User talk:PalestineRemembered/Archives/2008/January

.

3rr as a weapon

Wish they'd seriously discuss that, but they don't. It isn't just the Palestine/Israel conflict where its used as a club, of course, but it happens much too much. I wish everyone would get along. :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Saeb Erekat

It is with extreme reluctance I engage in edit-warring like activity, but I have scrapped the section on "lied over Jenin Massacre" at Saeb Erekat on BLP grounds (it's also a breach of notability, see extensive and conclusive discussion here).

I have also excised a portion of the "Jewish State Controversy" and renamed the whole section. It seems difficult to accept that Erekat really meant to say "no state in the world connects its national identity to a religious identity", again it's inclusion is both non-notable and seems calculated to make him look like a fool. The first part of this paragraph is significant in his public life, however, and seems to accurately reflect his current "Negotiating position" (which is what I've re-named the section, instead of "Controversies"). Such a section should probably become the most important part of the article, except that I think ......

It would be helpful if you could lock the article at this point. There is a vast amount about Saeb Erekat that is very interesting, but with the extraordinarily tendacious editing that's been going on here, it'll be a long time before we can treat this subject in a fashion worthy of the project. The last thing I (or the other 6 editors who've tried to improve the article and stop the disruption here) want to do is waste still more of my/our time with editors so flagrantly in breach of every kind of WP:POLICY. PR^talk 09:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I decline to protect the page as it has only been edited twice in the last three weeks. I am not sure you understand the purpose of protection. Stifle (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeking your feedback at an RFC

Hi, I've found a historic photo that might be feature-worthy but the caption from the century-old stereoscope looks politically loaded by today's standards (Mideast issues). So I'm seeking feedback on how to craft NPOV language and move forward with a nomination. The discussion is located here. Your input would be much appreciated. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 23:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Israeli-Palestinian conflict

hey there. i appreciate the fact that seem to want to contribute to this article. however simply stating on the talk page that something is wrong doesn't really achieve much. i would encourage you to make edits to the article itself, so that real progress can be made. cheers. Suicup (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I know getting your edits reverted is a pain the the arse (happens to me too), however perhaps if you try again but a little differently. eg in the Dershowitz example, rather than just removing the reference, put a new one in its place. That will make it much less likely that your edit will be reverted. And if it is, you will be in a much better position to argue on talk page. cheers Suicup (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

My point is that sometimes you just have to play the game. Replacing a reference, rather than just removing it is a much better way of going about it. You said on the talk page that you believe the claim to be true anyway, and you sound knowlegable enough about the topic at hand, so how hard is it to find a source to put there? That way, the article gets the citation and not an annoying <fact> tag, you don't get reverted, and all is well. Suicup (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but if you are knowedgable enough to remove a reference, you are knowledgeable enough to replace it, or short of that, remove the phrase with your reasoning on the talk page. Suicup (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that the article is protected, it is difficult to take action, however, i still hold that if you are knowledgable enough to believe that Dershowitz is 'unreliable' than you should be knowledgable enough to come up with another source. After all, how did you know Dershowitz was unreliable in the first place? Perhaps you should propose removing those two sentences which use Dershowitz as a citation? Note i am not necessarily against your opinion, it just annoys me when people come and make statements on talk without any action. Right now, my perception, rightly or wrongly, is that you are doing just that. Suicup (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I will, however if in the meantime you outline your proposed edits on talk (eg state your alternative source for dershovitz) that could be productive. Suicup (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Palestine-Israel conflict

Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for a dispute that you are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 17:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Which other parties do you feel should be added to the page? Ryan Postlethwaite 18:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see this. PR^talk 18:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi; rfar case

Hi. errr, actually I wasn't accused in this RFaR case. sorry. I simply wanted to post some comments, right at the beginning. I feel bad if I have placed you in an awkward position at all, by not having clarified that before. Sorry. Anyway, thanks so much for all your supportive comments. It's really great to see your willingness to request some positive actions on this. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. just want to let you know, i really aprpeciate your positive sentiments at the rfar page. as the case goes forward, we may find ourselves disagreeing on various issues; just want to let you know, please feel free to express any issues you may have, of course. I don't take your rfar statement as any broad assumption that our various different viewpoints will suddenly find some sort of instant agreement, so that's not a problem. furthermore, I do find myself disagreeing with you on some issues; however, my statement to ArbCom though was sincere. Even when i disagree with you, i noticed that often our disagreements occur only on the article talk pages, not in any form of tactics. So there is a difference between an opinionated, outspoken form of editing like yours, and one which is generally disruptive. i wanted to make sure that that difference was properly recognized. However, i don;t assume that we won't occasionally have disagreements in the future, over various issues. so i wanted to state al this now,. thanks for your helpful input. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered

Hello Tariqabjotu - you seem to be under the impression that there are a mass of really problematical editors contributing to the ANI, and that I must be one of them. I can assure you I'm not. I've been targetted for silencing because my information is (generally) good and well sourced. All my edits, from very shortly after my arrival, have been examined very, very closely and, apart from some possible conduct issues (incivility? soap-boxing?) have a nearly clean bill of health. Edits for which I was indef-blocked (took 6 weeks to properly lift) are now in the articles where they belong. Serious, diff-laden accusations of edit or revert-warring have turned out to be totally unfounded, since other editors, once they're aware of what I've found, have insisted the information be included. Allegations of original research or poor sourcing have proved completely unfounded - the three examples last bandied around were from my first arrival (Sept 06), and still look like excellent material that should be in the articles (though they're not, they're eminently credible and non-surprising, but from non-RS sources).

Whether I'm actually a very productive editor is hard to say - I'm quite slow. But that's because I check everything very, very carefully (I have to). I promise you, the articles I've edited are (overwhelmingly) better for my attention. PR^talk 16:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The ends don't justify the means. If the means are seriously problematic, the last sentence in your comment above is not correct. -- tariqabjotu 20:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere I've seen "Product is more important than process", I trust you agree. PR^talk 09:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

A case has opened in the WP:Mediation Cabal and a user has listed you as an involved party, related to edits/comments at Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The case is located at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-09 Israeli-Palestinian conflict‎, please feel free to comment on the article talk page. Thank you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

PS. I felt like it was time to open a mediation case, since in spite of all the contention, dissent and new proceedings curently going on, as well as edit-protections on several entries, there are actually very few active mediation efforts for any articles right now. so this is a step in hopefully a right direction. by the way, did you know that a single MedCab case can cover a few articles at once? so this seems like possibly an appropriate way to go. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Weizmann

Not back. Only updating my file, and occasionally checking around. But if you wish you know where the Weizmann quote comes from in that diff, it's Lenni Brenner Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, Croom Helm, London 1983 p.37. The book is on the net in a free downloadable version. Best wishes Nishidani (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please!

Please! Don't mention the letters "EE". I'm still trying to forget. LMAO. Gatoclass (talk) 12:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ad hominem

This wasn't very nice.[1] Durova^Charge! 03:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) Please PR, try to be WP:CIVIL. An open ArbCom case is just about the worst place for you to vent like this. You really need to be on your best behavior. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to see this still coming up.[2] Would you please withdraw it, and please refrain from that type of insinuation regarding me? I assure you, this mentorship was undertaken in good faith on both sides. I would like to collaborate with you in good faith also. Durova^Charge! 21:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Words for groups of people

Dear PalestineRemembered, re this discussion, where someone asked you to avoid using the word "immigrants" in this context and you indicated difficulty in finding acceptable words to use and you said "I will often refer to supporters of Israel as "the immigrants" ". Here I would like to try to help everyone compromise and get along with each other, so I'd like to try to help find a word or phrase people can agree on, although perhaps it's not likely I can come up with anything that hasn't already been suggested and rejected for one reason or another. I understand your frustration -- you've got to be able to use a word to be able to express what you want to say. Now, maybe I ought to know this already, but I'd appreciate it if you'd gently explain to me why you wouldn't use the term "Israelis" in that context. (As a reminder, there are now also the phrases suggested by Sm8900 (Steve): ("i would ask whether you could perhaps use a term such as "Israel supporters," "Israelis and their allies", or simply, "Members of Israeli society." it might even be fine to say "Israelis of a Zionist viewpoint," as using Zionist as an adjective is not really that bad.") --Coppertwig (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom comments

Hi. i replied to your comments about my ideas in my section under "Proposed remedies." would like to hear your response, when you have a chance. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks very much! I appreciate your positive comments. By the way, that wasn't the one which i was refeing to here(not sure whether you thought it was). this is the ciomment i meant: located here. thanks very much. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

PR, thank you for your comments about my editing at the Arbcomm proceedings. I literally blushed. Tiamut 16:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

I have proposed a mediation on the underlying issue at New antisemitism. The request is here. It's up to you whether or not you want to participate. I am asking everyone who has been extensively involved in discussions on the talk page. *** Crotalus *** 05:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence in the arbitration case

You write "I can either prove, or provide conclusive circumstantial evidence, that User:Jaakobou has been operating one or more sock-puppets in order to edit-war. He has had 4 days to tell us how many there are, and name them."

If you have reasonable good faith grounds for believing Jaakobou has been misusing multiple accounts then please send it to the arbitration committee mailing list (where it will be treated confidentially), at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Setting a deadline for Jaakobou to reveal them is not relevant, because that might be taken to imply that such use was acceptable if subsequently declared. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, PR, you should follow this course of action. Your evidence section attempting to tell Jaak what to do looks at worst like a paranoid screed and at best an attempt to create needless WP:DRAMA. Just forward the evidence you have to ArbCom. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Will you just provide the evidence about Jaakobou so that it is out in the open. I don't understand why you are holding it back if it is so convincing. If you can't provide the evidence, then remove the section. After all, it is an Evidence page, not an accusations one. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have now agreed to provide the proof, subject only that it not be deleted. We've had dedicated, abusive sock-puppetry from partisans on this topic before, they weren't forced to confess and the evidence was deleted. Today I discover even the sock-masters account in that case has been deleted (very prematurely, since it was active not long ago). The evidence in this case mustn't be treated the same way. PR^talk 18:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If the evidence is not provided either on-wiki or privately to ArbCom by the end of today, all the allegations of sockpuppetry on the evidence page will be blanked. The evidence page is for evidence, not argument or allegation. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you should remove the allegations. This is your project and you must do as you see fit. But I put the proof up here anyway. Please don't delete the accounts User:MouseWarrior and User:Paul_T._Evans, because people will still want to check the evidence for themselves. PR^talk 23:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. Do you stand by that evidence or not? Why aren't you just putting it in the ArbCom?? -- Kendrick7^talk 20:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Please withdraw this phrase

(as Jaakobou's mentor Durova would tell us) - it's inappropriate to put words in my mouth. You never contacted me with any of these details and I've only just now started skimming your claims for the first time, now that you've made them available. You don't speak for me; please withdraw the attempt to. Durova^Charge! 00:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

PR, I see you've changed your evidence to the case. May I ask you to change your user page as well? If you'll shake cyberhands and move forward cooperatively I'd be glad to strikethrough my own evidence. Apparently you've had bad luck with previous mentorships and that's too bad. Please remember I'm a different person from them and from Jaakobou - just doing my small part to try and help make a bad situation better. Durova^Charge! 17:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

This arbitration has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted. An uninvolved administrator, after issuing a warning, may impose sanctions including blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. The Committee shall convene a working group, composed of experienced Wikipedians in good standing, and task it with developing a comprehensive set of recommendations for resolving the pervasive problem of intractable disputes centered around national, ethnic, and cultural areas of conflict. The group shall be appointed within two weeks from the closure of this case, and shall present its recommendations to the Committee no later than six months from the date of its inception. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, looks pretty good to me! Now just have to make sure people on the pages we edit most know all about it :-) Carol Moore 05:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Salam

Assalam Allaykom (Peace be upon you)

i couldnt help it, but I noticed that you are Interested in the Arab pages, i would like to Invite you to Join the Arab Wiki Project.

our goals are to Increase the Public's Awarness and Develop Articles that are related to the Arab world, and help each others to achieve it, we are all good in certain things, so why not complete each others to make the Arab world a more Understood region for readers in Wikipedia...

i hope you join in, and get to explore the Project more, and add your name as a member in the Project...

Ma Assalama (Peace be with you)

--Arab League User (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Best use of my time

Oh, man, I'm too hungover for this today, amigo. I don't think I'd be in the mood to get into yet another discussion with Jaak involving the Battle of Jenin even if I wasn't. At this point, I'm happy to let the ArbCom play out and just revisit these articles in 6-8 weeks. WP:TIND. later, Kendrick7^talk 17:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I-P battleground stats

PR -- I'm bringing this to your Talk because I already tried on the project Talk page, but you don't seem to have responded to my point. You say: "I'm now complaining that I'm linked to the mentorship of Jaakobou." PR, how does (that project page discuss Jaakobou's mentorship? It doesn't, so what is there to compalain about? I don't get it. Pls reply to my talk, concisely. Thanks. HG | Talk 19:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you blanked my Talk page. ack! HG | Talk 20:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation's conclusion

Dear PR:
The mediation reguarding the "Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus" article" will (hopefully) come to a close when JaapBoBo agrees to close the mediation as I already have. I noticed that you don't seem 100% satisfied with the results of the mediation, as you posted here in the mediation (it has since been removed by the mediator). That's perfectly understandable. Neither I nor JaapBoBo are 100% satisfied with it either, but we are satisfied enough to agree that it is a fair compromise.
That being said, I'd like to remind you about the promise you made "not only [to] abide by the result of a properly concluded mediation, but [also to] actively protect the agreement reached in future." I thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter and give you my solemn oath to live up to the same standards you set for yourself. --GHcool (talk) 08:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleting of sock-puppet accounts

I've just noticed that the account User:Isarig has been deleted. I seem to recall he was still editing only a few weeks ago. Surely it's very abnormal to delete accounts this quickly? The problem is that he's a known sock-master, who refused (and was allowed to refuse) to tell us what other sock-puppet accounts he was operating. The known sock-puppet accounts (User:Teens! and User:Clintonesque) were quickly deleted, making it impossible to discover what articles they'd damaged. Now, if we have suspicions against another account, we have no way of checking whether it's an area that Israrig was interested in, and whether it could be him cheating again.

I've agreed (see Evidence) to provide proof that Jaakobou has indeed been sock-puppeting abusively. But I've asked that the accounts in question not be deleted in this case, and that there be no objection to warning (within reason) other editors that some articles have been contaminated. Best Regards, PR^talk 16:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Re Isarig. Please note that the a few ArbCom members, a few admins and myself are monitoring the situation.

Re Jaakoubou. I am again asking you to provide evidences to your claims instead of asking us what to do. Nobody would be able to delete them if nobody knows about them! Regards. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

At the present time, the accounts of User:MouseWarrior and User:Paul_T._Evans appear to be still valid, allowing editors to examine their contributions and decide whether this is User:Jaakobou sock-puppeting or not. And to examine the articles they may have damaged and fix them. The sock-puppets of Isarig were deleted, however, making it impossible to check what they'd been up to. Latest, the account of User:Isarig him/herself has been deleted, making it impossible to check whether he'd cheated on his own account. PR^talk 21:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Writing the encyclopedia is our first goal here. We've just closed an Arb case and believe everyone has their eyes wide open. You can keep an eye on MouseWarrior and Paul T. Evans. As for Isarig, i believe the case is closed as, again, many admins, users and arbcom members are aware he hasn't cheated but got caught editing articles he shouldn't edit. He was blocked twice (see block log) because of that. Now, he decided to vanish as per WP:RTV. In other words, he's left and will not come back. You can keep an eye as other people do. What is inappropriate is focusing on these issues instead of editing. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that we're here to write an encyclopedia. However, there appear to be multiple problems in some articles (many on nationalist-type issues, sorry) which have been written in a POV fashion with the inclusion of much that is laughably WP:FRINGE. In some cases, we can be reasonably confident that there is damage to articles from misbehavior that is "proven" to our standards. It seems wrong both in practice and in principle that the trail of this mis-behavior can be quickly brushed over. PR^talk 11:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sincerely PR, what was the purpose of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles? What were the remedies for that case? A working group will be set up soon and you already have WP:IPCOLL to discuss the above. I thought you have already joined it! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)