Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by El C (talk | contribs) at 22:31, 11 April 2007 (→El-C is an "involved admin": to reiterate: appeal first, edit after). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive 1 (30 Sep. '05 − 14 Dec. '05) Archive 2 (15 Dec. '05 − 17 Feb. '06) Archive 3 (18 Feb. '06 − 5 Jun. '06) Archive 4 (5 Jun. '06 − 11 Dec. '06)

Welcome back

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

Renaming Zionism and racism

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

Jewish Settlement Police

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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

Thanks

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

Please explain

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

Your recent edits to Shebaa farms.

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

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

Undeletion request

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

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

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

Your note

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

When in need

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

Mediation

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

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

Proposed compromise

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

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

Bunglawala issue settled

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

Archiving

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

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

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

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

Inayat Bunglawala and bad faith

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

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

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

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

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

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

chill for a sec

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

Stalking? :)

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

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

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

Notice regarding 1929 Hebron massacre

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

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

Your recent revert of my revert to 2006 Lebanon War

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

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

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

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

Doc Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Arab citizens of Israel

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

Bishara's resignation from the Knesset

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

English

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

Notice of block

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

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

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

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

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=violation of admin power. No blocking of a user withwho the admin has an edit dispute. see more below. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=violation of admin power. No blocking of a user withwho the admin has an edit dispute. see more below. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=violation of admin power. No blocking of a user withwho the admin has an edit dispute. see more below. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

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

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Lance6wins#Matter_of_User:Zero0000

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

Zeq 08:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Your block

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

Thank You. anyway I can attend that discussion ?

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

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

The problem is:

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

Zeq 19:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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

A suggestion

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

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

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

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

Zeq 20:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please read WP:Probation

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

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

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

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

Look at this edit summary:

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

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

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

El-C is an "involved admin"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Requests for unblock