Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:15, 14 May 2007

Archive1

Block re-instated, now 2 months

............... I've reinstated your block and added an additional month for ignoring the warnings given you the first time. FeloniousMonk 00:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations for taking 3 hours to consider the case and act this time, and not 13 minutes as last time.

Still nowhere near enough time for people who appreciate my edits to come in and defend me (as 2 attempted to do last time, 24 hours after the deed was done).

Still nothing remotely like "a process of consultation", or anything resembling transparency, but less suggestive of a collusionary process. (Yes, I know you also have 100s of real trolls to deal with every day).

Now some questions for you (though one of my crimes is trying to get answers to questions, including the accuser who has got me blocked on both these occasions):

1. Is Misplaced Pages willing or able to stamp out the practice of inserting completely pointless slurs into the Biographies of Living People (BLP), eg ? This is aggressively done to critics of Israel (including private citizens as above) - meanwhile, Zionist politicians who have made the most interesting statements about ME issues get their biographies protected eg .
2. Is the Misplaced Pages bothered about the widespread practise of administrators claiming privilege (both to themselves and for others) on the basis of their ethnicity? Here's an ArbComm member doing it . Many other examples of discrimination and harrassment, by editors and administrators, as it if was perfectly acceptable.
3. Is Misplaced Pages willing or able to clean up the nest of POV administrators currently dominating the project? (And to a lesser extent, restrict the activities of certain POV editors?). The individuals in both classes are easy to spot, and it would appear that the same people appear on nearly everyone's lists. See for a blatant example of obstructionism, 15,500 words in order to make sure another BLP critic of Israel is slurred even worse.
4. Further to the above, if administrators are going to expend enormous numbers of electrons in order not to reach consensus, how about them spending time providing actual examples of WP:OR and WP:NOR in order that editors can feel they've learnt something and not be driven away in total frustration?

PalestineRemembered 17:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 1 month in a most suspicious and likely improper fashion

The process of blocking me would appear to be most suspicious and likely improper.

The imposition of a one month ban, on a first offence, with minimal warning, after just 18 13 minutes of administrators "discussion" looks very much like prima-facie evidence of an abuse of power.

In those 18 minutes there were 3 hostile and accusatory contributors. (Complaint posted 23:09, 26 Nov, blocking 18 13 minutes later at 23:2722, 26 Nov).

Two "defenders" didn't appear until over 24 hours later (28th Nov), long after an exceptionally harsh (one month) first blocking had been implemented, when protest was clearly useless. (Both these people then suffered Not Good Faith attacks, their objection that other editors were the same or worse were dismissed with "This section is about PalestineRemembered, not about other editors with whom you have content disagreements").

I believe many other people would have come to my "defense" (or at least opened up the debate to include what one editor called "ludicrously POV changes and PalestineRemembered disputing them") if time had been allowed.

I'd also like to protest at the fact that my WP e-mail was never actioned, making it impossible for me to be contacted (advised/warned/helped) by other users with whom I might have had things in common. 7 weeks and over 500 edits is more than adequate to count an editor as a "genuine participant" in the project.

Wear it as a badge of honour

The fact that you were blocked for a month shows the extent to which they fear the truth and exposes the limits of the "neutrality" of wikipedia. Abu ali 10:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't wish to damage Misplaced Pages, or change the way it functions. I don't even wish to breach WP:AGF, but if administrators behave in ways suggesting that they're hi-jacking the project, then the community needs to know about it.

Do you know of examples of administrator abuse you'd like to see recorded? (I can't post to your TalkPage until my block is lifted, and I've never been able to e-mail almost anyone here!).

PS - I see you've said "I would rather that there be no reference to the mother's ethnicity as it is not really relevant to the subjects notability", and it's one of the first things I said when I arrived here. The constant claims of "You posted that in his biography because he's Jewish" is something else that needs to be stamped out. It's particularily bizarre when I see an administrator objecting to the Argentinian Prosecutor being labelled as Jewish over the synagogue bombing case they have going on there. There are clear cases of rules being made up to suit the interests of one particular group.

PalestineRemembered 22:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really follow the actions of the administrators here, so I can not tell you how much they abuse power or give you any examples beyond your individual case. Abu ali 10:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've only seen what they did to me - repeatdly reverting edits that I really thought were WP:RS - and then blocking me on in a fashion that strongly suggests collusion. 13 minutes cannot possibly be a carefully considered response. It took over 24 hours before "suppporters" of mine arrived - how could it be that my detractors arrived within such a short time?

Has your e-mail been activated? Mine hadn't been (and still has not been) after 540 edits. That leaves me completely divorced from help/advice/assistance/warnings by other editors, some of whom clearly appeciated my contributions. Later discovered this was my own mistake! PalestineRemembered 10:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I detect the hi-jacking of the project by editors (and administrators) with quite serious POV.

Contact me on andy.dyer9.tiscali.co.uk - because otherwise I don't have a single point of contact to other editors, some of whom I know supported my position. PalestineRemembered 22:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is dominating these pages with POV?

"Palestineremembered", if you keep vandalising pages of Israeli related issues you will be reported. That includes turning talk pages of articles to your personal WP:SOAPBOX of false arab propaganda. Amoruso 11:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I note your objection to good information and genuinally WP:RS brought to the discussion. How much easier it would be if we stuck to laughable propaganda provided by the likes of Shmuel Katz, public relations officer of the most violent militants and alleged terrorists of 1948. PalestineRemembered 22:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I value the contributions of PalestineRemembered. This article needs balance. As it stands it seems very pro-Jew and anti-Palestinian. 160.39.240.81

I agree, Palestineremembered is not "vandalising" these pages. His is a valid viewpoint that represents the MAJORITY of the population in the middle east.

Is the veracity of something determined by a majority vote? Even if most Arabs believe Jews are devilish creatures plotting to take over the world, that doesn't make it true, or even worth discussing. PR can't seem to bring any evidence for his bold claims, and that's what matters here. okedem 16:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

(I hope it's ok to add this section; I wanted to see PR's footnotes) TheronJ 15:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I was going to say "welcome back"

Geez PR, can you please take your foot out of your mouth and try better next time? Your edits to articles aren't terrible, but you have to do something about all the anti-Zionist rants. I was hoping I could argue in your defence that PR is to Zionists what Rush Limbaugh is to liberals, but some of what you said is simply beyond what being WP:CIVIL in the English-speaking world calls for, ever by a rabid-talk-show-host yardstick. (Though, in some alternate universe where liberals had, say, killed members of Rush Limbaugh's family, I could imagine he'd be a lot more off kilter.)

I don't know what advice to give you, but this is a place to write an encyclopedia, not vent. Perhaps you should just remove the "z" key from your keyboard? You'd be surprised how far along you can get without it, unless you are writing about Zebras or popular American hip-hop slang circa 2004 (fer shizzle dizzle!). And if you get yourself in this mess again, I could just tell people you are dyslexic and don't like onions.

And then hopefully some Zionist won't pass your writing samples around to your neighboring wikipedians on WP:ANI; I suspect the irony of doing just what you were complaining about someone doing went completely over Jayjg's head. Better luck next time. -- Kendrick7 17:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Biased view

Please take this the way it is meant. Your contributions are so biased to your POV its unreal. Please try to understand that EVERYONE has an opinion and they are just as valid as yours. Just because you say something is so doesnt make it correct. You really dont seem able to see how superior you are acting. Why do you think your POV is somehow better and morally superior to everyone elses. Just because you say something should be changed doesnt mean we have to change it. Please open your eyes, you are acting exactly like the people you say are so evil and controlling!! Daveegan06 19:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother replying. He uses this "argument" whenever he gets conflict trying to import his own POV/legally-problematic agenda. The JPS 20:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've learnt my lesson. There are people allowed to express their opinion, and even to launch personal attacks, but I'm not included in either of those privileged groups. I will still stand by most all of the edits I made, even as I watch more of them being erased. Here is one of them finally and completely torn up this week in the last of five small steps . PalestineRemembered 22:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm new as well, but it seems to me that if you want to be a valued part of this community, then just like any other community, you will integrate best if you abide by its principles and listen to its members. If you find the principles or members abhorrent, then perhaps you should ask yourself why you want to be part of the community in the first place. Antgel 02:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The only principle of WP that I have trouble with is WP:AGF. I've repeatedly seen really good, well referenced information being removed by people who know it to be genuine, but are determined it will not appear. The people who do this are often quite blatant about it, their (often distant) attachment to the Zionist enterprise entitles them to remove whatever they feel like.

I carried out some 540 edits in the 6 weeks I was allowed to contribute (and I regret to say, in the later stages, my frustration showed). I suffered a blizzard of totally unhelpful accusations on my Talk-Page, many of which were clearly intended to be personal (I've removed most of this stuff, sorry, I'm sure you can imagine).

What am I complaining about? See for feeble excuses. Or look at , , and as my contributions were stalked (?) around the system and pointlessly reverted.

Here are two of the people I looked forwards to cooperating with (each of them far better editors than me). They were driven from the project as I was, by precisely the kind of abusive behaviour that I suffered. and and PalestineRemembered 19:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Im so sorry, should of realised that only your point of view is correct, how stupid of me!Daveegan06 10:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

After seeing your edits i realised that you have worked very hard in adding to Misplaced Pages. I also appreciate you putting up with he admins.

Blocked again

PalestineRemembered, you have been blocked for another month. You are fresh off your two month block, and your second edit is to malign other editors of the project and soapbox about politics on a Talk: page: I'm not sure how to get you to stop doing this, but I'm hoping a third block will convince you, on your return, to stick solely to discussing article content. Jayjg 02:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

And you are lucky that Jayjg got you first, because I was about to block for it for 6 weeks. JoshuaZ 02:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Warn

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tellyaddict 17:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage

Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. The statement on your user page is argumentative, insulting, and indicates that you are not here to edit constructively. To be honest, it's also so poorly written that it's difficult to tell what is vandalism and what isn't. I came here from the administrators' noticeboard to try to help, but it seems the best way to help is to give you this advice:

You've been blocked numerous times for incivility; the next one will probably be permanent. I recommend blanking the page and leaving it that way for a while, or replacing it with a more positive and productive page. I support Palestine but there are better ways to do that than to attack your fellow editors or Misplaced Pages itself. Childish rants only make us all look foolish. Kafziel 17:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that. It was a wise decision. Kafziel 17:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Careful readers of this page will discover how it was I came to stop using the "Z" key and write "Onionist". I think the violent reaction to this harmless transposition may say more about the objectors than it does about me. PalestineRemembered 18:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Community sanction noticeboard#PalestineRemembered again. Tom Harrison 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 Misplaced Pages. Seraphimblade 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 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. Misplaced Pages 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.

1. 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.

1. 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)

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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#PalestineRemembered, which you are involved. Please make your statement or comments there. Thank you! Wooyi 00:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)