User talk:Sandstein: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 10:45, 12 April 2010 editAmoruso (talk \| contribs)13,357 edits →Ban ← Previous edit		Revision as of 10:45, 12 April 2010 edit undoAmoruso (talk \| contribs)13,357 editsm →Appeal to revoke decision based on having a WP:RS for admittedly-misplaced WP:BLP issue Next edit →
Line 121:		Line 121:
	===Appeal to revoke decision based on having a ] for admittedly-misplaced ] issue===		===Appeal to revoke decision based on having a ] for admittedly-misplaced ] issue===

	I sincerely apologize again for saying what I did. What I wrote was over the top, as I felt and ] were relentless with trying to taint Israeli articles with the term "occupied" - they were saying this is the universal truth by an "objective" ICJ, and this what brought the bad exaggeration. It is not my habit to exaggerate when dealing with someone termed as "X" by "source name". I feel a little that Nableezy was being protective of calling someone for that behavior, which is a bit of a serious issue on its own when Nableezy knows who that person is and that's he's under a lot of criticism for an alleged extreme anti Israeli decision and for being on the panel for alleged bias (all supported by ]).		I sincerely apologize again for saying what I did. What I wrote was over the top, as I felt ] and ] were relentless with trying to taint Israeli articles with the term "occupied" - they were saying this is the universal truth by an "objective" ICJ, and this what brought the bad exaggeration. It is not my habit to exaggerate when dealing with someone termed as "X" by "source name". I feel a little that Nableezy was being protective of calling someone for that behavior, which is a bit of a serious issue on its own when Nableezy knows who that person is and that's he's under a lot of criticism for an alleged extreme anti Israeli decision and for being on the panel for alleged bias (all supported by ]).

	But I went to check my sources about the ICJ decision and I found the actual source. The source is referenced in scholarly works. It's referenced in ] 57 Fla. L. Rev. 717, MENDING THE "FENCE": HOW TREATMENT OF THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT BY THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE AT THE HAGUE HAS REDEFINED THE DOCTRINE OF SELF- DEFENSE, page 13. The source is: "The court's opinion "joins the parade of anti- Semitic infamy. Saul Singer, ICJ to Israel: Drop Dead, ''']''', July 16, 2004, at 20. The Jerusalem Post in an ]. It talks about the case and says.. "'''Consequently, the Court concludes that Article 51 of the Charter has no relevance in this case." No relevance. I see the words, but even knowing that the International Court of Justice would rule against Israel, I cannot fully believe they were written. With these words, the ICJ decision joins the parade of anti-Semitic infamy, along with such milestones as the Dreyfus trial...''". This would all have been fleshed out if the discussion continued for more than the few hours it did. It would have been wrong and it won't continue now, but it's an RS for BLP purposes. I still won't reintroduce it, in fact I REMOVED every reference to the word, but having an ] takes it out of ] sanction. I again apologize and will not edit that specific article again, and will edit more calmly without edit-warring, but I think this shows that it wasn't capricious and that it was based on ]. This is not the only Israeli sources about the court's opinion to this regard, but it's an ] that I was familiar with, and it stuck with me. It does not condone saying that, because I realize it's not helpful and I should have controlled that, but it's still an ] so it shouldn't be dealt this way IMHO. Kind regards, ] (]) 10:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)		But I went to check my sources about the ICJ decision and I found the actual source. The source is referenced in scholarly works. It's referenced in ] 57 Fla. L. Rev. 717, MENDING THE "FENCE": HOW TREATMENT OF THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT BY THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE AT THE HAGUE HAS REDEFINED THE DOCTRINE OF SELF- DEFENSE, page 13. The source is: "The court's opinion "joins the parade of anti- Semitic infamy. Saul Singer, ICJ to Israel: Drop Dead, ''']''', July 16, 2004, at 20. The Jerusalem Post in an ]. It talks about the case and says.. "'''Consequently, the Court concludes that Article 51 of the Charter has no relevance in this case." No relevance. I see the words, but even knowing that the International Court of Justice would rule against Israel, I cannot fully believe they were written. With these words, the ICJ decision joins the parade of anti-Semitic infamy, along with such milestones as the Dreyfus trial...''". This would all have been fleshed out if the discussion continued for more than the few hours it did. It would have been wrong and it won't continue now, but it's an RS for BLP purposes. I still won't reintroduce it, in fact I REMOVED every reference to the word, but having an ] takes it out of ] sanction. I again apologize and will not edit that specific article again, and will edit more calmly without edit-warring, but I think this shows that it wasn't capricious and that it was based on ]. This is not the only Israeli sources about the court's opinion to this regard, but it's an ] that I was familiar with, and it stuck with me. It does not condone saying that, because I realize it's not helpful and I should have controlled that, but it's still an ] so it shouldn't be dealt this way IMHO. Kind regards, ] (]) 10:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:45, 12 April 2010

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:

Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.

Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.

If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: ].

If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

Start a new talk topic

User interaction bans?

Hi Sandstein. I don't know anything about user interaction bans, but seem to remember you imposing a few. Mbz1 left me a message asking if I could propose an interaction ban between herself and Vexorg. I have no idea how or where to make such a proposal. Can you help? ← George 04:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Such a ban could probably be implemented as a discretionary sanction; the place to request such a sanction would be WP:AE. Regards, Sandstein 16:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandstein. I've made the request here. Cheers. ← George 09:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Stellarkid's user page

No action taken. If you feel the need to continue to discuss this among yourselves, which I strongly suggest you don't, please do so elsewhere.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Stellarkid's user page contains two quotes that accuse anti-Zionists of being latent antisemites. These quotes "vilify, reject, deny the legitimacy or right to existence of one side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" by labeling all those who oppose Israel as racist bigots. In 1975, well-known literary scholar and dedicated leftist Hans Mayer wrote, “Whoever attacks Zionism, but by no means wishes to say anything against the Jews, is fooling himself and others. The State of Israel is a Jewish state. Whoever wants to destroy it, openly or through policies that can effect nothing else but such destruction, is practicing the Jew hatred of yesterday and time immemorial.” Jean Améry criticized the elitist anti-Zionism of the Left as being nothing more than run-of-the-mill anti-Semitism. In a speech in 1969, Améry stated, “Anti-Semitism was once the socialism of the stupid guys. Today it is about to become an integrating ingredient of socialism as such, and thereby every socialist turns himself, by his free will, into a stupid guy. Anti-Semitism has become respectable again, but there is no such thing as respectable anti-Semitism!” Factomancer (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Hm, have you asked the editor to remove this content? Politely? Sandstein 14:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Denying Jews the same right of self-determination as any other nationality (say, Australians) is anti-Semitism. There is nothing wrong with the quote, and if Stellarkid wishes to have it on his page, I'm not aware of any Misplaced Pages policy that should prevent it. As for the claim that the quotes vilify one side of the I-P conflict, you are demonstrating the epitome of the problem, Factomancer. You are trying to turn the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into an Israeli-ANTI Israel conflict. There is no vilification of Palestinians in those paragraphs, and anyone engaging in "opposing Israel" on Misplaced Pages the way you put it is completely out of line, the same way it would be for someone to "oppose Australia". Breein1007 (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Bree - If you take a look at this AE there was a long discussion about the appropriateness of potentially inflammatory comments on user pages. Mbz1 brought up WP:SOAPBOX and WP:UPNO as being the relevant policies. Frankly, as I mentioned below, I think policing user pages is always dubious except in cases of REALLY blatant violations. This kind of shinanigans will only lead to pointless arbitration that does nothing for the quality of WP. NickCT (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC) I respectfully disagree. It will help clarify Misplaced Pages policy and in the end should help to make WP better. I have responded on my talk page to this accusation, and whoever would like to check it out is welcome to. To suggest that anti-Zionism in the abstract is equivalent to anti-semitism says nothing about the Palestinians' right to self determination or their legitimacy, but very much about Israel's right to self-determination and legitimacy. Stellarkid (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC) (ec) Factomancer, I sympathize with your position and this does seem like the type of shinanigans RolandR got spanked for, but I'd discourage tit-for-tat arbitration of this nature. Policing user pages is in very bad taste, and just because Sandy was encouraged to police Roland's page doesn't mean you should encourage him to police Stellar's page. NickCT (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC) I have now. I will let you know how it goes. Factomancer (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC) I asked Stellarkid, and he refused. The ball is in your court now. Factomancer (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Everybody, stop the bickering. I won't take arbitration enforcement action on account of this quote alone. While it is true that divisive political content, especially related to the I-P conflict, is in principle unwelcome on user pages per general policy and WP:ARBPIA, this long and rather dry quote of the views of two intellectuals regarding antisemitism and antizionism is nowhere near as divisive and inflammatory as an image showing a crossed-out national flag. Nonetheless, displaying lengthy political opinions on one's user page is a pretty strong signal to me that the user in question is here primarily to push a particular point of view, and this may count strongly against them in the event that an administrator must decide whether to sanction them for actual misconduct. (But then, so does this sort of sniping at each other. Get back to work on articles, please.) Sandstein 17:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC) I still think that Sandstein was wrong to order the removal of the image from my page; so of course I think he would be wrong to order the removal of this text from Stellarkid's page. It would be hypocritical of me to call for its removal, yet argue for the reinstatement of the image on my page. I make no comment about those who call for the removal of the image from my page, but oppose removal of the text from Stellarkid's page. I also, of course, disagree with the content of these quotes. But I have no intention of turning the page into a battlefield, by raising my political arguments there. Equally, I hope that those who oppose any of the content on my page will restrain themselves, and not waste everyone's time and energy by starting sterile debates there. We all know that we are never going to agree on these principles and interpretations; but, with a lot of hard work, we may just be able to agree/compromise on the content of Misplaced Pages articles. RolandR (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC) "I think he would be wrong to order the removal of this text from Stellarkid's page. It would be hypocritical of me to call for its removal, " - Strongly agree "rather dry quote of the views of two intellectuals regarding antisemitism and antizionism is nowhere near as divisive and inflammatory as an image showing a crossed-out national flag" - I don't know. I find the suggestion that someone who is against Zionism is necessarily an antisemite a little offensive. What would you say to one who posted a rather long and dry statement by "intellectuals" saying that Zionists are necessarily racist? SandS - While I'm glad you're not drawing out the arbitration, you've worked yourself into a double standard here. The right thing to do would be to let RR have his flag, or at least say it would be OK to have the flag (hopefully RR would rise above, and choose not to repost it).... NickCT (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Would just like to remind everyone that Sandstein did not require RolandR to remove his support for "anti-Zionist" on this web page, just the picture of the crossed-out Israeli flag as against Misplaced Pages policy. As long as RolandR and others can be considered "anti-Zionist" there is no reason why I cannot be considered "anti-anti-Zionist" without violating any policy. Nowhere do I have a crossed-out Palestinian flag on my userpage, not would I ever have one. Anti-zionists would preclude the existence of Israel, but Zionists do not preclude the existence of any other people. "Zionists" accepted Resolution 181 that would have created an Arab (Palestinian) homeland. Palestinian Arabs on the other hand, did not. The Arabs wanted everything for themselves, and such that Jews were not allowed to worship in the holy places that were controlled by Jordan. I do not consider those quotes to be divisive but educational. There are numerous RS that say exactly the same thing including the EUMC working definition of antisemitism as noted on my page. There is no parallel with the material on RolandR's page. In my opinion this discussion is clearly a matter of testing this administrator to see if he will put out a tit-for-tat ruling. However the analogy is incorrect and the rationale used for banning the image from RolandR's page is not the same at all. Stellarkid (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC) "crossed-out Israeli flag as against Misplaced Pages policy" Nice rant Stellar. Look, the bottom line is that if you are going to pursue people for material you deem to be offensive on thier userpage, be prepared to have it done to you. NickCT (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No action taken. If you feel the need to continue to discuss this among yourselves, which I strongly suggest you don't, please do so elsewhere.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Stellarkid's user page contains two quotes that accuse anti-Zionists of being latent antisemites. These quotes "vilify, reject, deny the legitimacy or right to existence of one side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" by labeling all those who oppose Israel as racist bigots.

In 1975, well-known literary scholar and dedicated leftist Hans Mayer wrote, “Whoever attacks Zionism, but by no means wishes to say anything against the Jews, is fooling himself and others. The State of Israel is a Jewish state. Whoever wants to destroy it, openly or through policies that can effect nothing else but such destruction, is practicing the Jew hatred of yesterday and time immemorial.”

Jean Améry criticized the elitist anti-Zionism of the Left as being nothing more than run-of-the-mill anti-Semitism. In a speech in 1969, Améry stated, “Anti-Semitism was once the socialism of the stupid guys. Today it is about to become an integrating ingredient of socialism as such, and thereby every socialist turns himself, by his free will, into a stupid guy. Anti-Semitism has become respectable again, but there is no such thing as respectable anti-Semitism!”

Factomancer (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Hm, have you asked the editor to remove this content? Politely? Sandstein 14:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Denying Jews the same right of self-determination as any other nationality (say, Australians) is anti-Semitism. There is nothing wrong with the quote, and if Stellarkid wishes to have it on his page, I'm not aware of any Misplaced Pages policy that should prevent it. As for the claim that the quotes vilify one side of the I-P conflict, you are demonstrating the epitome of the problem, Factomancer. You are trying to turn the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into an Israeli-ANTI Israel conflict. There is no vilification of Palestinians in those paragraphs, and anyone engaging in "opposing Israel" on Misplaced Pages the way you put it is completely out of line, the same way it would be for someone to "oppose Australia". Breein1007 (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Bree - If you take a look at this AE there was a long discussion about the appropriateness of potentially inflammatory comments on user pages. Mbz1 brought up WP:SOAPBOX and WP:UPNO as being the relevant policies. Frankly, as I mentioned below, I think policing user pages is always dubious except in cases of REALLY blatant violations. This kind of shinanigans will only lead to pointless arbitration that does nothing for the quality of WP. NickCT (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. It will help clarify Misplaced Pages policy and in the end should help to make WP better. I have responded on my talk page to this accusation, and whoever would like to check it out is welcome to. To suggest that anti-Zionism in the abstract is equivalent to anti-semitism says nothing about the Palestinians' right to self determination or their legitimacy, but very much about Israel's right to self-determination and legitimacy. Stellarkid (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Factomancer, I sympathize with your position and this does seem like the type of shinanigans RolandR got spanked for, but I'd discourage tit-for-tat arbitration of this nature. Policing user pages is in very bad taste, and just because Sandy was encouraged to police Roland's page doesn't mean you should encourage him to police Stellar's page. NickCT (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have now. I will let you know how it goes. Factomancer (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I asked Stellarkid, and he refused. The ball is in your court now. Factomancer (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Everybody, stop the bickering. I won't take arbitration enforcement action on account of this quote alone. While it is true that divisive political content, especially related to the I-P conflict, is in principle unwelcome on user pages per general policy and WP:ARBPIA, this long and rather dry quote of the views of two intellectuals regarding antisemitism and antizionism is nowhere near as divisive and inflammatory as an image showing a crossed-out national flag. Nonetheless, displaying lengthy political opinions on one's user page is a pretty strong signal to me that the user in question is here primarily to push a particular point of view, and this may count strongly against them in the event that an administrator must decide whether to sanction them for actual misconduct. (But then, so does this sort of sniping at each other. Get back to work on articles, please.) Sandstein 17:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I still think that Sandstein was wrong to order the removal of the image from my page; so of course I think he would be wrong to order the removal of this text from Stellarkid's page. It would be hypocritical of me to call for its removal, yet argue for the reinstatement of the image on my page. I make no comment about those who call for the removal of the image from my page, but oppose removal of the text from Stellarkid's page.

I also, of course, disagree with the content of these quotes. But I have no intention of turning the page into a battlefield, by raising my political arguments there. Equally, I hope that those who oppose any of the content on my page will restrain themselves, and not waste everyone's time and energy by starting sterile debates there. We all know that we are never going to agree on these principles and interpretations; but, with a lot of hard work, we may just be able to agree/compromise on the content of Misplaced Pages articles. RolandR (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"I think he would be wrong to order the removal of this text from Stellarkid's page. It would be hypocritical of me to call for its removal, " - Strongly agree

"rather dry quote of the views of two intellectuals regarding antisemitism and antizionism is nowhere near as divisive and inflammatory as an image showing a crossed-out national flag" - I don't know. I find the suggestion that someone who is against Zionism is necessarily an antisemite a little offensive. What would you say to one who posted a rather long and dry statement by "intellectuals" saying that Zionists are necessarily racist?

SandS - While I'm glad you're not drawing out the arbitration, you've worked yourself into a double standard here. The right thing to do would be to let RR have his flag, or at least say it would be OK to have the flag (hopefully RR would rise above, and choose not to repost it).... NickCT (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Would just like to remind everyone that Sandstein did not require RolandR to remove his support for "anti-Zionist" on this web page, just the picture of the crossed-out Israeli flag as against Misplaced Pages policy. As long as RolandR and others can be considered "anti-Zionist" there is no reason why I cannot be considered "anti-anti-Zionist" without violating any policy. Nowhere do I have a crossed-out Palestinian flag on my userpage, not would I ever have one. Anti-zionists would preclude the existence of Israel, but Zionists do not preclude the existence of any other people. "Zionists" accepted Resolution 181 that would have created an Arab (Palestinian) homeland. Palestinian Arabs on the other hand, did not. The Arabs wanted everything for themselves, and such that Jews were not allowed to worship in the holy places that were controlled by Jordan. I do not consider those quotes to be divisive but educational. There are numerous RS that say exactly the same thing including the EUMC working definition of antisemitism as noted on my page. There is no parallel with the material on RolandR's page. In my opinion this discussion is clearly a matter of testing this administrator to see if he will put out a tit-for-tat ruling. However the analogy is incorrect and the rationale used for banning the image from RolandR's page is not the same at all. Stellarkid (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"crossed-out Israeli flag as against Misplaced Pages policy"

Nice rant Stellar. Look, the bottom line is that if you are going to pursue people for material you deem to be offensive on thier userpage, be prepared to have it done to you. NickCT (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Swiss Air Force

Hallo Ich habe jetzt meine ergänzungen der beiden Englischen Versionen der MirageIII und der Swiss Air Force auf den diskusionsseiten eingetragen. Leider ist es auf der Orginalseite Swiss air Force recht viel fehelend oder gar falsch so das das nicht mit ein paar Zahlen oder kleinen Ergänzungen korrigiert ist. Ich hoffe sehr das sich dem jemand mit guten englischkentnissen annimmt.

Sehr schade finde es ich auch das vom Artikel Flugzeugkaverne keine Englische Version existiert. Meine englischkentnisse sind leider nicht genügen um da eine Englische version zu machen, ausserdem ist es sehr schwer Quellennachweise zu machen da über dies anlagen nur wenige Dokumente öffentlich sind. Vieleicht könnte man jemanden mit dem Sprachlichen können dazu motivieren ? Gruss Swiss testpilot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swisstestpilot (talk • contribs) 13:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI

--Mbz1 (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Being harassed

Hi Sandstein. I am not sure what to do about this editor who is harassing me now. Please check out his contributions --there are only a handful and totally directed at me. Also please check out the edit summaries on my talk page. Would appreciate your help with this one. Thank you. Stellarkid (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Which editor? Sandstein 17:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Urbane23 -- who is also the anon ip User:81.111.91.170 Stellarkid (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Malik Shabazz, who is also an administrator, is following the matter. Sandstein 21:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I must be druuunk to have forgotten to give you his name! ;) Stellarkid (talk) 03:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

suggested edit to AE edit notice

I think the edit notice should include instructions for both the enforcement request template and the enforcement appeal template. I did this here, but the actual edit notice is fully protected. nableezy - 18:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

~~OK, what's the edit notice page again? Sandstein 18:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)~~

Found it... Sandstein 18:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Y Done at Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, thanks for the proposal. Sandstein 18:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Arb appeal by Mbz1

It appears that User:Vexorg and User:Beyond My Ken are weighing in as "uninvolved" editors. There is no way that Vexorg can be considered uninvolved and Beyond My Ken has weighed in at the noticeboard for Vexorg making his position of support for Vexorg very clear. (Looks like Vexorg will be scrolling off the page and will get away scott-free this time as well, oh well) Stellarkid (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

As the administrator whose action is under review in that appeal, it's not really my place to make a determination about who is involved and who isn't; that's up to the admin who'll close the appeal. But you may certainly make note of your concerns about these users' involvement in the AE thread. Sandstein 21:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment solicited

Is this edit problematic? Unomi (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Good heavens! It was up for less than a minute before he struck it! Give it a rest! Stellarkid (talk) 04:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Now it reads "totally and completely antisemitic ... completely legally daft and biased", which is not much better. I agree that a WP:BLP warning is warranted. Sandstein 05:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

oops. missed the daft part. Stellarkid (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear! Is the impending carnage avoidable? ← ZScarpia 18:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Policy question

I guess you will delete my message, as you've done last two times, but I do not know who else I may ask, so here it is. May I please ask you, if it is a proper thing to do to try to convince the editors, who had something good to say about me at my appeal to change their comments as it was done in those edits; ;;;;? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I would rather not comment on matters related to the management of your appeal against my sanction. Such questions should be directed to another administrator. Sandstein 18:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not appeal against your sanctions. I appeal to lift my sanctions. I was absolutely fine with your sanctions until my last block. That block hurt me a lot... My edit summary was silly, but it was just a joke... Anyway... I would not like you to find yourself in any trouble because of my appeal. If you'd like me to, I will withdraw it at once. As I said many times before I am not going to edit in the area of conflict no matter what, but now I am afraid to get trapped as I was two times already because of my "broadly constructed" topic ban. Still, if you'd like me to I will withdraw my appeal, and if I am trapped (blocked) again, that will be fine too. Misplaced Pages will be doing just fine without me I guess. So, it is up to you know. Withdraw?--Mbz1 (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No, whether you want to withdraw your appeal is up to you. Whether you do so or not, as far as I am concerned, the ban remains necessary to protect Misplaced Pages from disruption and is maintained until such time as it expires or is lifted or modified by competent authority. Sandstein 18:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) You weren't trapped, you decided to jump into a WP:ARBPIA AE appeal request regarding a user you had previously had conflicts with in I/P, in your ES you even whimsically wonder if doing this is in contravention of your topic ban.

To address your concern regarding my taking contact with the editors you mention above:

I asked if they understood that you were currently not restricted from any other aspect of wikipedia than what is Israel-Arab related, as their comments struck me as appearing to stem from a misunderstanding in that regard.

I further asked Lar+ if he would consider mentoring you as both he and cordelia seemed to be interested in finding alternate solutions, I was trying to help you.

When George seemed to question the grounds for the current topic ban I referred him to Sandstein and offered my understanding of it and I voiced my concern that you are likely to be met with even harsher sanctions if you are offered, and fail to abide by, alternate restrictions. I value your contributions to wikipedia, I think that it would be a shame to lose you as an asset to those areas where you are able to work constructively within policy. Which, in my opinion, is exactly what will happen if your current sanctions are lifted without strong guidance from a responsible mentor. Unomi (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Unomi, I suggest that you stop trying to WP:BAIT Mbz1. This advice is for your own good; believe me on that one. Breein1007 (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no reason to believe that this advice is intended in bad faith or to bait anybody. Nonetheless, if you two want to communicate with anybody who is not me, please do so in some other forum. Sandstein 18:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ban

Why did you ban me without first telling me to remove this? I think this ban is really strange and I'm asking you to reconsider. I think there was a dispute whether it's WP:BLP. I didn't see it that way, and you could have explained to me as a moderator. I would gladly have removed it. I was never given a chance or a warning by a moderator. 3RR and the sockpupptery (which I deny! it was a mistake!) are long time ago. I'm not a very active user, I don't know if I would have made more edits or not, but I contributed to a lot of articles and I'm afraid people will delete my contributions. They have done so on a consistent basis from time to time. Please I'll gladly accept a restriction so that I won't engage in war editing which sometimes happens, but change the ban to something more reasonable... I don't really want my work to get ruined, and I also don't know what the ban includes - how wide is this scope? 99% of my edit history had to do with history and with Israel - what does it mean Arab Israeli conflict. I don't think it should have been done this way - it looks artbitrary and harsh. Thanks. Amoruso (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of people told you to remove it, and you even reverted them to reinsert the violation. Administrators are not "moderators" and have no authority to order others around, though they do have authority to restrict disruptive users. As explained on BLPN, you blew the last chance you were given after the socking, which (given that the block was never lifted) I have no reason to assume that you did not do. Sandstein 20:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I realize that, but the determintion was "likely". I tried to appeal it but to no avail. I just hope you accept that likely is not "certain" and the checkuser guy realized that it may be wrong, they did it anyway. that was some time ago. the user that reverted me was someone who was rv'ing me on pages, and even wikistalking me. I just reported him, user:Unomi, so it was heated debate. If it was WP:BLP then I admit being wrong, and would have removed it. You just had to ask me - I've just been asked by a adminstrator that on my talk page, and then you weighed in - I think the first adminstrator asked me to notch it down and I would have - so he was already taking care of it! 20 minutes later you banned me without giving me a chance to comply with the first adminstrator who addressed me on that topic on my talk page. Can you please reconsider - this is really harsh and automatic... Amoruso (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sandstein, I strongly suggest you revoke your decision about Amoruso. I don't know Amoruso, but I do know Nableezy, and I do know that he brought en-wp to one of its lowest points ever. We are witnessing an ongoing political campaign led by Nableezy, Harlan Wilkerson, Tiamut and several other users. They have turned some of the articles in WP into a sad joke, and they constantly intimidate other users. Please, if you don't want to be part of this trend that the Misplaced Pages project further down to its end, don't cooperate with them. I have no intention to sound melodramatic, I am quite convinced things cannot go any worse, and (at least in this case) Amoruso is not the guy you were looking for. DrorK (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Appeal to revoke decision based on having a WP:RS for admittedly-misplaced WP:BLP issue

I sincerely apologize again for saying what I did. What I wrote was over the top, as I felt user:Nableezy and user:unomi were relentless with trying to taint Israeli articles with the term "occupied" - they were saying this is the universal truth by an "objective" ICJ, and this what brought the bad exaggeration. It is not my habit to exaggerate when dealing with someone termed as "X" by "source name". I feel a little that Nableezy was being protective of calling someone for that behavior, which is a bit of a serious issue on its own when Nableezy knows who that person is and that's he's under a lot of criticism for an alleged extreme anti Israeli decision and for being on the panel for alleged bias (all supported by WP:RS).

But I went to check my sources about the ICJ decision and I found the actual source. The source is referenced in scholarly works. It's referenced in Florida Law Review 57 Fla. L. Rev. 717, MENDING THE "FENCE": HOW TREATMENT OF THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT BY THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE AT THE HAGUE HAS REDEFINED THE DOCTRINE OF SELF- DEFENSE, page 13. The source is: "The court's opinion "joins the parade of anti- Semitic infamy. Saul Singer, ICJ to Israel: Drop Dead, Jerusalem Post, July 16, 2004, at 20. The Jerusalem Post in an WP:RS. It talks about the case and says.. "'Consequently, the Court concludes that Article 51 of the Charter has no relevance in this case." No relevance. I see the words, but even knowing that the International Court of Justice would rule against Israel, I cannot fully believe they were written. With these words, the ICJ decision joins the parade of anti-Semitic infamy, along with such milestones as the Dreyfus trial...". This would all have been fleshed out if the discussion continued for more than the few hours it did. It would have been wrong and it won't continue now, but it's an RS for BLP purposes. I still won't reintroduce it, in fact I REMOVED every reference to the word, but having an WP:RS takes it out of WP:BLP sanction. I again apologize and will not edit that specific article again, and will edit more calmly without edit-warring, but I think this shows that it wasn't capricious and that it was based on WP:RS. This is not the only Israeli sources about the court's opinion to this regard, but it's an WP:RS that I was familiar with, and it stuck with me. It does not condone saying that, because I realize it's not helpful and I should have controlled that, but it's still an WP:RS so it shouldn't be dealt this way IMHO. Kind regards, Amoruso (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Factson the ground and Mbz1

Hi there. I noticed to interaction-blocked FOTG for breaking the ban. Mbz1 has just messaged me asking if this constitutes a break. Unfortunately, I'm about to leave to catch a plane so I was wondering if you could take a look in the interim. Sorry! SGGH 08:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. As I explained to Stellarkid that link has been on that page since long before the interaction ban was passed. I recently merely rearranged the page and added other links. If the link is considered a contravention of the interaction ban I will remove it immediately. Otherwise, I would prefer not to.

Also this is one more in a number of spurious interaction ban requests made against me. At what point does the "Repeated spurious reports to administrators using this mechanism shall be grounds for blocking for disruption." clause come into effect?Factomancer (talk) 08:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I deleted that section so you all can stop the drama now. Factomancer (talk) 08:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)