Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:47, 31 May 2006

Template:User article ban

Please use the archive parameter to specify the number of the next free peer review page, or replace {{Peer review}} on this page with {{subst:PR}} to find the next free page automatically.

POV tag

Would it be possible to make this more POV? I don't think so. ←Humus sapiens 02:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, you posted your pov notice while I was writing a "criticism" section. Homey 03:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Expansion Needed

To avoid POV you may wish to focus more centrally on the history of the idea of Israeli apartheid and make sure that you distinguish Zionism and Israel because I think that the term is more often meant to be Zionist Israeli Apartheid rather than Israeli Apartheid. It is, however, a legit term but I think it needs to be presented is a different fashion. --Strothra 03:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Preposterous

Even with the "criticism" section, this article is completely preposterous. So now every time someone calls something a name, there has to be an article about it? Between this, "Wall of Shame," "Apartheid Wall" and other "articles," Misplaced Pages is quickly becoming an Encyclopedia of Name-Calling. If I knew how to request the deletion of an article (yes, I know I should), I would do it with this one. It's ridiculous. 6SJ7 04:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

um. The concept of Israeli apartheid is not new. I've heard it since the early nineties. It is, however, controversial but the article does not claim to take a stance on it. The article seems to be improving and making itself to be more about the controversy surrounding the term. I still believe that it needs to do more research into the history of the term itself though because it would also be quite interesting. --Strothra 04:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

6SJ7, you would have a point if there were only a handful of instances where the term has been used. However, if you google "Israeli apartheid" you will get approximately 240,000 hits. I would agree that "every time someone calls something a name" there needn't be an article about it but when 240,000 people use a phrase it's notable. Homey 04:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well there you have it. But please keep up your work in doing research into this article and improving it. The article should not stand on Google alone. Make the article one that stands on solid research. --Strothra 04:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

6SJ7, you must be more specific. What, exactly, in the article is inaccurate? What, exactly, is NPOV? Please give specific examples. Homey 04:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

And what, specifically, in Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not is being violated?Homey 04:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm reinserting the unencyclopedic tag, just because the name has a couple hundred thousand hits does not automatically mean there should be an article about it. It clearly represents a strong pov, just because it doesn't take an explicit stance on the subject doesn't mean it isn't doing it implicitly.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that an article can take an implicit stance, however, I feel that an article which is taking a controversial but established term, such as this one, and presents both sides of the controversy is not violating POV. The point is, this article will have to present both sides clearly and equally and establish the history of the term in a well-cited well-researched manner that includes verifiable and reliable sources. --Strothra 04:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The qualification "established" should apply to academic community, rather than hateblog. ←Humus sapiens 05:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

By virtue of the fact that the article is called Israeli apartheid it is taking a stance on the subject. The term itself represents a pov, if it should be mentioned on wikipedia at all it should be on another article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

1) Moshe, can you give me a specific citation of what in Wikipeida:What Misplaced Pages is not is being violated? If you can't do this then the tag can't stay on. Homey 05:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC) 2)"By virtue of the fact that the article is called Israeli apartheid it is taking a stance on the subject." That's absolutely preposterous. The term is widely used and merits definition and exposition. Just because you don't like a phrase doesn't mean you can ban it from wikipedia if it is in broad use. This looks like an attempt to censor a concept for POV reasons. The term is in wide use, your comments on NPOV should be directed at the article, not its title. Homey 05:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that anything has been established and if articles were required, in practice, to generally meet that requirement on Misplaced Pages then most articles here would be speedily deleted and I feel that the community is growing impatient with my AfD's. I don't think that this article even approaches hateblog right now. All this is why I requested a peer review so that the article will get the attention it needs. --Strothra 05:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Because of the title it's taking a stance?? I could see that if the title was Israel practices apartheid but it's not. It's presenting the term, which is a term which exists and is established. --Strothra 05:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have now been edit-conflicted out of commenting four times, so some of this may seem out of place. My original explanations for my tags didn't make it to the page when I thought it did, and now the explanation is already moot and the tags have been changed back and forth several times. Humus and Moshe have expressed what I would have said, and I feel the tags are ok as they are now -- but only as a preliminary to eliminating or merging this article out of existence, or at least re-titling it. After all, Misplaced Pages is the place where you can't have an article called "Palestinian terrorism" (something that undoubtedly exists and has existed for many years) without it being turned into "Palestinian political violence," and I and others have had to fight just to keep the word "terrorism" somewhere in the first paragraph -- and yet there can be an article "Israeli apartheid"? Ridiculous. 6SJ7 05:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You should be warned that it's going to be really really really difficult to WP:AGF with your edits when you've admitted to wishing to edit this article in order to destroy it. --Strothra 05:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

And where exactly did I do that? Please notice that I have not touched one word of the text of the article, and I do not intend to. So how is that I have admitted wishing to edit it in order to destroy it? I am not editing it. There are procedures on Misplaced Pages for deleting, merging and re-naming articles, and if I do not get around to following one of those procedures, I hope someone else does. This article cannot become a proper encyclopedia article, and that is why I have put back the unencyclopedic tag. By the way, that tag is justified by Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, and Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. 6SJ7 05:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

When you wrote " I feel the tags are ok as they are now -- but only as a preliminary to eliminating or merging this article out of existence, or at least re-titling it." You stated your intention to edit the article in order to prepare it for deletion. This would be deconstructive. Although tags may not be deconstructive, there seems to be much discussion of this when I add tags to articles and people wish to lambast me for them, but such line of thinking could lead to very un wiki like behavior. --Strothra 21:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There's also an article called Evil empire. Homey 05:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope the "Evil Empire" is in quotes. If not, it should be. I would say that a phrase that was a centerpiece of a major speech (probably more than one) by a president of the United States becomes encyclopedic all by itself. 6SJ7 05:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What about a phrase used by a Nobel Prize Winner like Desmond Tutu?Homey 05:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Or another deranged politician and Nobel Prize Winner Arafat? ←Humus sapiens 05:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

So you think fighting against apartheid in South Africa is deranged? Homey 06:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have a talent for hypebole and loaded questions. People with good international reputations take crazy positions all of the time. Tutu's support alone does not make it a neutral and mainstream term.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

So Tutu is only "deranged" when it comes to Israel? Is that your NPOV assessment? Is he only deranged because he comes to a political conclusion you disagree with?

I never said the term was neutral or mainstream. My concern is that the article is NPOV. The term is used in political discourse on the Middle East, that is not contestable. That you are trying to ban an article on a term you dislike is POV. The NPOV position is to recognise that the term is used with increasing frequency and attempt to write an article explaining the term in an NPOV way. Are you willing or able to do this? Trying to ban a term you don't like is not NPOV. Homey 06:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not a "term". As I said elsewhere (you seem to crosspost a lot), maybe we should disambiguate ritual murder and say that it "is a term used by some critics" to describe Jewish customs? ←Humus sapiens 06:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If there were an article called Jewish ritual murder than that article would need to be disambiguated. As it is the ritual murder article is largely about the Jewish blood libel so diambiguation is not necessary.Homey 06:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You miss the point, and you are 31 year behind. The accusation of apartheid (along with other similar crap) was a part of 1975 "Zionism is racism" Cold War effort. Even the UN revoked it, so stop your propaganda. ←Humus sapiens 06:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the 2001 World conference against racism adopted resolution labelling Israel as such. Also nearly 30,000 to 50,000 people turned up to protest Israel's alleged apartheid.. This term is a 21st century one.Bless sins 10:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not condoning the phrase, I simply recognize that it's in use and merits a wikipedia article. Please set your POV aside. Homey 07:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

We obviously have articles about notable fringe organizations, Your basically arguing that the term "Israeli Apartheid" is notable enough in of itself, however the term is not some organization, it is a pov term that other fringe organizations use. For example, it would be fine if we wanted to write articles about those same groups themselves, just not about every single claim or charge they make. Would we write an article about some of the horrible things that the KKK believe in?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should call it a night with this article. It's getting heated and needs new voices and opinions. I feel that we're headed to polarized arguments here. --Strothra 05:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the article should be moved to Israel and aparthied, like Zionism and Racism adn Islam and anti-Semitism.Bless sins 10:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That would suggest an article about the relationship between Israel and South Africa's apartheid regime.

As for the new title of "Israeli apartheid (phrase)" that would make sense if we were trying to disambiguate from other "Israeli apartheids" as we aren't its a meaningless change. Homey 18:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is less valid than Iranian genocidal intentions

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Iranian+genocidal+intentions&spell=1

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=Iranian+OR+iran+%22genocidal+intentions%22&btnG=Search

People should really review WP:not Zeq 14:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What? How do Iranian genocidal intentions factor into this discussion? What are you talking about? What part of WP:NOT are you claiming that this article does not meet? Please provide constructive comments so that the article may be updated accordingly. --Strothra 14:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original thought Misplaced Pages is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses. Please do not use Misplaced Pages for any of the following:

Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. See Misplaced Pages:No original research. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Misplaced Pages will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge. Not all information added to Misplaced Pages has to be from peer-reviewed journals, but please strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable. For example, citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion. Original inventions. If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move, it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it. Misplaced Pages is not for things made up in school one day! Critical reviews. Biographies and articles about art works are supposed to be encyclopedic. Of course, critical analysis of art is welcome, if grounded in direct observations of outside parties. See No. 5 below. See also Writing guide: check your fiction. Personal essays or Blogs that state your particular opinions about a topic. Misplaced Pages is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. See Misplaced Pages:No original research. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Misplaced Pages are welcome at Meta. There is a Misplaced Pages fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles. Opinions on current affairs is a particular case of the previous item. Although current affairs may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Misplaced Pages is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective. Furthermore, Misplaced Pages authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. There are a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate. For a wiki-like site that will publish your original thoughts, see Everything2.

Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Misplaced Pages articles are not:

Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article. Misplaced Pages was not made for opinion, it was made for fact. Self-promotion. You are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Misplaced Pages:Autobiography, Misplaced Pages:Vanity, and Misplaced Pages:Notability. Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Misplaced Pages does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also WP:CORP for a proposal on corporate notability. Misplaced Pages is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files Misplaced Pages is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files. All content added to Misplaced Pages may have to be edited mercilessly to be included in the encyclopedia. By submitting any content, you agree to release it for free use under the GNU FDL. 1 Misplaced Pages articles are not:

Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Misplaced Pages. On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. See Misplaced Pages:External links and m:When should I link externally for some guidelines. Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles. Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, un-modified wording. Complete copies of primary sources (including mathematical tables, astronomical tables, or source code) should go into Wikisource. There's nothing wrong with using public domain resources such as 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica to add content to an article. See also Misplaced Pages:Don't include copies of primary sources. Collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to Misplaced Pages:Images with missing articles or Misplaced Pages:Public domain image resources. Misplaced Pages is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site

Zeq 14:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not copy the entirety of a WP policy into the talk page. Please see WP:POINT. Also see WP:DICK. You were asked to point out the specific areas of the WP:NOT policy which you feel this article does not comply with. Please see WP:CIVIL as your actions may be construed as hostile. --Strothra 15:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There is not one iota of original research in the article. Homey 18:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Two comments below have been copied from user talk pages:

2. 13:09, 29 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Israeli apartheid (→Usage - neither is informationclearinghouse.info)
3. 13:08, 29 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Israeli apartheid (→Analogy - globalexchange.org is not a reliable source)

They may or may not be reliable sources for facts about Israel. They are, however, reliable sources for what proponents of the term "Israeli apartheid" are arguing. Homey 13:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No, unsigned articles or articles by a random writer from random websites cannot possibly be reliable sources on any matter. Pecher 13:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

InformationClearingHouse.info, as I understand it, does not publish original material, but rather republished material from other sites. Also, as I understand it, InformationClearingHoust.info, is one big copyright violation. Thus if you find material on ICH.info, I would recommend trying to find the original source and use that. (I've never heard of GlobalExchange.org) --Ben Houston 16:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Economist and BBC articles are unsigned as well as a rule. Please don't make up non-existent wikipedia rules. GlobalExchange is a reliable source for what proponents of the term "Israeli apartheid" are saying.Homey 17:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The website does not give any indication that these proponents are somehow notable so that their opinions are worthy of being included into Misplaced Pages. Pecher 17:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

GlobalExchange is a reliable source only as far as one article: Global Exchange. See WP:RS Zeq 17:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a rather tortured argument. The phrase renders over 200,000 hits so it meets our standards of notability. Global Exchange is a widely recognized pro-Palestinian site so their publications are recognizable as representative of pro-Palestinian views. Moreover, their pages are amply footnoted. If the Jewish Virtual Library, which also has unsigned articles, is a credible representative of the pro-Zionist view then Global Exchange is a credible representative of the opposite. I don't see you objecting to the use of JVL as a source in this article. Why would that be?Homey 17:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That is nice but does not meet WP:RS. Zeq 18:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

How doesn't it? Zeq, by your argument Jewish Virtual Library doesn't meet WPRS either. Shall we now remove all factoids from wikipedia that are credited to JVL?Homey 18:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, yes. material from JVL was in the past removed in some cases. Zeq 18:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

And Zeq, one more revert and I'm going to prepare to take you to the ArbComm for POV vandalism. Given you editing history I'd strongly caution you to cease or desist lest you face a longterm ban. Homey 18:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

So far you are the only one violating policy here. read WP:RS . Zeq 18:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Disputed content

I dispute this paragrpah (it is not NPOV):

Israeli apartheid is a controversial phrase used by some anti-Zionists and Palestinian rights activists to draw an analogy between the policies of the Israeli government towards Palestinians to those of the apartheid-era South African government towards its Black and mixed-race populations. The analogy has been used as early as 1987 by Uri Davis, an Israeli-born academic and Jewish member of the Palestine Liberation Organization, in his book Israel: An Apartheid State (ISBN 0862323177) which provided a detailed comparison of Israel and South Africa. The highly controversial World Conference against Racism in Durban, South Africa adopted resolutions describing Israel as an "apartheid state". Nobel Peace Prize winner and South African anti-apartheid activist Desmond Tutu wrote in some articles that the situation in Israel reminded him about Apartheid.

and this was is based on a source which does not meet WP:RS:

Analogy

- Proponents of this term argue that while Israel grants some rights to Arabs living in Israel within its pre-1967 borders, it routinely discriminates against Arabs living in the Occupied Territories. Proponenets present a number of reasons for this. - *Palestinians (as opposed to Israeli Arabs) do not have voting rights as do citizens of Israel, but they are under Israeli occupation and subject to the laws and policies of the Israeli government and its military. (Ibid) - *Israel has constructed settlements in the West Bank, where Israeli settlers enjoy high standards of living with respect to the local Palestinian population. These colonies also expend large amounts of resources (especially water), at the expense of the local inhabitants, who are forced to make ends meet. (Ibid) - *Israel has created roads and checkpoints that isolate Palestinian communities and have effectively formed an Israeli version of the South African Bantustans. (Ibid) - *Israeli road plans in the West Banks have been condemned as "apartheid" as some roads would be reserved for Palestinians while others would be reserved for Israelis. - Proponents of this term often claim discrimination against Israeli Arabs. - *Jews can easily enter Israel, under the Law of Return, yet Palestinians who fled or were driven out, may not have the Right of return.(Ibid) - *Arab municipalities receive less than one fifth the funding that is given to their Jewish counterparts. (Ibid) - *The Government of Israel often refuses to grant permits to build or repair homes, and fails to provide electricity, water, health services, education, roads, or any other infrastructure. One of the consequences is that 70% of Negev Desert Bedouin (Arab) infants are not fully immunized and one third are hospitalized within their first year of life. (Ibid)

Please keep in mind what wikipedia is not and don't turn this article into a political attenpt to delegitimize Israel. The place to argue about the rights and wrongs (there are mnay) of Israel policies is not in this encyclopedia. Zeq 17:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There a few claims which seem factually incorrect, yet to change them would undermine the reasoning behind making them to begin with:

• With exception to the "Law of Return," Arab citizens of Israel don't have some rights, but equal rights (legally, at the minimum).
• Palestinians have voting rights in the Palestinian Authority controlled areas
• Both settler and Palestinian standards of living fluctuate, and don't necessarily correlate to political status (There are poor settlers and rich Palestinians - rich settlers aren't rich because they make Palestinians poor). While some resources (like land) are expended by the settlements, I believe that the vast majority of water is piped in from Israel's own grid.
• I'm not overly familiar with the Bantustan concept, but the isolation is not dejure, and isn't part of a strategy of labour capitalisation (in the past, at least, when checkpoints and travel-restrictions were minimal or nonexistent).
• To the best of my knowledge, the Israeli built road system (bypass roads) are the main arteries for Palestinian travel, while their use is sometimes restricted to mass-transit, and curtailed altogether at times. The Guardian article refers to a proposed plan.

Again, I don't take issue with the claims per-se, but rather I'm unclear as to what the best method of remaining faithful to facts without compromising the pro-"apartheid" POV may be. Cheers, Tewfik 18:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• The roads issue is covered here by B'Tselem and I quote:

"This system enables Israel to designate use of some of the roads in the West Bank for the primary or exclusive use of Israelis, mainly settlers living in the West Bank. Prolonged checks and searches carried out by soldiers at the staffed checkpoints and the accompanying degradation and long lines deter Palestinians from using even some roads that are open to them. Consequently, there is light Palestinian travel on some of the main West Bank roads, and these roads are essentially used only by settlers."

Roads which dead-end at a settlement there is very little Palestinian-license plate travel. Other roads are sometime limited to cars with Israeli license plate plus any cargo or public transport (no private cars). In any case it is not racial at all as Palestinians who travle in Israeli license cars (such as Palestinian residents pf e. jerusalem or Palestinians with israeli ID (there are over 1.5 million of them) can get an israeli license plate and travel on every road. No aparthide. Zeq 19:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• With regards to water, here is a page from B'Tselem . A quote:

"Israel's water policy in the Occupied Territories benefited Israel in two primary ways: (1) Preservation of the unequal division of the shared groundwater in the West Bank's Western Aquifer and Northern Aquifer. This division was created prior to the occupation, a result of the gap between economic and technological development in Israel as opposed to the West Bank. However, the gap would have likely diminished had Israel not prevented it. (2) Utilization of new water sources, to which Israel had no access prior to 1967, such as the Eastern Aquifer (in the West Bank) and the Gaza Aquifer, primarily to benefit Israeli settlements established in those areas."

--Ben Houston 19:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, the first point's description of unequal division is a general benefit to Israel as a whole, and isn't specific to settlements (and states that the division preceded the Israeli occupation). As for the second point, to the best of my knowledge, there are no major Israeli drilling sites in the West Bank, but rather dozens of pumping stations that transport water from the Israeli grid up into the hills. B'Tselem didn't provide numbers relating to Israel's utilisation of "new water sources" - joined with the preceding, this leads me to believe that the utilisation is domestic in nature and negligible in overall quantity. I found the following about the Gaza area settlement:

The reason ? He pulls over to show me.(...) Fat white pipes protrude from the sandy soil bound for the concrete storage tanks on the hill above us. This water comes from Israel's National Water Company, pumped from aquifers beneath Israel and the West Bank and diverted from the Jordan River about 100 miles away. The rest of the settlers' water comes from underground, pumped from a sweet pocket of the Gaza aquifer. Together with the water in these pipes, it means no one's thirsty in Gush Katif.

While this report documents utilisation of "new water sources," it seems to regard it as being of secondary importance. Anyhow, if you come up with something else (particularly numbers documenting the "new" utilisation - that would change much) let me know. Cheers, Tewfik 05:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In light of the course this page has taken, I've made edits largely based on my comments above, specifically:

• Equal rights
• Arabs with Israeli citizenship living/working in the West Bank have the same rights as any other Israeli citizen.
• The level of water use by settlements is not recorded on the B'Tselem source. See above. Additionally, aside from the use of other resources (land the settlements are built on, closed military areas), the relationship between settler and Palestinian socio-economic status is irrelevant, and not based on fact.
• A plan which was discussed two years ago, and which hasn't been implemented, is irrelevant.

Cheers, Tewfik 18:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I reverted user:Bless sins's reversion of my edits. The reasoning I expressed above wasn't challenged or addressed. I acknowledge that Bless sins stated reasoning was that we aren't here to judge the claims, but I thought we were crossing the line between presenting a POV and presenting non-factual information. Let me know if you believe me to be in error. Cheers, Tewfik 03:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Phrase vs. a fact

This article is about a phrase not a fact. IZAK 18:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is about propeganda useage of a phrase. Zeq 18:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, but it's still a phrase. IZAK 18:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Guys, this move is not properly done. Please discuss it further. Cheers -- Szvest 18:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It should be Israeli "apartheid" (use of the phrase) Zeq 18:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

1) we do not put words in quotation marks when rendering article titles. 2) see above about adding (phrase), that would be needed if we were disambiguating from other forms of Israeli apartheid, as we aren't it's a ridiculous add-on. Homey 18:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure about that Zeq as i am not an expert but my comment is about the unilateral move and decision. Cheers -- Szvest 18:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Homey seems to have confused quotation marks with parentheses. We frequently put words in parentheses on Misplaced Pages. Pecher 19:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't confusing anything - I was referring to Zeq's suggested title of Israeli "apartheid" (use of phrase). Homey 19:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I am going to stop editing this article for a while

It is impossible to conduct a fair discussion here since Homey has blocked me while placing this edit:

User_talk:Zeq#I_wasabout_to_put_this_on_the_talkpage_of_Israeli_apartheid_.28phrase.29_but_got_blocked

The facts here are very clear:

Homey starts a POV article, put in disputed content from a non WP:RS source. He edit war 5 times with anyone who disgree with him.

When he suggest that if "his" source is not WP:RS also other sources should be disqulafied as well I agree with him that both sources could be disputed under WP:RS he just continue his edit war.

Other users point out that the "facts" he quotesd are simply wrong but he prefer to block (misuse of admin power) instead of discussing the issue. Zeq 19:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I blocked you for three minutes for vandalizing the article after being warned not to. I unblocked you after three minutes because I thought it would make more sense either for someone else to block you or to take you to ArbComm. Homey 19:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Homey: Regardless of the fact that you may have had good reasons, it is VERY bad form for an admin to block anyone when they are having a dispute with, when they (the admin) is involved in writing the article (besides I have never heard of a "3 minute block" -- is that meant to frighten and intimidate?) The correct thing would be to call on a one or two NEUTRAL admins, not involved with this article, and ask them for their input. If they feel that someone is overstepping the rules then they should give a warning to the person they feel is wrong and then if he disregards that warning take the needed action, by all means, as long as they can justify themselves. But you should not have acted as both advocate and editor of the article as well as the executioner admin and final arbiter. Justice not only needs to be, it must also appear to be done! And in this case it clearly was not. IZAK 19:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I blocked Zeq for 24 hours, then I thought better of it after three minutes and unblocked him since I didn't think I should be the one doing the block. There are a number of editors attacking this and a related article for POV reasons in what seems to be an effort to destroy it. I find this very frustrating. I would urge people to try to make the article NPOV by adding to it, not by removing things they don't like. Homey 19:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should move this to an WP:RFC on the issue of WP:RS and the fact that Homey totaly ignored this edit:

as well as this section of the talk page:

Talk:Israeli_apartheid_(phrase)#Disputed_content

Zeq 19:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should examine your vandalism in doing things like adding "propaganda" before "phrase" and "false" before "analogy". How can such changes possibly be considered NPOV? And why shouldn't those changes made repeatedly result in your being banned?Homey 19:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I want to understand: So you disgree with my edits and decides to take advantage of the fact that I was once before ArbCom and decided to ban me ?

Hopefully, I misunderstood what you just wrote and if so I appologize. Zeq 19:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Homey: Ok, I am sure the intent was good, but it's a (over-) heated subject! I don't know how long you have been editing and writing these type of articles, but by now you should be well aware that they arouse DEEP and heated responses and therefor one needs to be highly sensitive to people who disagree with this POV who may even view it as flamebait. So you needn't over-react, especially as an admin, by using threats like "take you to ArbComm", when as you know, there are lots of more mature steps before that, like a variety of mediation measures. Also, avoid "shooting the messenger" because you don't like the message. IZAK 19:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

To Zeq: This phrase exists and is very "popular" today (in my view it's unfortunate, but what can you do, we cannot control the universe). The phrase is coming up more and more in the media, academia, and in political debates, so it is a valid Misplaced Pages article, no question about it. It can present all the views in the body of the article. There is nothing to fear. I think it is too early to ask that the article go to "Request for Comment". If you and Homey can calm down and debate it rationally then it can be resolved here. Let us ask other more seasoned editors to give their views here first. Stay calm, everyone. IZAK 19:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. This is the first issue to consider: and also WP:RS Zeq 19:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"I want to understand: So you disgree with my edits and decides to take advantage of the fact that I was once before ArbCom and decided to ban me ?"

Actually, I did not know you were before the Arbcom before. Given your edits and behaviour here it doesn't surprise me. Evidently you learned nothing from your experience. Homey 20:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute. You're telling me that Homeontherange, the person who started this article in the first place and has edit-warred over it, is an administrator? I find that unsettling. 6SJ7 20:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC) (Edited my own comment. 6SJ7 20:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC))

Do we have a sockppupet ?

WHOIS results for 207.195.242.123

Location: United States

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29&diff=prev&oldid=55781804

would anyone here care to tell us what IP address you edit from ? mine starts with 85.x.x.x .

Zeq 19:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm in Toronto. My IP address starts with a 69.Homey 20:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Zeq: you are acting very aggressively. The IP restored a lot of material that did seem like it was deleted arbitrarily with a POV-intent -- especially since the detailed criticism section wasn't also deleted. --Ben Houston 20:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Both parts need to be deleted. New additions from Btselm are now used as far as e-Jerusalem but btselem never argued that such policies in e.jerusalem are "aparthide". This whole article is mostly a disgrace for wikipedia. If I would agree with IZAK that if the term is used we can have an article about it still does not mean that this article will become a freerange attck on israel. Serious shortening of this article is in order with great care taken to WP:NPOV it. So far not one of you have bothered to do that, so naturaly my edits (and arguments now limited to talk) may seem "aggressive". What is agressive is that i got blocked and this article is a disgrace for wikipedia. Zeq 20:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It is true that B'Tselem never argued that it is "apartheid" (note the spelling), they just called it discriminatory. I can't help but wonder if all these claims and counter claims are covered elsewhere in Misplaced Pages. I owuld expect that they have been. Maybe we can just link to them for the most part. --Ben Houston 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

How about we just summarize the book by Uri, and the Desmond Tutu article contents (which are both clearly notable) rather than try to put together something from other sources -- then it becomes contentious. Also we should include only responses in reputable sources to these two articles -- let's also avoid a new original combination of sources in response. Thus we are just documenting a book, and article and the response to them. --Ben Houston 20:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what is wrong with citing the global exchange article as a source. Homey 20:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, there is nothing wrong with citing globalexchange except for a nuisance called WP:RS. Pecher 20:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

To Zeq: So basically the article is ok as long as it doesn't actually quote any sources that claim Israel is an "apartheid state" or cite any of their arguments. Can you see why that attitude is POV?Homey 20:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Good question. see proposal at: http://en.wikipedia.org/Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29/sandbox Zeq 20:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

A completely one-sided and POV proposal. Zeq, to be NPOV the article has to discuss both sides objectively, including the side you don't like. Can you try to rewrite your proposal so it actually includes what your opponents are saying. Also, a number of left-wing Zionists (such as some in Yahad/Meretz) have also used the apartheid comparison, particularly in reference to the West Bank so your claim that this term is used only by those who want to destroy Israel is obviously wrong. Homey 20:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

wendy campbell

WC is listed as source for this article. To understand how far things have detoriorated here see this:

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Wendy+Campbell%22+nazi&btnG=Search

Zeq 20:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Campbell is *not* a source for the article, she is listed as an external link. I'm fine if you want to remove the link. Homey 20:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge Apartheid wall into article

Apartheid wall not only repeats some of the ideas in this article but also seems that it would be a very good section of this article as the topics are very similar but this one seems to be more of an umbrella title which Apartheid wall would fit under. --Strothra 15:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I tentatively agree, for slightly different reasons: One preposterous name-calling article that should not exist is better than two preposterous name-calling articles that should not exist. (See my comments, going back several months, on Talk:Apartheid wall). 6SJ7 16:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge would be a good idea. --Ben Houston 16:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge Israeli apartheid into Israeli-occupied territories

The current title is offensive. Clearly, the Jewish state is chosen for demonization: compare this proliferation of what some here call "NPOV" with the 3-line-long section Human rights in Saudi Arabia#Segregation. I think that salvageable content of this article should be merged into Israeli-occupied territories, and the content of Apartheid Wall - into Israeli West Bank barrier. The offensive epithets belong to hate blogs, not encyclopedia. ←Humus sapiens 21:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed! Why hasn't someone written an article about Arab apartheid, such as how Saudi Arabia forbids non-Moslems from entering its borders or living there, or how Christians are persecuted and killed in the Sudan, or how Syrian (and Iraq under Saddam) treat/ed the Kurds, or how Sunnis hate Sh'ites (Iran-Iraq wars). It's a long list, but it's Israel that gets "singled out". IZAK 21:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I support the merge too. Pecher 21:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Agrre with both. Zeq 21:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It's actually not all that difficult to get into Saudi Arabia. Many outsiders go in simply by claiming to be Muslim. A few of my friends did this already and I am planning to go with them the next time they do it. There's no Muslim test and there's nothing that they could do to prove that you're lying if you're American because your passport won't contain your religion. It definately helps to know the culture and the religion, however. A lot of people do it and smuggle in alcohol which can fetch a good amount there but there are extremely harsh punishments if you're caught. But also, I've never really heard the term Arab apartheid before. Does that exist? --Strothra 21:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I find this comment hypocritical. ←Humus sapiens 02:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I obviously didn't mean if the fact or idea of Arab apartheid existed but whether it existed as a term such as Israeli apartheid does. I mean the term has been found in publications and I've heard it since the early 90's. According to the article it's been around since the late 80's. Is Arab apartheid an actual term is what I was asking. --Strothra 02:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If you check the sources using this propaganda epithet, you'll find that they are not WP:RS. ←Humus sapiens 03:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with a merger. I do not know which article is the correct one for it to merge into, as there are so many articles about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict I see a new one (with material overlapping other articles) almost every time I look around. I have wondered if it wouldn't be best to wipe out ALL articles except the ones that are specifically about geographic locations (Israel, Jerusalem, Ramallah etc.) and start over. The result could hardly be worse than the mess that exists now, and that was true even before this article came along. Anyway, yes on merger. 6SJ7 00:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is about a sentence (or a phrase) that exists. There is no reason to merge this anywhere. This must be treated npov. That's all. Alithien 22:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC) No reason to write the article "arab apartheid" simply because it is not used. BUT it must be absolutely removed from the article any argument that would state this sentence is justified or unjustified "objectively"; only different minds should be given. Alithien 22:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian Voting Rights

While I personally tend to agree with Zeq that it is ridiculous to claim that not giving Palestinians living outside Israel the right to vote in Israeli elections is an act of oppression- by analogy, all Iraqis would have to be given voting rights (and citizenship?) in US. Still, the argument is often mentioned, and thus is notable. I edited to make it clear that this applies only to Palestinians living outside Israel; hope it is good now. -- Heptor _talk 11:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's so ridiculous. Those individuals have families and interests which remain in the occupied territories. Those territories are occupied and governed by the Israeli government. Why shouldn't they have a say? Those Palestinians are not foreign citizens but natural born citizens of the occupied territories and thus that government is still responsible to them in a democratic system. The same works for American expatriates living abroad. Also, Iraqis living in the U.S. were allowed to vote in the last Iraqi election. --Strothra 16:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What does WP:NPOV mean ?

NPOV does not mean that we take any lunatic idea and write an article about it with two sections: 1. Why people think about thjis Idea 2. Why there are people who think the other way

Some ideas are so far fetched that we, as editors, must use judgment and just write: "This is a lunatic idea used by xyz for badmothing ABC"

As to your argument: The palestinians territories are run by the PA and the Palestinians VOTE to the PA parliment (PLC) and to the president. Yes, the raea is occupied by Isral, yes Israel claim to have rights for the area and the world say it is not so. (I happend to think that Israel is wrong) but all these issues are addressed in article about the west bank, the palestinian territories, israel and Int'l law, the Palestinian Authority etc.

Here, we should only say what a propeganda term this is and who invnted it and how they use it (against israel) to argue in the article the question of weather israel is or is not an aparthide state is exactly what Misplaced Pages is WP:NOT. Zeq 17:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Disputed text

This is bad english, does not make sense and based on ridiculus analogy:

"Palestinians who live outside Israel and do not have Israeli citizenship do not have voting rights in Israel as do citizens of Israel (Israeli Arabs including), but they are under Israeli occupation and subject to the laws and policies of the Israeli government and its military. "

Zeq 12:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This is what the proponents argue.Like it or not. Bless sins 02:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"This is bad english, does not make sense and based on ridiculus analogy" ... I'm sorry but you don't seem like the type to be in much authority to correct English grammar. Thanks for attempting though. --Strothra 02:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

(phrase)

User:6SJ7 writes in his edit comments "moved Israeli apartheid to Israeli apartheid (phrase): Moving back to having "phrase" in the title; maybe this is the start of a new standard for articles about controversial phrases"

Well, at least he's admitting that adding "(phrase)" to the name of an article that has an otherwise non-shared name is unorthodox (ie (phrase) is not needed to disambiguate the article). If 6SJ7 or Pecher want to change wikipedia's naming policy they should argue it out on the relevant Policy page not try to "start a new standard" here.Homey 04:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Homey, I didn't "admit" anything. I don't know that it is unorthodox or non-standard. That is your claim. I made a flippant remark within the limited confines of an edit summary, and it meant, if it really is a standard, maybe it's time for a new standard. But the burden is on you: Prove there is a standard against keeping "phrase" in the title. If there is such a standard that is accepted on Misplaced Pages, maybe I will propose changing it. But first, prove it. Also, since the question of phrase vs. fact had been discussed before, I think it was inappropriate for you to move it without discussing it and trying to get some consensus. It also seems to me that you think you own this article, and I know there is a standard against that. 6SJ7 04:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Plus, I just looked at the section above on phrase vs. fact. Pecher said that parenthetical phrases in titles are often done. So I guess it isn't so standard. But I will leave it to others to comment, should the name of the article be changed again? 6SJ7 04:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions. The use of parantheses is only mentioned in reference to disambiguation. Also:

"If you wish to propose a new naming convention, do so on Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions, whilst also publicising the proposal at Requests for comment and the Village Pump, as well as at any related pages. Once a strong consensus has formed, it can be adopted as a naming convention and listed below."

You are proposing a new naming convention, you should go to Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions and submit your idea rather than act unilaterally here. Homey 04:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, we wouldn't want to have anyone act unilaterally... Anyway, I read the Naming conventions. It gives examples of when parentheses can be used. I didn't see anything that says they cannot be used in other instances. And I think their use here is perfectly consistent with what it says in the naming conventions, because "disambiguation" is just a method of avoiding confusion. Here, the "(phrase)" was employed to avoid confusion between something that does not exist ("Israeli apartheid") and something that does exist (the phrase, "Israeli apartheid.") So the name was fine with "(phrase)" in it. 6SJ7 04:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive editing + violations of WP:Point , WP:3RR, WP:SP and admin abuse

Everything I have seen so far in this article (from it's creation) demonstrate that Homey is disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. In fact, I would say that this is a very strong disruption. He has even violated 3RR (5 times) and edited under a sockpppuet (to block me while he was blocked) using his admin power (blocking a user with whom he had a dsipute) to intimidate me from editing this article. He also engaged in a campaiagn to ban me from this article so that he can continue using it as a propeganda vehicle. I would suggest to anyone who care to stop editing this article and refert this issue first to Misplaced Pages ArbCom or to Jimbo Wales. If not this disgracefull article will surly be of interst to others as well.

For more on this issue see: User_talk:Sean_Black#May_I_suggest

Zeq 04:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Zeq but a sock puppet wouldn't have been able to block you unless the sock pupper were also an admin. I blocked you as User:Homeontherange, not as a sock puppet as is clear from your block log. Speculation is not fact so please don't make up accusations based on false assumptions. As for my "campaign" to ban you from this article, you are on probation because of an ArbComm decision, you violated that probation by tendentious editing - an Arbitrator, Tony Sideway, placed a notice of your probation violation on the ArbComm request section of the Admin notice board and an admin, Steve banned you from this article as a result. That is, an arbitrator and another admin agreed upon examining your edits that they were a violation of your probation.Homey 05:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Homey, you blocked me while being blocked from editing and then edited using this sockppuet: . The above shows you are also trying now to hide the truth. As for your campaign I know by far more than you think. Zeq 05:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

PS, you have misrepresent what Tony did, all he did was to move your request to the right place where your request should have been and he told you about where such request be moved to: , Zeq 05:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you do an IP check as 205.188.116.67 is not and has never been my IP. I am in Canada and have no access to US AOL IPs (and don't use AOL as my ISP in any case) I suspect from the fact that that IP was also editing New York State related articles, an IP trace will find that that IP is no where near my location. Sorry. Again, when you make assumptions you only make an ass of yourself. Homey 05:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Homey, you blocked me while you were blocked from editing. (do you deny that ?) You blocked a user withwhom you had a dispute. (do you deny that ?) Your whole behaviour in this issue is completly inappropriate. (Do you deny that ?)

It is quite possible to use a dial-up and place a message of ban on my user page from NY although you are editing from canada. In fact, the only person in the whole world have the desire to "celebrate his win" and place the "this user is banned for ever notice" on my user page is you (and we have the testimony of Fred Bauder that you have banned me after misundestanding his e-mail to you). Please do not add lies to a whole list of mis use of admin power. Zeq 05:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Why would I bother doing that? Why would I call long distance to put a tag on your page rather than use a local ISP? In any case, a check of the IPs I've logged in from will show that I have *never* used an AOL IP. By your theory, I would have subscribed to AOL in the US rather than Canada, dial long distance just I could tag your page (and make some edits to New York state related articles). Sorry but that's begging credulity.

Zeq, you are on probation (do you admit that?), the ArbComm ruling against you allows any admin to take action against you if you violate your probation (do you admit that?). Nevertheless, I emailed *all* the Arbitrators in your case before doing anything and only acted once I got a response from Fred Bauder. I then reversed the ban after a few minutes because I thought if I banned you you'd argue conflict of interest so it would be better if I presented the evidence of your edits and allowed others to act. I did so and they did so. End of story. And still you can't just say "sorry" for breaking your probation and making tendentious edits. Zeq, are you able to admit your edits violated your probation? If you aren't then I fear it won't be long til you get in trouble again.Homey 05:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You took unilatheral action against an editor you were invloved in dispute. That is on record.

Now you also admit a wide scale e-mail campaign against me.

This shows intent to do what you did next. Zeq 05:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it showed intent not to act unilaterally and intent to ensure that I had the support of the ArbComm before taking any action against you. And what did *you* do to get *yourself* banned, Zeq? Anything? Anything at all? Did you do anything wrong? Are you able to admit that you violated your probation? Or do you only ever see yourself as a victim?Homey 06:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• More misreprestnation: We all know you acted unilaterlay and inappropertly :

Here is what others had to say about it:

Homey: Regardless of the fact that you may have had good reasons, it is VERY bad form for an admin to block anyone when they are having a dispute with, when they (the admin) is involved in writing the article (besides I have never heard of a "3 minute block" -- is that meant to frighten and intimidate?) The correct thing would be to call on a one or two NEUTRAL admins, not involved with this article, and ask them for their input. If they feel that someone is overstepping the rules then they should give a warning to the person they feel is wrong and then if he disregards that warning take the needed action, by all means, as long as they can justify themselves. But you should not have acted as both advocate and editor of the article as well as the executioner admin and final arbiter. Justice not only needs to be, it must also appear to be done! And in this case it clearly was not. IZAK 19:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Homeontherange has just reverted the same article once again despite being warned not to. To attempt to get around this he stated he was removing vandalism, even though it was clear the edits wouldn't qualify as such by any criteria.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Its obvious Homey is attempting to drum up support so that he can get out of a block.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• After no admin wesnt along with you, you acted unilaterly and blocked me. (only later did you start the e-mail campaign).
• you attempt to confuse the timing of these issues is not honest. Zeq 06:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, you have yet to deal with the edits that actually got you banned from this article. You have a lot to say about everything except the actual actions *by you* that got you banned. Take some responsibility for heaven's sake. I'm done talking to you about this. Homey 06:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• of course I am rsponsible(I was not using SockPupet) My edits were reasonable and this will come out eventually. Zeq 06:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"Tony did, all he did was to move your request to the right place where your request should have been and he told you about where such request be moved to"

Actually, if you read that board you'll see that only Arbitrators can report incidents there. Sorry. Homey 05:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You have no right to ask anyone to take responsibility, Zeq's actions have been far from exemplary, but they pale in comparison to yours. You continue to abuse your adminstrative tools by using them to gain an edge in a dispute, one in which you are undoubtedly the prime instigator of. When anybody even touches your tendentious edits you accuse them of violating at least one of several rules. You seem to forget that admins technically have no more status the other users, as it actually seems that you believe that disagreeing with you is grounds for a block. I have seen few editors behave as badly as you have these last two days, it makes it infintitely worse that you are an administrator.-Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Peer review requests not specifying archive