difficulty in this particular case since as one arbitrator himself said on the RfA page, now that your community ban has already been overturned, it's no longer even clear what this arbitration case is about.

So if I were you, before trying to post a defence, I would wait to see what actual charges are made against you by other editors, then just stick to replying to those specific charges. Once you have done that, you can always add some more general statements of your own if you feel so inclined, but before you know what people are going to say about you, I don't think there's much point in you trying to defend yourself. Regards, Gatoclass 14:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I second Gatoclass's advice. On the other hand, do I understand Proabivouac's post to be suggesting that whether the Arbcom case continues is up to you? If that's so, you might want to look into that. Arbcom cases tend to be draining for all involved.--G-Dett 18:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend you try going through the process, though. You might find ArbCom's findings of fact useful if, a few month's down the road, someone "jumps the gun" again and an ensuing debate dredges up the same "vague allegations" against you once more. Who knows? People might even say "well, he could have gone thru an arbcom last time, but wasn't willing to" etc. Overall, this is an opportunity to clear your name for whatever future situations may bring. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I see now. That makes sense.--G-Dett 20:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Your questions

Hello, I just received your email. It seems that the questions you asked are all answered on this talk page. Regards. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 05:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom case - advocacy gratefully accepted

Mark Chovain has very kindly come forward and offered to advocate for me in the ArbCom case - see [6]

He suggests that, in the interest of keeping the Arbcom case as simple and coherent as possible, if you wish to contribute ideas or evidence, please do so on either his talk page User:Chovain or on my page here. We'll do our best to incorporate your ideas into the ArbCom hearing. PalestineRemembered 13:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC) (sorry, posted 18th, left unsigned).

Hi there. As I said to Mark on his page, I posted before noticing the request to discuss at talk first. Having asked for his input on what to do now, I feel it would be best to wait until we have a chance to hear from him before making any other moves. I do appreciate your advice/input on the matter, I just don't want to confuse the process any further than I already might have or generate too many cross-postings or reverts in the history of the page itself than is necessary. Is that cool? Tiamut 15:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Palestine

WikiProject Palestine is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of members at WikiProject Palestine. Ahlan wa Sahlan! (Welcome!)

You have been re-blocked

You have been re-blocked due to your breach of the terms of your conditional unblock, which were clearly stated to you by Zscout370, with these exact words: The only pages that you should try and edit on now are on this page and at the ArbCom page where your case is being discussed. Here is the evidence of these facts: [7] [8] [9]. I am notifying of this issue at AN/I. If you wish believe this block to be out of order, please post {{unblock}} at this talk page. Regards, Phaedriel - 03:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Following the discussion regarding your re-block, and per your advocate's request, I've reviewed my decision and therefore unblocked you. From now on, I strongly suggest you to refrain from posting at any pages other than those specified above, now including your advocate's talk page. If you believe it's necessary for your defense to voice yourself at any other places, please do so through your advocate to avoid further troubles. Regards, Phaedriel - 05:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear PalestineRemembered. I feel terrible about what is happening to you (and partially responsible for this latest round, having posted my comments directly to the arbcomm discussion, and then after realizing I should have gone through Mark Chovain and leaving a message on his page to that effect, prompting you to leave me a message on my talk, which I see was used as evidence of you violating your block.) The way you have been treated is absolutely deplorable. I only hope that a thorough investigation at arbcomm not only clears you of these attacks on your character, but also sets some precedents that put an end to the arbitrary blocking of editors just trying to get a handle on what is and is not okay here. Again, my deep apologies. (PS. Just a reminder that if you want to respond to these comments, you can respond here. Scratch that. I don't know if you are allowed to use your talk page, so don't follow my advice until I check and get back to you, unless you know otherwise.) Tiamut 11:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Chovain (talk · contribs), you can post on your own talk. I have your talk on watch now, so feel free to leave messages if you need to get something across. Tiamut 13:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I should have made that clear, when I meant by "this page," it is your user talk page. Anyways, I am not sure if the unblock has been lifted or not, but I really want you to be careful. Going to ArbCom is bad enough, but being blocked once or twice during your case is not very good. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered requests lifting of the block

Although I am technically not blocked from editing, I have been admonished in strong terms not to participate anywhere at Wikipedia other than on this page. To make any contribution anywhere else (even directly related to the case that bears my name) would apparently be viewed as disruptive, would lead immediately to an actual block, and might well lead to further admonishment and sanction by the Arbitration Committee, over and above anything else they decide. The sanction of blocking me again has actually been carried out once already (without warning)[10], so I would be foolish indeed not to take the warnings seriously.

Under the terms of this "virtual block" it would appear that I am not to edit at the Evidence page [11] or the Workshop page [12] or the page of my advocate [13] or such places as [14] and [15] where aspects of this case are being discussed. My last contribution was on the 19th May[16] - I cannot even modify clumsy phrasing I've used. 4 days and an entire weekend have passed since then and much has happened.

Nor am I permitted to post at the TalkPages of many people with whom I might wish discussion (such as the editor above[17], with whom I'm still not in touch 4 days later). Another uninvolved editor here[18] is suggesting that certain evidence be collected together in one place ...... I'm the obvious person to be doing this work - but this person (who has also not activated his email) has apparently forgotten I'm still around. How many other editors think there are important issues at stake but that I'm on gardening leave?

And there is another factor, and this may be more important than any argument I make on my own behalf. The restrictions on me place a heavy and completely unnecessary burden on my advocate. He has repeatedly had to respond on my behalf without instructions (eg the recent block imposed while I was asleep. He was asleep for many hours after I woke and at work thereafter - he unilaterally took the decision to speak for me and I'm very grateful). It is indeed fortunate that, as an inexperienced editor, a total stranger (not of my frame of my mind in many ways) has come forwards and that I have someone so dependable at my side. I do not believe that forcing him to operate in this fashion is fair to him, nor good for the process. He put himself forwards to advise me about this case, and perhaps act as an in-between. He's not my secretary or hired helper, and if I were to use him like that, I'm quite sure he would resign on the spot.

I believe these restrictions on my posting are severely hampering to any "defense" I might wish to make. I request that the restriction be lifted. Despite a number of requests for explanation by others, and requests for unblocking by others, I have now been under strict limitations for 8 days.

Please note - although I'm only asking that my "block" be lifted in order that I may present a "defence", it has been pointed out by others that there is no obvious reason I'm not editing the encyclopaedia normally. No shred of evidence has been produced I've ever disrupted it, nor misbehaved in any fashion whatsoever since my last block expired. I am beginning to wonder whether this entire business is nothing more than a content dispute that could be worked through by the normal process.

While I'm here, I may as well state that other involved parties in the ArbCom perhaps now wish the case to be abandoned and my punishment be "time served". I still have confidence that the issues under discussion are substantive, they need careful examination, and will be arbitrated on properly after due deliberation. PalestineRemembered 16:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you are going to be under an immense amount of scrutiny if you are unblocked. You would do best to be extremely careful as any contentious behavior could sway the ArbCom case against you. My advice would be to edit under a self imposed probation where you avoid all contentious articles until the ArbCom is completed thus preventing you from being purposely provoked into even a mild conflict which could then be used against you. For example, right now many of the Palestinian university and college articles need a lot of work and it is pretty uncontroversial to work on them. --Abnn 18:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Your words are very wise. Because the really serious allegations are still hanging over my head. I would be pleased to work on the "un-contentious" areas you've suggested, but then my statement "Killers of Lord Moyne given a military burial on Mt Herzl"" at Zionist political violence was straightforward, well accepted and effectively "un-contentious" too.

On the subject of "serious allegations brought up to slur people", I came across something alarming indeed - over at [19] I found "the ADL called Finkelstein a "Holocaust Denier", and you have made the novel claim that it was without citing any evidence, obviously intended as a counter-argument to their claim. How do you know they haven't given evidence somewhere else?".

So it would appear that, even if a charge of "Holocaust Denial" is unfounded (and known to be unfounded, as in my case and Finkelstein's), it can be used for ever to slur the person it was aimed at. If such charges can be inserted into articles (breach of Biographies of Living People surely?) then what chance does a mere editor of Wikipedia have when accused in this fashion?

I have Wikipedia experience of something fairly similar too, when I created an article on Naeim Giladi. Fortunately, on that occasion, other editors fought a grim rear-guard battle to stop Giladi being linked to white-supremacists and the anti-semitic[20], and they eventually succeeded. I'm sure the same good people would fight a grim rear-guard battle on my behalf against the allegations of Holocaust Denial too, but I imagine some (particularily my advocate) are exhausted already. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see little chance of clearing my name in this regard. The "apology" I've been offered doesn't address the allegation made atall.

Lastly, of course, I was simply very, very lucky this time. This particular reference (killers of Lord Moyne) is contained in a book that I own, and I knew which book it was. I'd not lent it to anyone, and it was not a book I'd borrowed and returned, which it could easily have been. I could have wasted hours looking for the information just in my own library, and still not found it. Instead of which, I put my finger on the exact passage within seconds and entered it into the record in 28 minutes. The book I have is a 1989 edition, so the passages are definitely not based on an essay of 1995. Despite this, there were still people tonight insinuating I'd got my information from the Holocaust Deniers and/or I must have rushed round to find a Reliable Source when the accusation was levelled at me.

I'm not sure I'd ask people like my advocate to go through any more of this for me, he's currently being aggressively grilled on what he was doing for me - he must be thoroughly sick of the whole business. I'll probably have to fight the ArbCom on my own. No, thanks for asking, but I don't feel as if I can get back to editing, I have an awful lot of work to do now, and there's no way of escaping it. When I eventually get back to editing, I'm in no doubt what awaits the first change I make. PalestineRemembered 22:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI, It is being discussed here WP:ANI#Reason for PalestineRemembered block -- Avi 18:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Your editing situation

PR, I see no reason you shouldn't continue to edit as normal now. Jay has apologized for not asking you where you got the material from before he posted to AN/I. [21] I have to say that you contributed to the confusion by (a) pretending to use the newspaper as your source even though you hadn't seen it, and (b) adding the words "terrorist assassins" to your edit, terms that the book you say was your source doesn't use.

In future, you should cite exactly what your source cites; so if you take material from a book that cites a newspaper, you write as your citation: byline, headline, newspaper title, date, cited in author, name of book, publisher, date, page number. And you should stick closely to what the source that you're reading says, with no additional POV flourishes.

In general, the personal attacks needs to stop, and you can't keep on adding your own opinion to articles. If you stick closely to our content policies — WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV — you won't go far wrong. If you continue to edit as before, it's honestly only a matter of time before you face another block, and they're likely to get longer and longer.

I hope you'll consider accepting Jay's apology and trying to work more cooperatively with him and the other editors on the articles you edit. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

unblock

Consider yourself fully unblocked, you are free to edit as you desire and have no restrictions against your editing. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered tests the water, makes one edit

Now that my "virtual block" has been lifted, I thought I would make an edit.[22] As I've said on the discussion to this article:

1. I'd be confident this clip has also been used by the Holocaust Deniers, but this does not mean that I "get my views and references" from those people.
2. There could be an objection of "undue weight". I believe this material can only be properly understood if the reader sees at least a portion of each of the 4 sections. I have included it "all", but the total is still only 358 words (including elipses and references and formatting). Some of this could be removed without danger to the meaning, but I trust other editors will enter into discussion before editing.
3. I wanted to add "According to the Jewish Virtual Library, nearly half the settlers did not stay in Palestine."[23] but I am mindful of proceeding cautiously.
4. I had an objection that "the source doesn't refer directly to them being First Aliyah immigrants". I trust other editors will consider this minor (if not trivial). The Biluim themselves spoke of "to make Aliyah", but not "First Aliyah", just as nobody spoke of Queen Elizabeth the First in 1600. I'm sure we all agree that the inclusion of historical material is essential for NPOV. I'm sure other editors will be pleased to work in a cooperative fashion and add material (and statements from historians) that is/are just as significant about the declared intention of individuals or groups amongst these first immigrants.
5. I am happy to provide a scan of the pages of the book, along with a picture of myself holding the book (as I did over Zionist political violence), but I'm not aware of a policy or guideline suggesting this is necessary in order to edit.
6. I have avoided using the Z-word except in direct quotes, though in some places it would have been preferable to use it.

I trust everyone will accept I'm editing constructively. PalestineRemembered 09:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You're going to get yourself into the same trouble as before if you don't learn to cite properly. Here you cite Shapira, 1992, 86-87, and Be'eri, 38, without saying who Shapira or Be'eri are, and without having read them; you're in fact taking the citations from Benny Morris. Please give full citations, as in Smith, John. How to write citations, Wikipedia 2007, cited in Morris, Benny. Righteous Victims, Vintage, 2001, p. 49. Or another style if you prefer, but making sure you say where you got the information from. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, please go back to that article and add the full citations regarding Shapira and Be'eri. People can't be expected to know who they are. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for the assistance and advice, I have done as you suggested over the citations and have learnt something valuable in the process. Please accept my apologies for not including the earlier paragraph, you are quite right to add it, there were nuances missing from what I'd used. It was not my intention to mislead by leaving it out and your contribution is a good example of cooperative editing. Please note I have made other formatting changes, including using italics and replacing "p. " with "p", I have done this because I feel it is more concise and looks better, but it is not necessarily the accepted way of doing things.

If you were concerned with the amount of material in there (it is now at 417 words), we could shorten the clips from the immigrants, provided we don't leave out the methods by which they planned to reach their goal. I aligned the second paragraph in your comments above with the first paragraph, I trust that was alright! PalestineRemembered 07:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

PR, I do think this edit could be better. (One of) your last edits before the block was at Israeli Settlement - I thought it was good and I modified it only slightly (actually strengthening your statement) and defended it - and it has stood unchanged for 10 days. So I hope you don't see this unsolicited advice as reflexive carping. I disagree with "both sides" on point 3 Why on earth should this information not be in the article? It is just an accepted fact, like the similar fact that most Italian immigrants to the USA during the 19th century returned to Italy. Is this anti-American or anti-Italian? I think "both sides" are seeing things which aren't there. If it is making a point and pushing a point of view, they are invisible to the JVL. What point and POV is the JVL making by mentioning it - except wanting to state a salient fact that is in practically every history of this period? I find the objections incomprehensible. Here, be bold! On the other hand, I basically agree with the "undue weight" objection . Maybe if the article were much longer, it would be okay to put so much in, but you have put in most of what Morris said. Ideally, this would be in a section on the Goals of the Aliyah with some background and balance; perhaps it should even be in the main article, but that is another matter. In general, I think you should appreciate better that often "less is more". To take an example, "terrorist assassins" - although each word is easy to source for Lord Moyne's killers - is probably too much. Often, in English, such repetition has the effect of weakening, not strengthening - and can be even humorous - "dirty evil rotten terrorist assassins". Such is the effect of having too much backup for an assertion or POV in the text of an article, rather than the footnotes. It looks to a reader like someone is trying to bludgeon them, and can even have the undesired effect of convincing them that the "other side " might be right somehow. It is better to say less, and keep the rest in reserve, for the talk page. Thinking about stylistic considerations and cooperating with others while sticking to your guns when you are honestly trying to express an accepted, important historical fact or represent accurately a debate between acknowledged experts counts for a lot, and will usually let you get your point across. Thankfully, everybody has cooled down. What I have said amounts to - forget the POVpushing and editwarring and worrying (e.g. use "Zionists" where anybody else would, and don't when you know many people would object), and just try to help write a reasonable and readable encyclopedia article - granted, getting the right mix of boldness and timidity in editting these articles can be quite hard.John Z 01:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for the suggestions - I have added the JVL clip per this discussion. Morris's statement at p19 of this book comments "many eventually returned to Russia or headed for the West", which is a slightly different angle again, but I hesitate to add too much. If necessary, we could shorten the clips from the letters as I've posted SlimVirgin above.

I could have bolded this part, as per Morris's words "if only we succeed in increasing our numbers here until we are the majority [Emphasis in original]" but I think that that is unnecessary and visually over the top. PalestineRemembered 07:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Please stop your persistent trolling over your block. You have been unblocked - you are free to edit, there's no need to call for peoples heads on this one and you are almost acting disruptively, and in my opininion, trying to get into an argument. I think you should just get on with editing the encyclopedia. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello friend

Hello. I am also someone concerned about the Zionists systematic holocaust of the Palestinian people.

As the people who control Wikipedia have systematically banned and blocked people like me and you every time we open our mouths, I am limited in what I can say here to you without being blocked. I will suggest two things however.

• 1) Check out the web site Wikipedia Review - I put the link here but it was immediately removed, look through this page history to get to read the uncensored truth.
• 2) Check out alternative wikis such as Red Wiki or Anarchopedia. Spend some time writing and improving articles on them during them time when you are (or when you are not) blocked here.

Wikipedia was created by Larry Sanger, and has a lot of good ideas in its inception - a wiki encyclopedia under GPL license, the GFDL license etc. Of course Larry Sanger is no longer with Wikipedia, and to avoid being banned I will avoid talking about what happened after that. Suffice to say it is extremely ideological and people like you who don't support the Zionist bloodbath are persecuted. It is also highly one-sided for other topics as well. Too much so, it is inevitable that competitors to Wikipedia spring up, and I am sure they will be more successful. By contributing to these other wiki encyclopedias, you hasten the end of the complete control over these matters that the Wikipedia cabal exercises now. Ruy Lopez 18:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Avi points out to me that that link was to an attack site and I shouldn't have put it back here. Anyway, it probably wouldn't tell you anything of importance you wouldn't already know. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Everyone's apologized...

Now that everyone has apologized, why don't we just move forward with improving the encyclopedia? If the arbcom case had a purpose to serve in the first place, I think that purpose has been satisfied. Feel free to drop me a line at my published email address, user dot jpgordon at gmail dot com, if there's anything you'd like to discuss privately. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No one would be climbing all over each other to apologize had the attempt to ban you succeeded, PR. I don't think it's very sincere to say "sorry" for lying only when caught. Since you are free to edit now, there's no reason not to let this go forward. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This has been a learning curve for all involved, but that is all it is, it isn't admin abuse, it isn't extremely poor behaviour by any one user - it's an experience. No one is going to get penalised for this, howeverever hard you try, it's just wasting time now dragging the saga on. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The one very useful possible outcome for PalestineRemembered from the arbitration case that I see is findings of fact that a) Unequivocally refute the Holocaust-denial citing assertion so that no one could insinuate again that it's true. b) Establish that PR has shed any habits of tendentious editing he had in the past. c) Clarify the validity and circumstances of his old blocks, since people have been referring to the many entries in his block log as evidence that he is disruptive.

On the matter of whether there are any remedies that are needed, Jpgordon is in the best position to know, as he is an arbitrator. It might be helpful for PR to hear from the other arbitrators on this as well. Zero raises some general process issues about CSN that could be resolved, though I don't know if ArbCom usually does things that way. Best, nadav (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't reply from my private email

and..

No e-mail address
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users.

Return to Main Page.

-- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 13:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for drawing this to my attention. I entered my e-mail at "My Preferences" but did not tick the two boxes required to get e-mail. This update should make it much easier to participate in the ArbCom that bears my name. PalestineRemembered 18:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

Hi PR, just a quick note, because I'm not sure you understand how arbitration work. Before accepting a case, the arbitrators vote whether or not to hear it, which in you case - they have done and voted in favour 6-1. Now, we're at the evidence and workshop stage. The arbitrators will then move it to the proposed descision page, where they vote on the outcomes on the page. This hasn't happened yet. What everyone is trying to get across to you is that there isn't a case for anyone to answer now, so the arbitration can be closed - if you agree to it, which I would suggest you do as your unblocked now - If I'm going to talk straight with you, it's a waste of time carrying it on. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how any of this works, and I've been badly misled in the past (eg thinking my e-mail was engaged when it wasn't).

For instance, I made 4 edits to the article currently entitled "Zionist political violence"[24] - being [25] and [26] and [27] and [28].

No attempt was made to dispute my "facts", my edits were simply reverted with meaningless explanations. "rv irrelevant time zones or WP:WTA" - "rv pov" - "Undid revision 124873421 by PalestineRemembered" - "Reverted edits by PalestineRemembered to version 130495252 by Jayjg".

By comparison, 3 of the 4 edits I attempted came with a full description emphasising that each "fact" was well known and amply "proven".

All the "Talk"/discussion about my edits came from me.[29] (Though I am joined by others also attempting to improve the article in a consensual fashion).

Two of the edits I was trying to make are now in the article, including the one over which I was accused of "After doing some investigation, I discovered that PalestineRemembered has never read the Evening Star of Auckland; rather, he has copied his views and references from the Holocaust denial group the Institute for Historical Review".[30].

I believe "my" other two "facts" are also 100% verifiable, 100% "true" and 100% relevant to the article.

So what am I doing wrong? PalestineRemembered 18:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the point I'm trying to make, I don't know why they reverted your edits, why don't you ask them. It's all in the past now PR, do you agree that the arbitration can close so everyone can put it behind them - your case was soley their to decide if you deserved a ban, now the community has decided not, so arbitration isn't needed. Everyone can get on with life. You can't just be blocked again after all this, trust me. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem you are running into PR is with a handful of editors who believe they WP:OWN certain articles. Since they outnumber you, they can just revert you with whatever silly message they want, and because of WP:3RR there's nothing you can do about it. All you can do is attempt to discuss the edit patiently on the talk page; the editors will never change their POV but it's always possible someone else will show up who sees your side of things, or they might just stop arguing and wiki-lawyering and grudgingly accept your change. When Ryan says "he doesn't know," well, heck, I've been editing with these same people nearly a year now, and I don't still don't know why either. It's like they have some secret team playbook which they won't let on about. That's just business as usual if you are going to work with these editors.

But since they all edit other areas of the wikipedia, people who edit with them elsewhere don't appreciate the frustration their flocking causes to other editors. When they bring things up in the community sphere, they are always the ones being victimized by nutty editors with flaky agendas -- such as that one guy who quoted that holocaust denial website. Remember him? Oh wait, that was you. Heh -- I forgot!

But I still feel that the attempt to ban you was well beyond the business-as-usual way things go around here, so I'm surprised Ryan continues his "just drop it" mantra. The ArbCom committee are grown ups and if what he is saying is true, they'll surely have no problem finishing their work on the case. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the ArbCom are grown-ups too. And I'm confident that they recognise the same as you do, while there are bound to be topics that are difficult, the project cannot have "fact-free" zones, as some were doing to eg "Zionist political violence". PalestineRemembered 20:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Which problem are you talking about guys? Edit freely and don't forget to do it according to WP:POLICY. Happy editing! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"Birds of a feather flock together." I supposed it's to be expected on a variety of subjects, and I almost chose the word challenge over the word problem, but I didn't want sound vainglorious. PR said he didn't know "how all this works" so I am explaining as best I can, being the cynic I am, and perhaps commiserating too much. But he may enjoy reading the details of my last block, if he's feeling especially singled out here. Not-so-thinly veiled accusations of collaborating with an anti-Semite while you are blocked and unable to respond? Just another day in da 'hood. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong things happen in life. The point is to prevent wrong things from happening. If it happens again, it would be another story. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm shocked by what I can see in Kendrick7's case.[[31]] Without examining the edits, it seems clear that personal attacks were immediately entered into the record, with little or no attempt at dealing with the issues (let alone producing evidence) eg the first three edits from the "anti-Kendrick7" position are these "You're compounding the disruption by calling other people's edits "vandalism." and "If anything POV forks are "vandalism", and please don't try to unilaterally re-write policy to punish people with whom you have been in considerable conflict, while excusing people with whom you have allied." and "You're hardly an "outside observer", you're an editor who has been in constant conflict with XXX". This is strikingly similar to what has happened to those attempting to "defend" me recently. The "debate" on Kendrick7 is then quickly escalated with nasty smears eg "He has elsewhere teamed up with other editors, including one long-term banned antisemite, to disrupt pages related to Judaism, Jews, and Israel.". (This intermediate stage was played on me - in fact, I was blocked for a month for this[32], a clear attempt to protect race relations!).

Seeing Kendrick7's case only underlines the importance of exposing the utterly baseless attack (a direct accusation of Holocaust Denial) on me and making sure that this one (at least) cannot be repeated. The place to start is "proving" that the "content dispute" which apparently trigged a (nearly succesful) perma-block on me was completely manufactured, there was no dispute for any of the 4 "facts" I was trying to insert with 4 edits in 3 weeks to to Zionist political violence. PalestineRemembered 09:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute?

You keep using this phrase, by the way, when I think you mean "citation dispute." -- Kendrick7^talk 17:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

PR,I want a yes or no answer here. Are you happy for the arbitration to close, with no remedies imposed on anyone and you being free to get on with editing? Ryan Postlethwaite 19:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Who are you to pose the question? You've made your own opinion clear repeatedly on this talk page. This is atarting to border on WP:Harassment. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not add yourself as a party, Kendrick7? Surely you must have some grievance of greater ongoing relevance than the one currently being discussed.Proabivouac 20:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ryan is an admin Kendrick7. I suggest that PR forgets about the case and starts again normal business. The case is recorded and hope it was a lesson to both parties. The point is that this would not happen again. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I am simply surprised at people repeated badgering PR to make this matter go away quietly, since the moment ArbCom accepted the case. There was initially pressure that he wouldn't even be unblocked, even thoght the CN ban failed, unless he dropped the case (until people finally realized that was completely wrong headed). That makes the continuing repeated calls for him to drop the case suspect in my eyes. It's getting a little absurd at this point. That the exact same situation may not happen again to this editor is probably true, but probably true of many arbcom cases. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"There was initially pressure that he wouldn't even be unblocked, even thoght the CN ban failed..."

I distinctly recall myself arguing the opposite.Proabivouac 21:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems quite clear Kendrick that you have strong feelings about something and would like to get them across in this ArbCom case - unfortunately, it it's out of the committee's remit in this current case. People want this case dropped because the sole perpose of the case was to ascertain whether or not PR deserved a ban because at that point, the community could not deal with it themselves. Now however, the community has resolved the issue themselves and found that PR should not be banned, he is unblocked now and free to edit whatever he wishes. In short - there is no longer anything for the arbitration committee to rule on, and it's best for all parties if this is dropped so we can all move forward. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have taken a consistent position that the case should proceed as normal. If you believe that the case is about what you keep saying it's about, per what you've understood of the evidence in the case, then ArbCom should have no problem making a speedy ruling, and this pressuring PR is basically moot. And yet, you come back here daily and make a fuss. At least my position has internal logic going for it. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've had a rambling but moderately persuasive mailing claiming that Wikipedia is largely (? overwhelmingly) supported financially by persons who are wedded to the cause of Israel. These people are not going to tolerate a situation where people less than supportive of Israel are allowed to post information such as mine into the encyclopaedia.

Hence, it's a waste of my time trying to get any satisfaction at ArbCom, Wikipedia has no choice but to protect its income stream, and would block every IP in the UK if that's what it took to stop me/others entering good information that showed Israel in a poor light.

Separately, it's been suggested to me that some elements within Wikipedia would have no hesitation in attacking me in my real life if that was deemed necessary in order to silence me. Falsely accusing people of Holocaust Denial is at the lower end of the measures they are prepared to take. (I'm aware that WP is generally very protective of contributors being harrassed in RL, but the stakes here are much higher than usual).

If I'm understanding this right, then I'm not sure what choice I have but to accept that the ArbCom will not go forward. There is no possibility of me getting a retraction (let alone an apology) for the claim that I have copied my "views and references from the Holocaust denial group the Institute for Historical Review".

Clearly, I'm not very happy with this, but I'm tempted to tell Ryan his answer is "Yes". Do you agree that I should accept his kind and relatively generous offer?

Alternatively, I've not heard from any of the other 6 arbitrators who wanted this case to be heard. I'd message them privately, if it's accepted that I'm not trying to "canvas" them. What do you think, should I look to the other arbitrators for advice before making my reply? PalestineRemembered 22:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

PS - I'd have e-mailed you privately weeks ago if your WP e-mail was engaged. After 8 months here, I think I've finally ticked all the correct boxes in order to get my own WP e-mail to work. And yet ..... I've still not had a single communication via this system. This is a technical problem and has not had a severe impact on my ability to "defend" myself in this case.

A) I wouldn't give any credence to these anti-Semitic wiki-funding conspiracy theories. I would sooner believe the wikipedia is actually run by Norse dwarves and funded by their secret gold mine. B) I wouldn't believe any silly threats, though of course that's easy for me to say; but people know you have a slightly paranoid bent and are probably trying to capitalize on that thus: C) I don't see how you lose anything by letting the case go forward -- it takes not effort from you; however, the ArbCom is certainly going to take its time, and they probably ignore pestering emails as a matter of course. D) I don't have email here, as a matter of personal principle, there's nothing I would say in private that I wouldn't say in public. So those are my opinions, you have others to chose from. I won't lose any respect for you if you do decide to drop the matter. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me be clear about this once and for all. PR got into big troubles for just being accused wrongly (assuming good faith) of something he hasn't done. It took him more than a month behind bars. I share all of his grief and sorrow. In real life, he should have gotten punitive damages. Nobody gave him an answer. He has been emailing me asking about what to do. I, myself as an admin, have been confused. I all the time asked him to contact arbits. He's got no clear answer yet. Does that mean that neither admins nor arbitrators could decide the fate of PR? Suddenly, 2 admins and editors come today suggesting to PR to get back to business as usual (BAU). WP:π?

However, as this case is w/o precedent, i suggest for the second time that PR and Kendrik7 get to BAU. Yes, you won't spend some 3 or n- more months arguing for your case. Only your edits and actions will bring your dignity back or take it away in case you don't follow policies. The same applies to other party. Accumulating wrongdoings would only lead them to a much serious ArbCom case. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't gel with my understanding of how ArbCom works. I had thought, with the evidence phase complete at this point, AFAICT, that the remainder is left the the Arbitrators. What 3+ month effort are you talking about? -- Kendrick7^talk 23:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I was clear Kendrick7. Now, you should tell me about your suggestion. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I see this the same way as FassalF does. The arbitrators can either ponder the case or dismiss it at their pleasure. In the mean time, PalestineRemembered should get back to editing and forget all this for now. There is no point in fretting or dreaming up fantastical conspiracy theories. I also think it's unproductive to try to pull PR in either direction. Let's all just get back to business as usual. nadav (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

so are you happy for the arbitration case to be completely closed PR, finding nothing against you? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What are you suggesting it could find against him? He's already served a ten day ban for what appears to be a minor violation of WP:CITE. This seems like a loaded question. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

i was asking PR (but it's not going to find anything on anyone even if it's left to drag on). Ryan Postlethwaite 23:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ryan, how do you know (or why do you think) that Arbcom won't find anything against Jayjg? I know it's been claimed that his accusation was made in good faith, but based both on the circumstances of this case and on Jay's history, this theory strikes me as rather implausible. What makes you certain Arbcom will disagree?--G-Dett 19:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, get real. Jayjg publicly asked if PR should be banned, providing what (assuming good faith, as always) he honestly believed to be evidence of questionable behavior. He erred by not asking directly what the source was. He didn't actually block anyone; he knew better. You think we're going to penalize someone for that? It's already been publicly demonstrated and accepted by the community that he was in error. I mean: Finding of fact: Jayjg was wrong about something. Finding of fact: Jayjg admitted his error. Finding of fact: Jayjg apologized. Finding of fact: PR incorrectly cited something. Finding of fact:PR apologized. This is where we were two weeks ago. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Not only do I disagree with you Jpgordon, but I'm sufficiently puzzled by your reasoning to question your mastery of the basic facts and timeline of this situation. Jay erred by not asking what the source was, yes. But the source he failed to ask after was very quickly produced (in less than an hour); Jay then erred by ignoring it, even as his attention was repeatedly called to it. He then compounded his error by inventing ever more fantastical theories to force the facts into alignment with his initial specious accusation (claiming at one point that PR's 1989 source may have plagiarized Jay's 1995 source).

He also erred initially by presenting his extremely dubious speculations as if they were hard-and-fast conclusions. Then he seriously compounded this error by refusing to retract his hard-and-fast conclusions in the face of mounting evidence that they had an extremely slim chance of being accurate. Within a few hours Jay's accusations had been all but categorically disproven, yet he was still calling for PR to be banned, and he was still content to see a number of ideologically aligned but ethically rather careless editors spreading the defamatory rumor he had himself given life to. A full eight days after all of the facts were firmly established, Jay produced a very weak apology, which addressed almost none of these core concerns.

One must assume good faith, absolutely, otherwise the contentious sections of WP would rapidly devolve into a state of nature. What you seem unaware of or unwilling to consider, however, is how corrosive to that core assumption this ugly episode has been.--G-Dett 21:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You see this is the problem, the arbitration request was filed soley to ascertain whether PR should receive a ban or not - the community has now spoken making this request moot. Jayjg obviously made a mistake, or PR would still be banned, however, Jayjg did the right thing by posting before acting, he didn't do any blocks, he simply requested a review at WP:AN/I which was quickly moved to WP:CN. Now please note - the ban request had over 50% support, not enough for a community ban, but certainly some other editors have been concerned about PR's behaviour as well as Jayjg. On top of al this, Jayjg has appologised - he made a mistake, which has now been corrected and certainly not one which is going to see him hang. If Jayjg had blocked PR and not posted on AN/I, or made no comment into the block whatsoever, then it may have been a different story - but the point is he didn't. He did what any user has the privilage of doing of asking for outside comments. To get back on track - this isn't an arbitration case about Jayjg, it's one on PR which thankfully is now sorted without ArbCom having to rule on anything, so should be closed and archived. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I wonder what "see him hang" means. Beyond a rhetorical question from Mark Chovain, I don't think anyone has suggested Jay be banned, blocked, or punished in any way; I certainly have not. What I'd like to see (if you're asking) is a warning and/or censure. I do not see how the facts and timeline of this case can add up to a picture of good faith on Jay's part (much less the sort of judgment and circumspection one expects from an admin). Those who contradict me on this point have not addressed the detailed timeline I've presented, but neither have they disputed it. They rely instead on what seem to me vague and evasive summaries of the situation: Jay made a mistake, but admitted it,' etc.

You may be right that this Arbcom case is about PR and PR only, but that is not self-evident. Both PR and Jayjg are listed as "involved editors," and a glance at the "evidence" page is enough to demonstrate that in the eyes of many editors, Jay's behavior has been far more egregious than PR's.--G-Dett 21:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for the ArbCom

It has been said: "People want this case dropped because the sole perpose of the case was to ascertain whether or not [PalestineRemembered] deserved a ban because at that point, the community could not deal with it themselves".

I would disagree. The community was (and probably still is) perfectly capable of handling "Community Sanctions". A perma-block had been proposed on me under the new "Community Sanction Noticeboard" procedures and it had failed. But the discussion had become highly personal, and not just on me. That is the reason there was an application to open an ArbCom (later accepted by the arbitrators six to one[33]).

The reasons to have an Arbcom have hardened into approximately the following four points:

1) the systematic and universal (?) personal attacks launched on editors not supporting the block, the "ugly mess".

2) the suspicious speed of the block.

3) the ignoring of the quickly mounting evidence that the accusation on me was clearly and completely false.

4) the suspicious swarming of the discussion by people "voting" for a block, as if this was "instant messaging" or IRC driven. I'd never come across many of those people. Later contributions (mostly from people I had cooperated with) were majority against sanctioning.

The Arbitration Committee might also wish to take into consideration things that happened later:

1) I was effectively blocked for a further 9 days, even though it was very clear that I was innocent.

2) I was blocked a 2nd time for editing in ways that were clearly connected to "my defence".

3) There were still people claiming I could have been guilty, up to 9 days after the incident.

4) There has been no attempt to withdraw, let alone apologise, for the very nasty allegations made.

5) The complete stranger who put himself forward as my advocate was effectively harrassed into silence.

And the Arbitration Committee might wish to consider four more points if they are concerned that nothing like this happens again:

1) my earlier blocks, suspiciously long, suspiciously quick, and often on suspiciously little evidence, with apparent prejudice (eg the likely untrue remarks about the worth of my edits, and the personal treatment of those questioning the first block).

2) The attempts to bully me to withdraw from this case without my name being cleared.

3) The claims that the ArbCom don't wish to consider this case. As of this moment, the arbitrators are almost uanimous in favour of considering it. It appears highly irregular and prejudicial of others to claim the ArbCom don't wish to arbitrate.

4) The claims that the ArbCom will never clear my name. To claim that the result is predetermined shows no confidence in the process. If the ArbCom is no longer the highest governing body of the project (second only to Jimbo), then people will wish to know. PalestineRemembered 13:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

House Demolition revert

Someone has removed the following quote from House demolition:

"The thinking is that a national threat calls for a national response, invariably aggressive. Accordingly, a Jewish house without a permit is an urban problem; but a Palestinian home without a permit is a strategic threat. A Jew building without a permit is ‘cocking a snook at the law’; a Palestinian doing the same is defying Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem."

with a claim "that the material has nothing to do with the material that preceded it, nor followed it, nor anything to do with the section itself that it was placed in. Please explain the relevance".

But I fully understand the relevance of having it in. The UN describes what is happening in Jerusalem as "ethnic cleansing" (the ADL reminds us of this, see [34]). The whole Palestinian thing is likely the longest and best documented case of ethnic cleansing in history, it seems reasonable to put in a short reference to the beginning of it and another short reference to what is happening 60 years later. Your clip doesn't actually specify "ethnic cleansing", but it's more "useful" and/or "readable" than many that do. It's a good description of the process and thinking behind it, and the encyclopaedia will benefit from having it in. PalestineRemembered 07:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't having large quoutes, but that may provide more context. However, it's being discussed at the talk page so that is probably the best way to deal with it. // Liftarn

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, some of your recent edits have been reverted as they could be seen to be defamatory or potentially libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

please avoid soapbox attacks via analogy^[35], and libel spreading^[36] on talk pages. Jaakobou 14:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

question by PalestineRemembered about notice and my reply here: Mass demolitions in the Negev. Jaakobou 18:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

don't make this note situation more uncomfortable by explanations that you intended to attack Israel and then continuing the same soapbox allegations without naming israel specifically. Jaakobou 00:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

your sarcasm^[37] is impressive. Jaakobou 14:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Folks, come on. This is unhelpful. nadav (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your concern with regards to my username appearing in red. It hadn't actually occurred to me that I could get a userpage set up without having to write anything there. Much appreciated. Keep up the good work.Nwe 19:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mediation

I will be treating Jayjg like any other person whom has been involved in my mediation. MessedRocker (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete House Demolition in IP conflict

I tried to make myself clear, but maybe with little success. I support deletion of an article about house demolitions by Israel because there is already an article about house demolitions in general, and Israel does not do something special, or different, than other countries, in this regard. For example, if someone thinks that Israel is violating international laws by demolishing houses of terror suspects, then the same applies to the US, Russia, Turkey and other countries in that article. The general topic can (and does) include a section about Israeli house demolitions, and that's enough. --Gabi S. 21:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Questionable user name

Hello, PalestineRemembered, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?

It looks like you are trying to prove a point and to promote a political agenda. The name "PalestineRemebered" is not a naive name, and you should be aware that it irritates many Israelis. You are free, of course, to voice your opinions in appropriate places (like article talk pages), but the user name is not the right place. Think what would be the reaction if someone would choose the user name "WhiteApartheidRemembered", "ArmenianGenocideRemebered", "CrusadesRemebered" and so on. I'm afraid that the next step is WP:RFCN.

I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.

You have several options freely available to you:

• If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
• If the two of us can't agree here, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as asking for a "third opinion", or requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Wikipedia administrators usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
• You can keep your contributions history under a new username. Visit Wikipedia:Changing username and follow the guidelines there.

Let me reassure you that my writing here means I don't think your username is grossly, blatantly, or obviously inappropriate; such names get reported straight to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention or blocked on sight. This is more a case where opinions might differ, and it would be good to reach some consensus — either here or at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. So I look forward to a friendly discussion, and to enjoying your continued participation on Wikipedia. Thank you. Gabi S. 05:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The text above was inserted by using {{Template:UsernameConcern}}. -- Gabi S. 05:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm still baffled. Let me give you an analogy and please tell me if it's a good direct equivalent.

The British people suffer regular harsh criticism for supposedly inventing slavery and supposedly starving the Irish. But if I saw someone with the name "SlaveryRemembered" or "GreatHungerRemembered", and such a user was adding irritating examples of when the British really had (or could have) behaved badly, their username certainly wouldn't bother me. It would make it easier to track their references sources (some of which might be dubious) and easier to identify any pattern of incivility, or Original Research or other breach of WP policy. It would *not* interfere with me cooperating with them! I'm sure there are individuals or groups of victims of either brutal individual Brits, or British government action, or British government policy (or even British culture?). The encyclopaedia should document such cases "truthfully" (or at least, verifiably!). What sort of patriot would I be if I fought rudely and bitterly to keep "SlaveryRemembered"s material out of the project? Answer - I'd be proving that this accuser had a point and that (some at least) British people glorified violence or other oppressions.

And there's another point - a messy ArbCom was fought out with my name in the title. I was accused of "getting my views from Holocaust Deniers", a charge that was patently false. I very much wanted a ruling that these accusations should not lightly be flung around, and if they were proved false, then an apology should be made. The case was dropped without any ruling. The bright side is that, if I saw someone committing (say) ethnic profiling, the ruling means I don't need to waffle and compare such behaviour with, say, South African apartheid, I can come straight out and call that person a racist. If I were now to call myself "MoshKat" (for instance), it would be a little more difficult to refer to "my ArbCom case, where this principle was decided". PalestineRemembered 06:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

A nice analogy you gave there... I wonder, who would those be the individuals or groups of victims of either brutal individual Onionists, or Onionist government action, or Onionist government policy? I don't have a clue, and actually it is irrelevant. Your editing activity may or may not fall into Wikipedia's policy (I'm not tracking it, mind you) but your user name, which is a different thing, is still questionable. I understand, it will be a shame to see it go, because you are emotionally attached to it, like your real name (I would also be sorry if I was forced to change my user name), but you had to choose a name that others are comfortable seeing and collaborating with. And I'm afraid the poor Onionists are not happy with your current one. -- Gabi S. 13:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I put in the application to change my UserName weeks ago (what am I supposed to do, log out and log back in under the new name to see if it's happened?).

As a point of interest, I should warn you - refering to "The Onionists" (even if it's on advice, someone jokingly suggested you winkle off the 'Z' key and no longer have access to it) is considered to be seriously inflammatory, really much worse than my UserName!

Furthermore, you've not addressed the point that patriotic Brits wouldn't object to the UserName "GreatHungerRemembered". Patriotic Brits would seize the opportunity of cooperating with such a person and making sure his/her articles were well-referenced and genuine, and the article top quality. I'm convinced that real Israeli patriots would do the same to me and my edits, rather than eg insist that Hebrew texts are perfectly acceptable in the encyclopaedia and not a flagrant breach of verifiability. PalestineRemembered 18:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The name change was rejected solely for policy reasons: "we don't change names of people currently involved in ArbCom actions". It would be accepted now. I'm surprised that they don't bother to leave a note on your talk page when they reject the request; one would think that would be good manners. I think it would be a good idea to try again -- reducing tension when not necessary is a good thing. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

How about if I registered "MoshKat" as well, rather than instead? I could use PalestineRemembered for discussing WP policy (eg identifying ethnic profiling, the thing that got me blocked for a month), and the other one for editing. I'm coming up to speed on RS and OR now so I'm sure that would work. And calling myself "MoshKat" would help with the new verifiability policy, whereby English is no longer pre-eminent in the EN-Wikipedia. PalestineRemembered 11:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What a strange discussion. I can't imagine why you should change your name, or what effect it would have on "tension." Look, the banning incident is over. So over. The lesson is to take accusations of Holocaust denial, antisemitism and so on with a huge grain of salt when they come from ideological editors, to always closely scrutinize the evidence in such cases, and to assume the good faith – but not necessary the good judgment – of all involved. The lesson is not that the victim should go under a new name, wear less provocative clothing, etc.--G-Dett 18:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

My argument has nothing to do with the arbitration or the banning incident, though certainly the username choice contributed to both of those. I'm drawing entirely upon the suggestion from WP:U: If you choose not to use your real name, you should pick a username that doesn't interfere with the writing of this encyclopedia. That means a name that you're comfortable writing under, but also one that others are comfortable seeing and collaborating with. A controversial name may affect other users' perspective on your credibility or political or religious viewpoint. Avoiding controversial names is in your own interest. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean that remembering Palestine is itself a controversial proposition for many editors, or are you saying that signaling his cultural/political affinities through his user name makes editorial conflicts more likely? If the former, I'd say that's not PR's problem. If the latter, I would mildly disagree, and suggest conversely that strategically camouflaged bias among experienced editors on Israel-Palestine pages causes more tension – and ultimately more bitterness – than does naïve candor about same among relative newbies.--G-Dett 22:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree entirely. Which of the two would you think easier to fix? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at. I guess what I'm saying is that all parties need to keep their biases in check, and insofar as acknowledging them is a step in that direction it's no bad thing. I've had many conflicts with user:Jayjg and user:Isarig; I do not think those conflicts would have been greater in number or more bitter had their usernames been ZionismForever and MrFactsOnTheGround, respectively; indeed the candor might well have been refreshing.--G-Dett 22:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, the policy is to avoid political user names (regardless of biased or non-biased editing). Even if PalestineRemembered starts editing only baseball-related articles, his/her user name should be changed, solely based on the WP:U policy that Jpgordon and I pointed to. I see that WP:RFCN is inevitable. -- Gabi S. 13:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess I just don't think it's political in the same way you do. "Remembering" Palestine (meaning pre-1948 Palestine) is a centerpiece of Palestinian cultural identity in all its valences, as is natural enough for a now-diasporic people. That you so casually reduce it to a political valence "irritating to Israelis" seems to me problematic, your proffered analogies with "WhiteApartheidRemembered", "ArmenianGenocideRemebered", "CrusadesRemebered" utterly bizarre.--G-Dett 14:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot a few "m"s there... Anyway, we obviously don't agree, which might be another reason for WP:RFCN. I just must mention that you seem to romanticize the Palestinian cultural identity too much. The people that remember pre-1948 Palestine the most are Hamas, not well-known for their cultural habits. That's irritating. -- Gabi S. 19:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"Cultural habits"? Gabi, not only do we not share an opinion here, we don't even share a vocabulary. 1948 crystallized the national identities of both peoples, 'independence' for one, 'catastrophe' for the other: one became a sovereign nation, the other a dispossessed diaspora. There's a good deal of "romanticizing" in both, just as there is in every national narrative. But the implications of such narratives aren't solely or even primarily political – they are cultural, spiritual, communal, and so on. If you have any knowledge or understanding of Zionism in all its valences then you ought to be able to understand its Palestinian counterpart. And identifying the content of such narratives, as I've done, isn't "romanticizing." Your remark about Hamas strikes me as remarkably narrow, something like saying "the Israelis that remember the Zionist dream and independence in 1948 the most are the settler-thugs and would-be ethnic cleansers of Eretz Israel." PalestineRemembered has been here for nine months, and this hasn't come up until now, right after he narrowly survived a dogged campaign of admin harassment culminating in a near-lynching. If he'd opened his account last week or last month, this request might have gained appropriate traction, but as it is it looks remarkably like more harassment and blaming the victim.--G-Dett 20:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

We're getting pretty off-topic, so I suggest we focus on PalestineRemembered's user name. I said right from the start that I was surprised that no one objected to the user name so far. Carrying it for a long time is no excuse. I understand your concerns, but I'll open the user name for discussion tomorrow. -- Gabi S. 21:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not that carrying it for a long time is an excuse, it's just that...the moment's passed. I promise you that opening an RFCN will not lessen tensions. Let it go.--G-Dett 21:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, before you go to that extreme, and force PR to once again defend himself, you could more clearly explain how policy is actually violated here?
I mean, other than your equating people who remember before a certain date with Hamas (is that 'ad hominem', btw? I never was too clear on that one), I don't see any justification other than your belief that the word "Palestine", "irritates many israelis". There are currently at least 200 usernames that start with, "Israel". Should all of them lose their usernames just because seeing, "Israel" would irritate some editors? Or, perhaps, should only overtly disruptive usernames be considered? Because that seems far more practical (and fair) to me. Bladestorm 21:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not a good analogy. Israel is a common Jewish personal name, and was one for millenia before the country of Israel existed. Israel Zangwill, Israel Abrahams, Israel Asper, Israel Eldad, Israel Horovitz, Israel Rosenberg, Israel Zolli, Israel ben Eliezer (the Ba'al Shem Tov) etc. were not named after the country of Israel. Israel Shahak certainly wasn't. Even non-Jews, like Israel Bissell, have used the name. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion continues here: WP:RFCN#PalestineRemembered -- Gabi S. 21:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

My concern about your username

I think that your username is questionable under WP:U, that says that you should select a user name that others are comfortable seeing and collaborating with. The name "Palestine Remembered" coupled with your editing history is controversial and politically charged, in my opinion. Please consider changing it to something more neutral (like Muhammad1234). --Gabi S. 21:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said, it is questionable under WP:U but not "clearly inappropriate." And yes, "911remembered" would be similarly objectionable, although clearly less political. In my opinion, usernames should not be sided with any agenda whatsoever. --Gabi S. 10:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm mystified it should bother you. My edits are no more POV than that of most people, and less so than some. I've no indication that my UserName interferes with the workings of the encyclopaedia, rather the reverse. It guarantees I'm not confused with anyone else, which happens to suit me. I'll leave this discussion up for a few days and then delete it, seems utterly pointless. PalestineRemembered 12:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about it for a few days... The fact that no one is discussing it doesn't mean that it's OK. The point is that the name "Palestine" meant both Jews and Arabs living under the British Mandate until not so long ago, and using it for a separatist Arab movement is a political statement. It is similar to the name Republic of Macedonia that people in Greece don't like to hear, because they see Macedonia as a part of Greece, not a separate country. The Greek are also offended if you ask them for Turkish coffee, which they usually call Greek coffee. I know that these things seem trivial, but they must be brought up. The whole "Palestine Remembered" statement makes many Israelis feel uncomfortable, and that's why I think you should choose a more neutral user name. --Gabi S. 15:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Gabi, I am thinking of putting a message on my UserPage that I hope will allay your concerns. PalestineRemembered 06:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear PalestineRemembered, We don't agree on much and so maybe you might find comfort in knowing that I support your choice of user name whole-heartedly. There is nothing inflamatory about your user name or about the act of keeping the memory of "Palestine" (however one defines the term) alive. In modern times, censorship of information is bad enough, but censorship of simple memory is something only the worst kind of tyrant would allow. Salaam. --GHcool 21:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou. I see you've also come to my support at another TalkPage[38] with the statement "I think what PalestineRemembered is saying that we should demand verifiability with respect to claims of atrocities committed by "commies," but claims of atrocities committed by Israelis do not deserve the same attention to detail." and I am deeply indebted to the nuanced and multi-faceted understanding of what I'm trying to put across. PalestineRemembered 21:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If you still want to change your username, you can do so now that the arbcom case has closed. (I have no opinion on the matter. There's a chance people will work with you better) nadav (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I still want to change my name. When the most outrageously false allegation of "taking my views from Holocaust Deniers" was levelled at me, the fact I was "PalestineRemembered" helped quite a lot of people recognise who I was - and remind them they'd seen me in action, I'd definitely not preached anything bigoted - in fact I'd been blocked for a month simply and solely for speaking out against ethnic profiling[39]. Without the relatively high-profile generated by my name, I think I'd have been steam-rollered without a trace. PalestineRemembered 22:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you were accusing other Wikipedia editors of racism, which is quite another thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: wiki-stalking

I don't know what you mean about wiki-stalking. I prefer not to enable my email address for various reasons. One of them is that I prefer all communication (except perhaps Mediation cases and such) to be carried out in the open. nadav (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

spinout articles

I haven't checked the 2 articles you linked to. As for admin help you might check out the links here. There are other places to ask for help too. --Timeshifter 09:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered

Because the dispute being arbitrated has resolved and any restrictions on the involved editors have been lifted, this arbitration case has been closed with no further action being taken. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 15:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Fear of extermination

Hi, I understand your point and share most of this.
But I think you should appreciate this section because this is exactly the way used by Finkelstein to analyse Morris work...
This respects wp's principles : quotes from reliable sources, etc. Alithien 16:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein just takes "sentences" and word after word analyses them, without trying to have a global view.

About the word "extermination", I answered on the talk page. If you have another one that fits more Morris view it is welcome.

Alithien 18:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

spiral of violence

Hi PR,
I don't have the English version but you are right. Nevertheless, I spend 3 months to gather all the informations for historians, about the events because I wanted to understand Pappé's wording : "spiral of violence".
It is in French but only read numbers : fr:Événements dans les centres urbains de la Palestine mandataire de 1948.
There were fights everywhere and all historians -even Pappé- agrees on that : a spiral of violence; not an attack (as in April).
1000 deaths in two months in a country of 2,000,000 unhabitiants ! When will you try to understand what climate it pictures.
Here is the source : a UN report - see in II.5 the table : 427 Arabs killed and 381 Jews in Dec'47 and Jan'48.
Alithien 18:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)