User talk:Zeq/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Welcome back

Hi Zeq: I noticed you've been very active again. Welcome back. IZAK 13:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Renaming Zionism and racism

Hi Zeq: Shouldn't the Zionism and racism article be renamed to Allegations of Zionism and racism as with Allegations of Israeli apartheid? What are your thoughts? IZAK 03:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Settlement Police

Well, I've answered, anyway. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

How would you translate "yishuv kehilati"? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Please translate "yishuv kehilati" into English. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Which word translates as "Community" and which one translates as "with bylaws governing who can join that community"? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeshuv is Kehila and Khilati is "by the community" - so there's no English translation for "Yishuv" in this case? It's an untranslatable word? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That's so strange, because the Israeli government seems to have no trouble translating it; it translates it as "community settlement". So, they seem to think that "yishuv" translates as "settlement", and "kehilla" as "community". Jayjg ^(talk) 21:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your message last week. Yes, everybody is fine. It looks like Peretz is in hot water though, both the Left and the Right seem to hate him. That's what you get when you are both an Arab and a Jew :) Shalom, Ramallite ^(talk) 21:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the article, Zeq. I've added it to New antisemitism further reading. Hope all is well with you. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Please explain

I don't know which article you mean. The last link you gave me didn't work. I don't mean it had been deleted; I mean it didn't work at all. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Shebaa farms.

Hi Zeq. Recently you reverted my edits to the Shebaa farms article, rewording the introduction. I'm curious – where in the map do you see the Shebaa farms bordering Israel? Thanks. — George Saliba ^[talk] 08:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

As a follow up, I've changed the statement to: "The Shebaa Farms is a small area of disputed ownership located on the border between Lebanon and the Golan Heights." I wasn't sure if you were opposed to the inclusion of the term "Israeli-occupied" or the "Golan Heights in Syria", so I've removed the mention of both to try to maintain neutrality. If readers want to learn more about the status of the Golan Heights, they can just read the wiki-linked article. Cheers. — George Saliba ^[talk] 10:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Zeq, your Iranian involvement article didn't actually say anything. It was just a list of links. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's best to write that sort of thing offline or on a user subpage before putting it into the encyclopedia. I think CJCurrie did the right thing to delete it, to be honest, because it wasn't ready, and I'm not sure it ever will be with that title, which is clearly OR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what I'd call it. Your best bet is to write it offline and see what title is most obvious once you've finished, but make sure you avoid OR, because if it looks like a personal essay, it'll likely be deleted again. Do you have a copy of the links in the deleted version? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Your note

For sure that's a reliable source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

When in need

...Feel free to contact me to avoid breaking WP:3RR. You and I consistently edit similar articles and I often find myself agreeing with your edits. KazakhPol 06:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Mediators are all volunteers, and I have no place "assigning" people to cases. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not one-sided. The source is reliable, which is exactly what you asked us to concede. However, a potentially libelous claim should not be put in Wikipedia. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed compromise

A compromise has been proposed. It is toned down to simply state that the allegation was made, and that the allegation was denied. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Twas Now did not provide mediation, he provided his opinion on an entirely separate, nonexistent issue. This is two to one here. If Tarc decides to remove the paragraph again, I'll revert, he'll revert, you will revert, and he will run out of 'em before one of us does. It's a result of his not having an argument to base his edits. KazakhPol 06:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Bunglawala issue settled

I am glad we could come to an agreement regarding Inayat Bunglawala! Thank you for respecting the mediation process. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Would you be opposed if I archived much of your talk page? It is quite long. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made two new archives and given them and your original two archives the {{talkarchive}} template. I also put up no this page the {{archive box}} template and put a date range on each of the archives. Yes, I am very bored. Are you willing to accept Tarc's wording for the Bunglawala article? Bunglawala does seem to be anti-Semitic, but I don't think the article should focus on that: the reader should be able to come to that conclusion on their own (especially after visiting the links). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

MedCab Case: 2007-02-11 Mohammad Amin al-Husayni

You had filed the MedCab Case Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-11 Mohammad Amin al-Husayni. If you wish to proceed with informal mediation with me acting as your mediator, please state your acceptance of Alan.ca as your mediator and your intention to proceed in the discussion section of the mediation page. This Link. Alan.ca 07:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Inayat Bunglawala and bad faith

Y'know, I'd seen that some 3rd parties had come in and removed the littlegreenfootballs incident entirely, and that you had reverted those reversions back, which I did not object to you doing. Silly me, I assumed good faith and never actually went back to read the Bunglawala article, as I just assumed you'd reverted back to the last version I'd put in as of March 5th. But what I find today is, you went back and stuck in the version that KazakhPol was trying to revert war over, a version which was most certainly NOT agreed upon in mediation. That full e-mail text has no place in this article and you good as well know it.

Assuming that you made a good faith edit was a bad assumption on my part. Trust me; that mistake will not be made a second time. Tarc 03:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I just bring what the source has and what was agreed in mediation. Zeq 19:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, you are flat-out lying. The version with the needless e-mail link was NOT agreed to at all; it is irrelevant to the article, and certainly violates BLP as it is adding serious undue weight to a charge THAT CANNOT BE PROVEN. Add it back out again, and we'll have to resort to warnings. Tarc 12:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Having a reliable source is not a good enough reason to include it in an article. The information must be encyclopedic and not be in conflict with any policies, particularly Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the above to say "a reliable source is not a good enough…", which was my initial intention. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

chill for a sec

We're starting to make some progress on this page, chill for a bit with the lead and focus on filling in the Israeli view point on the issues. Peace, --Urthogie 17:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Stalking? :)

You are one paranoid little chap, aren't ya? I've commented on the al-Husayni dispute in the past, and found my way there once again the other day via Zero's (quite a good and reputable editor, I must say) edit history, actually.

Obviously, we have share similar interests (Middle Eastern affairs) albeit from different sides, so it is rather natural that we will cross paths on any number of articles, from Bunglawala to al-Husayni to Israeli apartheid. When I happen to come across an article where you are blatantly POV-pushing, then I will do what I can within the bounds of Wikipedia rules to correct it.

Don't pollute my talk page with tinfoil conspiracy theories again, please. Tarc 16:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Notice regarding 1929 Hebron massacre

This is a formal notification. As specified by the Arbitration Committee, any anon can ban you from an article for persistently disrupting it. Since you are persistently disrupting 1929 Hebron massacre, this is to notify you that you are hereby banned from editing it. Failure to observe this ban will lead to a block. --Zero^talk 12:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure a person who's "cautioned to use the dispute resolution procedure" and is heavily involved on content dispute is allowed to block you like this esp. considering what seems to be a ban on which was issued over a year ago^[1]. however i'm not very much informed in the history of your disputes and it does seem that you were blocked officially from two other articles. Jaakobou 13:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Your recent revert of my revert to 2006 Lebanon War

Hi Zeq, I noticed you recently reverted my revert of a series of anon edits to the 2006 Lebanon War, which I'd like to discuss with you.

1. The first edit was to add the word civilian before villages in "The conflict began after Hezbollah fired Katyusha rockets and mortars at Israeli border villages..." I disagree with this change because the term "civilian village" is redundant. There is no such thing as a military village, and we never refer to Lebanese villages in the article as "civilian" villages. Purely POV.
2. The second was to change "Hezbollah then launched more rockets into northern Israel..." by inserting "the civilian areas of" before northern Israel. It is OR to say that they were either (a) only targetting civilian areas, or (b) only hitting civilians areas – the two things this change implies. The original wording was more neutrally vague.
3. The third change was to add the sentence "After the war Lebanon has received millions in aid for rebuilding it's infrastructure, and Israel has received nothing for it's thousands of rocket attacks in civilian areas." This is a completely unsourced edit. If you can find sources to support the statement, I will support its inclusion, but not only is this unsourced, it's also wrong, so I doubt you'll find many sources to support it...
4. The fourth is again to use the term "civilian village," which is redundant, and to remove "military outposts". This removal contradicts with the source cited.
5. The fifth is to state as fact the Israeli assertion that the international airport was being used to smuggle weapons into the country. This is entirely POV.
6. The sixth is again redundant - unguided rockets are inherently indiscriminate, and towns are inherently civilian.
7. The seventh is factually inaccurate. It states that a UNDP report is accusing Hezbollah of using human shields. I know of no such report by the UNDP. Furthermore, any mention of such reports does not belong in this section, but in the "Use of human shields" section later in the article.
8. The eighth is again stating as fact the Israeli position that Hezbollah used roads and bridges to smuggle weapons. The entire addition was unsourced, and tends to ramble into other categories. This section deals with civilian objects, while the addition also talks about human shields and civilian casualties, which have their own sections.
9. The ninth is an unsourced edit about Israeli civilian casualties being lower because they are required to build bomb shelters, then an entirely POV OR statement about Lebanese civilians not expecting attacks from Israel.
10. The tenth is the same as the third, an unsourced addition of OR.

I'm reverting these changes yet again. Please join the discussion on the articles talk page before re-adding these statements. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by George.Saliba (talk • contribs) 18:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Can you provide me with a definition or policy page on wikilayering? I've never heard the phrase used before. Thanks. — George Saliba ^[talk] 19:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Doc Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Hey, I was confused by this edit. It seems like OR. Do you have a source saying that it was not a mistake and that they intended to use the Arabic word for "poison"? If not I ask that you remove it until you find this source. Thanks. The Behnam 06:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the translation itself (though I haven't actually verified it), but rather your association of that translation with the text of the sign. I don't see any source indicating that was an intentional use of the Arabic word for "poison." And if you check here Farsi Dictionary, and type in "poison", you will find that "Israel" is not one of the results. So it may not even be an Arabic word used in Persian.

Anyway, there is not source for your claim that this was not a 'typo' and that they intended to use a supposed Arabic word for "poison," so I again ask you to please remove the OR from the the article. Thank you. The Behnam 06:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I didn't dispute the translation itself, but rather your association of the phrase with that sign. There is no source saying that it is an intentional use of the Arabic word for 'poison', so it seems your parenthetical comment is OR. Unless you can provide a source making this association, your addition will be removed. I am asking you to do it yourself so that we don't have problems.

By the way, I looked at some English -> Arabic dictionaries online and couldn't find any that translate "poison" as "IsraeL". Most of them translated to something that looked like "sam" (or perhaps "som", it is not clear). Those providing multiple translations didn't have any resembling "Isreal". So now I am even questioning your translation, though it doesn't really affect the OR aspect of your addition anyway.

Please reconsider this situation and kindly remove the OR from the page. Thank you. The Behnam 06:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I checked it by typing "poison" into the English side. Anyway, this doesn't really matter, because it is OR for you to list the translation there in parentheses when there is no source that associates that particular statement to that Arabic word's definition. Your recent replacement does not solve the underlying problem. I think you'd best remove it. Cheers. The Behnam 06:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It's called verification, and under that logic I could just as easily call your claim of that meaning OR as well. But the point is that I am not calling your edit OR on account of the translation but rather on the association of that translation with the phrase at hand. If you don't provide the source, then the article won't keep the statement. Is that clear? I've asked you nicely and with much explanation at this point, so if you don't remove it now I will have to seek help from others. The Behnam 06:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No that doesn't solve the problem. There is no reason to include that 'note' as there is no source associating them. By adding the translation note you imply that the misspelling used should be noted as meaning 'poison' in Arabic, when there is no reason to make this association. This is just about WP:NOR. Don't associate that translation with that phrase unless you can verify that they intended to use that particular word in that statement. Otherwise, keep it out of the article (until you find an appropriate source). I hope this was just a misunderstanding and that you now understand why I find the addition inappropriate. Thanks. The Behnam 06:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Arab citizens of Israel

your commentary is requested here: Sikkuy and criticism about Arab Israeli economy influencing culture. Jaakobou 20:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Bishara's resignation from the Knesset

Please see Talk:Azmi Bishara#Bishara's resignation from the Knesset. Thanks. Itayb 10:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

English

Hi Zeq. The language seems OK, but I am not a native speaker. As you know, edits supported by WP:RS have greater stickability. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Notice of block

I have been away for a few days as you know. I have examined the rules carefully and my conclusions are:

1. There is no ruling at WP:ARB/Zeq nor a general rule at WP:Probation that sets a time limit on your probation. Therefore your probation continues until the Arbitration Committee decides to withdraw it.
2. Both of the above-mentioned pages clearly state that the Arbitration ruling can be enforced by "any" administrator. The only restrictions are those of reasonableness and good faith, which I am willing to argue for.

Therefore, I am blocking you for 48 hours on account of your editing of 1929 Hebron Massacre in open defiance of my ban. Considering the severity of your action, this is a very small penalty. You cannot expect such leniency to continue. Reported in the required places. --Zero^talk 07:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Not only I did not violate anything also Zero can not block anyone withwhom he has a simple edit dispute. This is a clear vuiolation of his admin powers. Zetro had his day with ArnBom before and Jimmiy Wales said that he has vilated his admin powers and should be stripped of his admin powers. ArbCom decided at that time to warn him. enough is enough. This abusive admin must be stopped and now is the time. Zeq 08:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lance6wins#Findings_of_Fact - clearly zero s a repeat offender. Zeq 08:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This is where Jimbo Wales saying that Zero should loose his admin powers due to abuse (exactly the same abuse he has done here threats and misuse of admin powers):

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lance6wins#Matter_of_User:Zero0000

Zero had blocked so he can push his agenda in this article: [2] - anyone who is familiar with the evnts (such as the fact that the riots indeed spread to Safed) would see that Zero's edit is a simple lie. He wants to hide certain events and uses his admin power to block those who edit differently than the way he wants to see the article.

Zeq 08:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Your block

I've started a thread over at the administrator's noticeboard about your block. ♠PMC♠ 18:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank You. anyway I can attend that discussion ?

The isue of Zero admin abuse is hugh. I will not participate in any editing if you unblock me (until the 48 hours pass or we resolve the issue beforehand) Zeq 19:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

PMC: Before charterizing my edits you should review the article talk page. Zero made his warning after one (1) edit I made that other editors agree with my edit. Zeros' edit on the otherhand is pure false (he is deleting known facts) - please don't charterize my edits (I am willing toi discuss them sepratly and if you think they are wrong we will deal with that)

The problem is:

1. Zero's admin abuse 2. Zero's own editing. 3. Zero's refusal to engae in mediation with me - this is most likley based on discrimination.

Zeq 19:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

NOTE TO PMC: After Zero wrote me about the ban I responded on his talk page. So to say that my response to his ban was just to edit the article is in correct. I tried to talk with him . He did not responded for several days. (usually he edit's every day). This is not the first or even 2nd time. He simply refuse to talk with me. Zeq 20:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion

1. Please unblock me so I can participate in the discussion 2. Admins who constantly have edit dispute with me (Zero, El_C) should not be allowed to take any admin action against me.

Admin powers are never intentioned to give ANYONE an advantage in a content dispute. Blocks are not intended to prevent anyone from attending a discussion in which his edits are unfairly charterized(this is what El-C is doing) without letting a person defend himself against such personal attacks.

I move that neither El-C nor Zero would be allowed to use their admin powers for any article on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: They both edit those subjects heavily, they both have a very specific POV and there for should limit their involvement in these articles to edit only functions.

They want to help admin wikipedia ? Fine. Not on those type of articles that they edit with such a strong bias and POV.

Zeq 20:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI for anyone looking at this, there is a longer discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive228#[edit] Notice of block|WP:ANI#Notice of block]]. The discussion is essentially at an impasse and it would be nice if an uninvolved administrator or two would offer an opinion there. (I'm sure there are some unblock request patrollers looking here.) Zeq, if you have any relevant diffs to add to the discussion, I would be happy to add a link to your talk page. I would suggest, though, not focusing on accusations of abuse, but, rather, on the question of whether the block was appropriate. --BigDT 20:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue and the only issue is the abuse. Several years ago he was in a smiliar dispute after which Jimbo Wales said he should have been disysoped. ArbCom decided to disysop him for 2 weeks with a warning. In any different arbCom case (mine) ArbCom told him to use dispure resolution mechanisms yet he refused to my mediation requests and refuse to talk with me.

The issue of the block/ban propre or not is not at all the issue here. I tried to talk with Zero about the ban[3] and told him simply: As an involved admin you can not issue such a ban. As such the ban was improper and of couse the block should not take place( because the ban was improper).

Now, we are off to a whole new issue: Zero misuse of admin power. so I again ask that 1st thing is to unblock me. Zeq 20:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Please note: The only admin to defend Zero's action is El-C. El-c has in the past blocked me for exactly the same reason as Zero: A content dispute on the Lebanon war article. At the time I did not want to argue about it. However now I must ask that el-C and Zero would stop taking admin action about any article about the Middle east. They are too involved in editing of such article with intense one sided POV pushing. Zeq 20:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As you may recall, the AC did not conclude that I am an involved admin, despite your protests to the contrary. El_C 21:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You are involved in any Israel/zionism/Palestine related article. In such articles you should not use your admin powers. Zeq 21:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:Probation

Probation are for 1 year. My name is no longer in the user under probation list. This all issue is moot. Clearly there is in the rulling a wording about "5-block-one-year-ban" and that is clear that probation ends after one year. (that is the norm and no one said anything different. all my article bans ended when the probation ended)

Please end this whole issue. The only issues to be addressed are:

1. Zero's abuse 2. The content dispute between Zero and me. I will gladly try to mediate this issue.

El-c is welcome to participate in this dispute resolution. His views on me are irelevant. how ever his action as an admin should be reviwed:

Look at this edit summary:

"next time, someone else should apply the remedies, but for now, let's pretend that I unblocked, and reblocked)"

[4] - is shows el-c complete disragrd of the rules. In fact a blck by an involved admin must be overturned on sight. el-c instead endorsed Zero's abusive actions. Zeq 21:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said countless times by now, you need to start to use article talk pages as your edits are not up to par with our quality standards. In the past, I offered on several occasions that you can even write your additions in Hebrew and I would translate them for you, but continuing to revert war over glaringly poorly-written additions is a reoccuring problem that cannot continue indefinitely. It's a tendencious pratice. Thx. El_C 21:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

El-C is an "involved admin"

He is involced in many Israel / Palestine articles - in such articles he should not be using his admin powers Zeq 21:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I also wrote most of Wikipedia's IDF articles. I'm not certain why I should be recusing. El_C 21:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You can continue edit what you want the problem is that you were the first admin to see this block (by an involved admin) and you did not unblocked.

The solution is that that you will not use your admin powers on articles in which you are editing (ie. all israel related articles) and avoid participating in admin discussions about me. You are far from being nutral on this. Zeq 21:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

With regards to yourself, the AC upheld my uninvolvement last I asked. As for asking me to recuse from all ME article, that is a highly unorthodox request, which I decline. El_C 21:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You should not use admin powers in articles which you are involved. You are involved in all Israeli-palestinin articles. Zeq 22:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That's incorrect, I argue. Again, if it's a request, I decline. Otherwise, feel free to appeal the AC when your block expires. El_C 22:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

To reiterate, I don't think Zero should have been the one to issue the article ban or the block (since he's named in the RfAr), but you should have came to ANI first instead of simply ignoring the fact that an article ban has been issued. El_C 22:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked

I have reviewed the situationt thoroughly. I believe the article ban at 1929 Hebron massacre was not applied appropriately, as Admin Zero0000 was involved in the dispute, and notice was not given on the article talk page or the admin noticeboard as required. Therefore, your block was inappropriate, and I have lifted it. Thatcher131 22:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I lifted two autoblocks. You should be clear now. Thatcher131 23:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Banned from 1929 Hebron massacre for one month

After reviewing recent edits at 1929 Hebron massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I have come to the conclusion that you have edited the article disruptively as specified by your probation; I have banned you from editing the article for one month. You are not banned from the talk page, please try to work out your disputes there rather than edit warring. If you violate this ban you may be blocked. Thank you. Thatcher131 22:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

1. I am still blocked. 2. Admin Zero - who first came up with the idea of the ban - did not respond to my comments on his talk page.

3. The ban was imposed after one single edit and therefor was unjustified. (you can not take into account other edits done after the ban was imposed) 4. I am no longer on probation

The whole process was tainted and as such the most fair way to handle this is not to place a ban. Not to mention that I was and still am unjustly blocked.

5. Please review Zeros' own edits to the article and you will see that as an admin he should have been more carefull - his editing is simply to remove facts (such as the fact that the riots spread to Safed Zeq 22:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This was the ONLY edit I made that caused the ban: [5] - what is wrong in this edit ? Zeq 22:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it right now, Zeq. Please reaspond to the section bellow, it is the most pressing matter. El_C 22:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You may be autoblocked. I will look into it after I finish leaving notices of my actions. No one in this dispute bothered to use the article talk page; what tipped the scale for me was your reverting to your version with the added statement "this is contradicted by the Shaw report". If your account is contradicted by the official findings of the period, then your account is, as far as I can tell, either personal opinion or original research or some combination (you would need an equally authoritative citation describing your preferred version of events) and reinserting it with that comment is basically saying, I don't care what the official report says because I am right. Like it or not, you have a history, and the purpose of probation and article bans is top stop things before they get out of hand. You can contest the article ban on the noticeboard after I have a chance to post it. Work the content problem out on the talk page, or try to find some sources that support you. Thatcher131 22:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

In addition to what Thatcher said, please, if you are reverted, discuss the changes on the talk page rather than simply reverting back. Yes, 3RR is the policy, but it is even better to hold to 0RR or 1RR. It makes things go much more smoothly and makes it much less likely that an admin would say you are being disruptive. --BigDT 23:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Discrimination charges

You write above that "Zero's refusal to engae in mediation with me - this is most likley based on discrimination." What do you mean by "discrimination"? On what do you base this allegation? I will give you a chance to respond, but please weigh your words wisely as I am at the moment inclined to issue a block due to that comment. Thanks in advance. El_C 22:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Very simply: Zero tend not to answer me about question I leave on his talk page he does repond to others. Why he does that I don't know but such a behaviour does not promote cooperative editing. He also trefused recent request from me to mediation by not responding. His non responsivness (to me only) is a big problem. Zeq 22:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That answer is, itself, nonresponsive. While he may be nonresponsive, on what basis do you intimate "discrimination" ? Thanks again. El_C 22:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is my answer. If instead of me you have a better one you are free to add your answer. Zeq 04:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There are many reasons that editors might not want to work with you, such as you have tired them out with disputes, or they feel that they have never made progress with you in the past and so do not want to go through the motions again. Throwing around a specific allegation as "discrimination" is really needlessly contentious and confrontational, and benefits no one. Thatcher131 23:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between "not wanting to work with me" to what Zero does:

He never respond to my notes

He revert my edits without explnation

He attcks me in his edit summaries Zeq 04:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless you have evidence of discrimination, I suggest you retract it, Zeq. But you need to respond directly, one way or the other. El_C 23:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you neither substantiated nor retracted the accusation, you've been blocked for 48 hrs. In the future, please exercize greater retraint. El_C 04:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It is enfortunate that accusation against me were leveled in WP:AE here when I was blocked and unable to respond.

I should have been unblocked immmidetly when the block was first obsereved by an admin for the simple reason that it was a block by an involved admin.

El-C , the admin who obseved the block did not unblock me. This was a violation.

Instead, he tried to fight those who wanted to remove the block.

Both Zero000 and El-C have thus misused their admin powers.

Al-C have done it again by reblocking me. Zeq 04:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You were given an opportunity to clarify what you meant by "discrimination" but opted against it. The next time you accuse a user of discrimination without offering evidence, the block duration will become substantially longer. El_C 05:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You can not be the accuser, Judge and exceutioner - which is the role you just play. I suggest that you unblock.

I don't have to appologize for a true staement: Zero acts toward me in a way that is different from how other editors and admin act with each other. He was offered by me several times to resolve issues but he never responds. He blockded me several times and he attcks me in his edit summarries (at times) - which is a violation of WP:NPA.

You are alos involved with me and now you took advantage of your admin powers in that dispute - acting very much like Zero0000 does. The intersting thing is that both of you are trying to promote a very sepcifc POV in wikipedia - a POV I am trying to balance to an NPOV. - This is the core issue and you very well know it. So let me sum it up for you:

1. both you and Zero have an on-going content dispute with me on various articles

2. Both you and Zero trying to use your admin powers to remove me from editing. Your way is trying to block me several times so that you will get a magical count of 5 that you think will silence me forever. to get to this count you yourself have blocked me several times

3. The core issue here is that you disagree with every edit I made (you have reverted each of my edit in article s we edit together) You are thuse a admin who is involved in content dispute but blocking the person you are in dispute with. Zeq 05:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That is false. I have no ongoing content dispute with you, anywhere. Charges of "discrimination" are very serious and need to be carefuly documented, they cannot be uttered on a whim. Refusal to either retract or back these up is disruptive. El_C 05:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a joke. He complains about a patently incorrect block and then you block him for it? --BigDT 05:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Your unhelpful tone aside, what if anything does this have to do with charges of "discrimination "? El_C 05:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It has to do with it being an excuse. You have been defending an indefensible block all day. When it was overturned after every uninvolved admin disagreed with it, you imposed another block immediately thereafter. It's inappropriate. I suggest unblocking him and moving on with life. --BigDT 05:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It has been hours and he's yet to backup or retract the "discrimination" charges, so why do you defend this conduct? El_C 05:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

BigDT, there is always an inherent tension when an admin wrongly imposes a right block. We have to think it through. I propose we scrutinize Zero0000's block, but not throw the baby out with the bathwater here, either. Zeq is clearly being disruptive here, and probably would have gotten a harsher block. Dmcdevit·t 06:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, either provide evidence of El C's involvement or stop it with your accusations of admin abuse against him. The simple truth is that your incessant edit warring over the course of months, despite the arbcom ruling makes me feel your current treatment is lenient indeed. Dmcdevit·t 06:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Dmcdevit - The problem is EXCATLY ArbCom that has exposed me to this long lasting abuse (i.e numoures admin ahve blocked me for no good reason - there is aclear record of that) . El-C has in a consistent basis reverted almost every edit I made (on articles he and I have edited together) - do you need diffs ? This is his involvment - he objects almost any edit I made on asrticles we edit at the same time - why are you ignoring this ? can't you see that the problemmis "clash of POV" ?. If this is not a content dispute I don't know what is a content dispute. He used the arbcom rulling as an excuse to block me several times.

Here is my suggstion:

1. ArbCom wouild end the probation (which I am sure ended after a year) would allow me to function like any meber of this comunity. All bans on me would be removed

2. ArbCom will review Zero0000 edists - he has anm history of trying to re-write history of the Israeli-Palestinian - because of his work Wikipedia is full of bias and material facts are removed. (i.e. he decode that only events that are anti-Israel are relevant and remove the other facts - such as the Mufti being anti-semite - which is well accepted in the academic comunity)

3. Zero0000 would be de-sysoped

4. Al-C would be prevented to use his admin powers on israel related articles

This would allow me to function like everyone else - but more important this would allow Israeli-Palestinin articles to become NPOV (which has always been my goal)

If after these steps are taken you will find that I violate Wikipedia rules it will be OK to ban me forever ?

So are you wiling to have a fair and level playing field ?

BTW, one of the outcomes of my prior arbcom case was that zero was encouraged to use dispute resolution mecahism (so far he refused) and that mediation will start on the most POV articvle in Wikipedia: Nakba

So please if you are concerned about the quality of articles in this encyclopedia take the steps to improve them by creating an even playing field to all POV. Zeq 07:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting set of demands (still no evidence whatsoever), but you failed to mention yourself, the one that has persistently flouted ArbCom's intentions and continued your battles for more than a year now. It seems obvious to me that ending your probation is the opposite of what should be done. Dmcdevit·t 07:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

An example of al-C mis use of power

I have made 1 edit to an article and he imediatly ban me from that article: [6] - a person like that can not use admin power over articles he is involved in editing. He is a frequent editor to this subject: [7], [8] and get's into a revert war (look at history - hhe admit being "out of reverts" Zeq 07:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

al-C behaviour is similar to that of Zero0000. It is important to note that what started this round of abuse is one (1) edit I made:

[9] (as you can see from the dit summary zero rejecys the source, offer his own version of thevents and neglect to look for other sources which is easy since there are many sources that confirm exactly what the wp:rs has said. In any case a source is a source and Zero0000 is a POV and original reaserch.

I chalange anyone to find what is wrong in this edit ? In fact if anyone should be banneed from the article it is zero.

Zero removed a WP:RS source and I resored it. Wasn't it not ArbCom who told both Zero and me to use wp:RS sources/

• Because of this edit I got a ban, two blocks and a whole new fresh accusations.
• So this is my point: The probation has ended and people like Zero and al-C should not be abusing their admin powers againt me. Zeq 07:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned, at the time, the article was featured on ITN and Zeq's edit was <borderline> vandalism. No one else objected to the block. As for Operation Summer Rains suboperations, that is a different article (which is basically a brief listing of the subops), which Zeq has never edited. El_C 07:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I forgot about the brief revert war over whether the final four subops were part of Summer Rains or not (the article was last edited on November 2006). I never ended up writing the IDF about it (do you know, Zeq?) Anyway, hopefuly, I provisionally fixed it with my latest edit (just now, thanks again for the reminder), one that reveals the last four sections which have been hidden all this time. Oy! El_C 08:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I just noticed that User:Tasc was blocked indefinitely on December 2006, so I could have had my revision up there this entire time, and I didn't even need to compromise this time. Since the date for the conclusion of the conflict in the main article has been changed since I last seen it, I'll have Subops article reflect that, and also I'll link to the main article (it has no links to the mainspace at the moment). Sorry for the length of this, Zeq (I welcome your thoughts on the content questions I raised). Thanks. El_C 08:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

But this is old news and you have already argued all this at length on WP:AE. When you said above (in bold) of "an on-going content dispute [with me] on various articles" I really did not expect for you to cite an item from July 2006. El_C 07:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• You need more exmaples ? Every times are path crossed you reverted me and in most cases tried to block me . This is a pattren.
• You are an "involved editor" in the sense that you have a POV diametrically oppose to mine. Therefor you should not use your admin tools when you have a dispue with me. All that you are doing is trying to silence my view. Zeq 09:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Me either. What was wrong with the edit you cited was the edit warring, not necessarily the content of the edit (I don't know anything about the subject myself). Furthermore, your probation has no end date, and is still in effect. And if you want the opinion of one of the arbitrators that actually voted in the case, you just got it. Besides which, edit warring is always a blockable offense, with or without probaion; your failure to grasp that point was why you were put on probation in the first place. Dmcdevit·t 08:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There was no edit warring on that single edit. (a single edit can noy be a edit war)

Wikipedia has rules to protect users under probation from thw type of abuse that I went through

Probation (at least the way I understood it) has a 1 year end date

Now, even if you are correct and the probation did not end, and my edit was wrong all that Zero0000 needed to do is to engae in comunication with me. It is very typical of him and of El-C not to seek a solution but to abuse their power to get their way. If you look at Zero0000 edit patterns they are full of edit-wars and of removal of WP:RS info.

The issue here is hat Zero000 + Al-c have one POV and I have a second POV. For NPOV both POVs must be represented.

Zero was already described by Jimbo Wales as someone who should be de-sysoped exactly on a similar type of abuse. Zeq 09:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

While I certainly have my views, you'll find that my involvment is sought by both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict, as an editor an admin alike. Thus, I feel your claims are neither fair nor representative, but that rather, they are distortive and parochial. El_C 09:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

El-C admit his motives

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

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

---

Request reason:

admin deeply involved in this dispute - should not use admin powers

Decline reason:

As I have indicated and explained before, I, also univolved, would have blocked you too, and for longer. And I find no substantive evidence that El C is involved, in any case. Dmcdevit·t 15:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

---

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

I just noticed that on [10] El-C admit that he took side in this conflict because he share Zero0000 POV on ME issues. This is the problem: clash of POV :

Zero0000 and el-c (both admins) on one side and I try to NPOV them (formaly underp probation and with dislktia that prevent me from having better english)

The playing feild has to be leveled.

None of this conflict would take place if Zero would refuse to comunicate with me.Zeq 09:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you were just a nonative English speaker (you never corrected me). Still, if you have dyslexia, it's better to employ the talk page so errors which are a product of this syndrome could be addressed prior to being included in the main namespace. With respect to your latest faulty claim: I did not admit I took "sides" in the dispute since Zero & I share some views, that's highly assumptive on your part. I have a much closer and more active relationship with several editors who oppose many of my views on ME (& other geopolitical) issues. El_C 09:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You have admited to support Zero0000 because you share his POV on ME issues. AS for me: The best is that you don't give advice especially not in the offending way you have done so far. I suggest that we try not to be involved with each other. It is time you unblock me. Zeq 10:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not admit this; I will not unblock you; I do not see where I offended you. El_C 15:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The discission here : [11] and elsewhere about El-C action towrd me continue without my ability tto respond there. I have promised right when it started: unblock me and I will only participate in the discussion. What el-c dcmdevit is now doing (arguing against me without my ability to respond) is unfair and uncivil. For example el-c claim [12]that "he gave me many hours" - ya Right, the hours he gave me are between 3:00AM to 7:00 AM Moscow time (which is my clock and I was sleeping most of that time....) Zeq 10:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It dosen't matter if you were sleeping, you could have said 'I have evidence of discrimination but need time to collect it,' but you did not. Also, myself as well Dmcdevit have been extremely responsive on the talk page, and us commenting elsewhere while you are blocked is not, as you claim, indicative of uncivilty. Finally, you have yet to produce evidence of "On-going [this means, let's say, 2007] content dispute [with me] on various articles [this means more than one]" Perhaps at this point you wish to retract or backup that claim, at least. El_C 15:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

El-C: Unblock me so we can talk as equals on the relevant Admin Abuse page. This is not the place to continue this discussion. I don't need to produce more evidence as you have admitted it yourself already. You have a POV issue with my edits and you take Zero's side on ME issues. Now unblock me. Zeq 15:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You have been named in the the arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Zeq_and_Zero0000. Please make your statement here and it will be copied there, or wait until your block expires in a day. Dmcdevit·t 23:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a vandal

How come this is not handled: [13]

Someone once asked me what is wikilawyering

Here is a good example:

[14]

He is using my words on an unrelated talk page (only talk page) to convince everyone that he used "academic sources" and should be thus exempt from using talk page him self. He can revert, he can blcock and all that because he is only acting as "ArbCom" given him the right.

So let's review:

• AArbCom told him to abuse his admin powers
• ArbCom told him to use dispute resolution
• He refused mediation several times
• He ignore messages left on his talk page
• He edit war
• He edit war more
• many of his edits are geared toward removing material facts about the israeli-palestiain conflicts (facts that show that the story is one sided: both sides are victoms but Zero prefer to present only one side as victom)
• his edit summaries are sometimes a personal attck on previous editor. He has been warned about it but continue.
• this is not the only policy violations

Should such a person beallowed to have so much infuialnce on how the world read about Israel and palestine in Wikipedia ? Zeq 12:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Your statement on WP:RfAr

Thank you for your detailed statement regarding the request for arbitration involving you. In the past, the arbitrators have requested that the parties limit themselves to a concise statement of approximately 500 words dealing specifically with the question whether the Arbitration Committee should accept the case presented. Bear in mind that if ArbCom accepts the case, you will have a full opportunity to explain your position further on the Evidence and Workshop pages. As your combined statements are well in excess of the length guideline, it is requested that you shorten them. Thank you. Newyorkbrad 00:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've noted that you shortened your statement, however you did it in the wrong section (i.e. clerk notes). I've removed them for the time being. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 06:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Zeq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Zero0000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 19:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest adding a few examples of each type of behaviour, noting that more can be provided upon request. David Mestel^(Talk) 14:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be grateful if you could prune your evidence a tad: it's currently over 1600 words; as near as possible to 1000 would be ideal. Thanks, David Mestel^(Talk) 14:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that you have a lot to say - I was merely asking you to prune as much as possible. Wrt your second point, you are still allowed another 47 diffs, and you could also say something along the lines of "these diffs are just a few of a large number of similar examples. If Zero denies this, I will be happy to provide further evidence". David Mestel^(Talk) 22:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply

You didn't post the 2nd link I think. What did you have in mind? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)