Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Zeq

Statement by User:ChrisC

Hello, I am new on wikipedia and this article is the first article on which I interact. I think whole problem comes from political issues and uses that this article can have. This is linked to the fact that the events it treats (war of 1948 - first arab-israeli war) still have consequences today (Israel - PA). This article is therefore used as a battlefield of propaganda. I think that what is reported about Al Husseini broadcasts is true but I think this has nothing to do in this article where it is only used for propaganda matters. And there are other comments of the same type in the article concerning *both sides*.

I think arbitration should more focus on the global problem (ie how to deal at best the fact this topic cannot be neutraly treated) and not only on the problem of sources. I think this has come up to here only for "procedure" reasons and I don't think this is the real problem.

I don't have a solution but a suggestion : maybe some paragraphs on the article should be shared in two parts : "Following palestinian point of view...". "Following israeli point of view..." and some references should be allowed to be commented by "This allegation is considered to be myth developed by ... side to give bad images of ...". Therefore all point of views could be developed without *fights of words*.

User:ChrisC 17:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NB: sorry for the poor English - I am Belgian and my mother tongue is French.

Ramblings by El_C

While I consider the Hebrew Wikipedia quite decent on Arab-Israeli topics, and in general (and this despite its strong pro-Israeli bias — see Heptor's addendum five for the fun, if in my opinion highly simplistic, redetails), I do find it noteworthy that whereas En goes on to expend more than 500 words on the Mufti in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, He's מלחמת העצמאות, expends 0 words. El_C 00:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq left a rather confusing note on my talk page. In it, he tells me that the Mufti's role in the Hevron Massacare is well known (when did I state otherwise?). He also appears to dismiss the entire Hebrew Wikipedia on the basis that some of their articles are not up to par and juxtaposes that to the featured article cited above (?). I think... It's difficult to tell. Finally, he cautions me not to copy something into Riots in Palestine of 1929 (writing: if you copy thisd into 1929 you will be reverted), but I don't know what it is I'm not allowed to "copy," though it was in any case unlikely that I would edit the aforementioned article based on his note, because again, I do not fully understand what is meant by it. I invite Zeq to write to me in Hebrew if he is having difficulties with English (which I can translate, if he so wishes). El_C 07:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ramallite (talk · contribs)

It has been difficult to follow this long dispute, but I think it somewhat bears a close analogy to "Elementary, my dear Watson" or "Play it again, Sam". It is widely considered that Sherlock Holmes said the first phrase to his trusty friend Dr. Watson, and Humphrey Bogart's (or was it Ingrid Bergman's) famous line from Casablanca is equally well known. People have quoted, written about, repeated, and propagated these phrases for a long time - except they never happened. The phrase "Elementary, my dear Watson" was never uttered by Sherlock Holmes, and it's probably known by now that Sam was never asked to "play it again". Here, we have a similar situation where an often repeated phrase attributed to Haj Amin Husseini may also have never actually been uttered. The difference is that, while my examples come from the entertainment industry, this dispute deals with some editors of Wikipedia feeling that the inclusion of such a phrase that is commonly believed to have been said, but may actually not have been, in a Wikipedia article will only contribute to the continued propagation of a 'lie' which others can use to support their (often unfriendly) opinions or ideologies. These editors (myself included) prefer that Wikipedia not be yet another source that propagates unreliable but commonly believed information, and that it hold itself to a higher standard. On the other hand, editors who support the inclusion of this phrase rely on the notion that, despite the possibility of the quotation being false, the fact that it is generally believed is enough reason to include it since it is the reason why Israelis 'believed that they were facing a genocidal enemy'. Thus, to reconcile these two positions, it is absolutely essential that such a phrase, had it been truly uttered, be verified beyond reasonable doubt if possible.

Statement by Brian Tvedt

This is a very important case, and I hope that the arbitration committee will accept it. One of the issues at stake is that Heptor and Zeq have repeatedly inserted material that is "sourced" only to political advocacy websites that support their POV, even after having been warned repeatedly not to. If such behavior is tolerated, it opens the door to abuse of Wikipedia by all sorts of political operatives. For example, opponents of a politician standing for election could insert material into that politician's biography that is "sourced" only to websites created by political action committees set up by the opposing party. Brian Tvedt 02:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message to Arbitrators

We are all enetitle to at least get your response will you take this case. You seem to understand the garvity of the situation: Wikipedia has become a place for anti-Israel propeganda and you are hesitating to take a stand because either way will get you in trouble. I have argued fo a long time that Wikipedia is currently unable to deal with articles about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict with it's current policies and methods. Just take a look at Palestinian exodus and you will see what I mean.

It is time you make your rulling will you hear this case, limiting it to only the sources issue is dogding the real question: Can wikipedia really be NPOV ? If yes: Get the plolicis implemented, if not: Change the policies. Zeq 15:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can explain the reason concisely, unlike either of you: that's an incoherent novel-length ramble you've assembled together above. We've seriously been considering a 500-word limit on AC pleadings precisely because of this sort of thing. See if you can state your entire problem in 500 words - David Gerard 22:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can do it in much less than 500 words:

The problem is to apply Wikipedia NPOV policy about nakab and to apply it to all other articles in an equal manner. There is growing concern about wikipedia outthere and itis evident among other things in the lefty bias against Israel and the west. In artcles such as Hebron massacre of 1929 do you honestly think that the event depition should starts with "jews marched... calling..." This is a partial and biased description of the events. These are just examples. Wikipedia should work out a mechanism (such as this [1] to prevent the constant edit wars and to make the articles truely NPOV. Zeq 06:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of my comments is in [2]. Zeq 06:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct links?

A couple of the links on the project-page are not working (Zeq´s posting on Jimbo Wales´s talk-page); perhaps you should try the following links instead:

User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_1#complete_failure_of_wikipedia_NPOV_policy
[3]
I´m not sure I got that second link right: I could not find it looking in the archive, instead I scrolled back in the "history" of the talk-page. --Huldra 05:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involvement of Palmiro

Since I have been cited by Zeq as one of the persons involved in what he sees as an attempt to control the contents of Palestinian exodus, and he feels I should be involved in the case, and also because I have a number of remarks to make about related issues, I would like to make a statement. However, I won't have time to do so until Wednesday 2 February at the earliest. Palmiro | Talk 08:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rambling by Heptor

As you might have noticed, I summed up sources available for the quoation so far here Talk:1948_Arab-Israeli_War#Summing_up_available_sources. Actually, that post, and (relativly) short debate that followed presents the issue on the 1948 AI War surprisingly well, so I think it is a good place to start.

I am not involved with Palestinian Exodus article, but I did read much of the debate. Frankly, I don't always agree with Zeq's methods (or his spelling), but he does have a valid point. I read the article, and it sometimes looks like a script for an Arab propaganda movie rather then an encyclopedia article. Just look at the quotation of Hanan Ashrawi describing Palestinians as

"...a nation in captivity held hostage to an ongoing Nakba [catastrophe], as the most intricate and pervasive expression of persistent colonialism, apartheid, racism, and victimization. More than half a century ago [53 years], the Palestinians as a people were slated for national obliteration, cast outside the course of history, their identity denied, and their very human cultural and historical reality suppressed. We became victims of the myth of a land without a people for people without a land whereby the West sought to assuage its guilt over its horrendous anti-Semitism by the total victimization of a whole nation."

Even though it is made clear that this is a quotation, I still maintain that this kind of language belongs in propaganda movies, not in an encyclopedia article. Rwandan Genocide, or Holocaust for that matter, are far more descriptive, even though they describe humane catastrophees (if one want to use that word) on an almost uncompareble scale. My total impression is that the article is emotionally charged and leading towards a pro-Paletian POV, without presenting the Israeli POV properly.

-- Heptor _talk 21:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Pecher

If we believe the edit differences provided by the filer of this request [4], the alleged removal of sourced materials by Zeq in Palestinian exodus is confined to the statement by Hanan Ashrawi quoted above and a large section titled "Transfer principle." As pointed out above, Ashrawi's statement belongs to the domain of propaganda and should not be included in encyclopedic articles.

The "Transfer principle" section does not appear to be well-sourced. For example, the first four paragraphs contain a total of one reference to a website of dubious reliability, and many factual claims, like "While a few Palestinian Arabs were amenable to Jewish immigration, most were not", are unsourced. Equally unsourced are miscellaneous statements of opinion such as:

"Zionist Jews strove to create a Jewish state built on Jewish traditions and culture in Palestine, which Jews considered their ancestral homeland and where a Jewish minority had lived for centuries. The demographic reality of Palestine, in which most residents were non-Jewish Arabs, was for them a major obstacle to the establishment of such a state."

or

"It was therefore clear that it would not be possible to bring about a Jewish majority in any part of Palestine, with the exceptions of the Haifa area, Jerusalem, and some northern districts."

In the absence of an appropriate reference, it may be reasonable to conclude that the opinions above represent original research and are a violation of WP:NOR. Furthermore, these are the first four paragraphs of the section where most of the substantive information is, while the rest of the section consists largely of quotes from Zionist politicians. References from research works in the rest of this section come solely from books by Benny Morris and it is unclear whether his views are shared by other historians.

In addition, the reader of the article is left wondering what this "transfer principle" is because no definition of this term is made in the body of the article. All of the above casts much doubt over the relevance and reliability of the "Transfer principle" section.

--Pecher 22:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on newly proposed decisions

I believe Fred Bauder made his position clear already before this arbitration case was accepted, so the decisions he proposed do not exactly come as a surprise. I consider everything except "Proposed principles" tendentious and in some places based on erroneous presumtions. I think it will be less mess to take them in one posting, rather then repeating myself on every proposed decision.

1. I was very little active in Palestinian Exodus. My last edit was on 18th of January[5], and was not part of an edit war. The edit I made before that, on 21th of December [6], was not objected by other editors. I have absolutely no idea why I am supposed to be banned from Palestinian Exodus, or why I am even dragged into the conflict.

2. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:NOT). Wikipedia should concentrate on providing neutral information presented as an encyclopedic article. Material Zeq repeatedly removed from Palestinian Exodus is as much encyclopedic as Eeyore is a horse. I believe this point is made clear in my previous posting, and in Pecher's comment. That is just an opinion, I still do not consider myself to be a party in the dispute around Palestinian Exodus.

3. The information Ian Pitchford added was never discussed on the talk page, or even mentioned explicitly in the edit summaries. Zero has always summarized his edits with "take out some of the trash" or similar, presumably refering to the quoatation of Haj Amin al-Husayni. The disturbing fact is that I did not notice that Ian Pitchford actually added information. I read it now, and it look good to me. I hope to add it back into the article as soon as it is unprotected. I hope this will not be an issue for the Arbitration Committee.

4. I note with interest that the origin of the dispute, the quotation of Haj Amin al-Husayni where he called for Arabs to kill Jews,is not even mentioned in proposed decisions. This is what started the dispute, and was debated for months. The claim that "In 1940, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem, requested the Axis powers to acknowledge the Arab right [...]" was deleted by Ian Pitchford on 24th of December[7]. I don't remember this was ever discussed on the talk page. I recently found another reference to this request, in a book by Chuck Morse [8].

Naturally, neutral academic sources are always to be prefered to sources like "World Net Daily". But Palestinian Exodus uses sources such as http://www.miftah.org/ (note [5]), and even Radio Islam (note [7]). Will there be diffrent standards for pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli sources?

Still, mufti's request to the Axis powers was not even discussed on the talk page, and I do not think it is mature for arbitration. His call for killing Jews is, see Talk:1948_Arab-Israeli_War#Summing_up_available_sources for a summary of the debate.

Heptor _talk 14:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some problem in finding good sources for the quotations from the Mufti. If they can be found there is no reason they should not be in the article. Fred Bauder 16:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good summary of the problem. Some people think that a repetition of a claim by a popular writer amounts to additional evidence of the claim, but of course that is not true. Chuck Morse is a talk-show host with no credentials as a historian whatsoever, and his Arab-bashing book doesn't have an original syllable in it. It also contains pure fantasies (such as a 1937 meeting between al-Husayni and Eichmann that in fact never happened). --Zero 17:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You ask this question after recommending Chuck Morse?? --Zero 17:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your (Fred Bauder's) opinion that sources are insufficient, and I disagree with you. I am not aware that Wikipedia has a policy that only academic sources are accepted; in fact most of the material in Wikipedia is based on newspapers and web sites. Naturally, we could make this a policy and demand that anyone who wants to add something to Wikipedia should go to the library and read a book, which would be the end of this project.

In this respect, a book by Chuck Morse is a perfectly legitimate source of information. He was after all good enough to be published in Washington Times [9]. But I will underline that the issue with mufti's request to Axis powers was never properly debated on the talk page.

Still, if the majority of the Arbitration Committee will find provided sources insufficient, I will respect that decision. -- Heptor _talk 00:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Zero, could you please place your comments separatly from original posting? The text will be much more readable. -- Heptor _talk 00:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: Zero, read Radio Islam article. EU's racism monitoring organization has called it "one of the most radical right wing anti-Semitic homepages on the net". How can you compare a respected journalist and candidate for the Congress to that??? -- Heptor _talk 18:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last comments by ChrisC

Dear Gentlemen,

I would like to make last 3 comments about that case :

1. I hope it is now clear that Heptor didn't participate to a edit war in Palestinian exodus where he only made 5 edits, always adding information. I discussed much with him and with other protagonists. He never made any counter-productive action but only worked for what he considered the best way to have good articles.

2. I am disappointed by the few open discussion to the case. Whether nobody cares, whether everything happens in the shadow ? I assume that this is because Zeq shouts too often and too loud ("counter productive", I read about him). Ok.

3. I comptabilize 5 "primary sources" talking about these famous Mufti broadcasts calling for killing of Jews or equivalent (Pearlman (1947), Chuck Morse (2002), Paul Carlson (2003), Rabbi Dalin (2005), Joan Peters (1985)). I don't think they should be included in the article but I don't understand how ArbCom can determine that are or they would not be relevant. c User:ChrisC 18:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cite no page in no published account Fred Bauder 22:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(for clarity, I deleted some Zeq's comments).

References for point 3 are here :[10].

References for point 1 are here : [11]

There are no refrences for point 2. This is a personnal view.

User:ChrisC 10:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote stacking

Moved from log of blocks and bans. Please make all comments here, not on the project page. --Tony Sidaway 14:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 2, 2006 Sceptre blocked "Zeq (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (Vote-stacking). --Ben Houston 00:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no "vote-stacking" at all. What there was was is that I left messages on 6 talk pages of users who' I informed about the vote. This is not even a violation of WP:Spam and even if it was a violation a simple warnning (as the policy suggests) would have been enough. Zeq 03:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Summer Rains

July 2, 2006. El_C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Tendentious edits to Operation Summer Rains: failed to employ the article talk page after being instructed to do so ^([12]) to explain the contested additions, even after being reverted by two other editors. El_C 05:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- this is a VERY inccurate discription of the dispute, it include an admin abuse by El_C who was a party to a mild edit dispute but choose to user revertss and bans instead of trying to resolve it. More details here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Zeq Zeq 05:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq wikistalking and block count

This is a request for clarification that was originally posted on Requests for arbitration.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 02:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been having a difficult time applying arbitration enforcement for Zeq and feel I have since been targetted by him. For example, after I blocked Kelly Martin for her B-list attack page, Zeq just happens to come along so as to caution me from blocking a user with whom you have a dispute" (what dispute? he fails to mention). Or, after removing and protecting the attack page by Sarasto777, Zeq just happens to come along, again. These are not isolated examples. Then today, Zeq questions my administrative compotence and speaks of an "edit[orial] conflict" after I delete his copyvio entry, twice. Many blocks later, how should I proceed with the tendencious edits by the user? Should I implement Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq#Enforcement_by_block next time — it will be the 6th block. Or will it? I am inclined to count article bans as blocks, and am seeking clarification as to this approach, and Zeq's conduct overall as illustrated above. Thanks in advance. El_C 13:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do take the time to examine this request's threaded dialogue (it was removed without an accompanying diff being cited). Thanks. El_C 14:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your original question: article bans are not considered to count towards the escalating block periods, only vioations of bans. Having said that, if an editor is incorrigible, perhaps a general admin-discretionary block rather than, or in addition to, an arbcom article ban is warranted (by an uninvolved party of course, which I am not sure you are). I'd say take it to ANI, and try to avoid scaring admins awy with long-winded, dead-end discussions like the one that happened here. Dmcdevit·t 00:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Whatever.~~ I plead for minimal respect on Dmcdevit's part. El_C 12:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the clarification, though. El_C 07:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with Zeq is difficult; he won't let anything go. Just concentrate on doing the fair thing and expect that if you do, others will back you up. Consultation on ANI won't hurt, but is not mandatory to ban or block under an arbitration decision. Fred Bauder 13:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Fred. I appreciate the further clarification, and support. It has been difficult, indeed. I am not inclined to take the frontline in enforcing the probation, though if I see infractions, I will act accordingly. El_C 07:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification from Zeq

Moved from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Picaroon (t) 02:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this is the right place for such question. If not I appologize. As you may recall I am banned from article Palestinian Exodus by previous rulling from few years back and I have followed that ban. There is a new article Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus which I began to participate - mostly on talk (made 2 rather small edits to the article - this is the biggest one: [13]).

I have only now noticed that that article is actually a fork and refernced in Palestinian Exodus. If my ban apply to the new article as well I will of course stay away from it. please clarify.

I will stay away from the article from now until such clarification is provided. Thank You. Zeq 15:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq made 5 edits to Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus after his suggestions on the Talk page were ignored. This is a clear violation of the intent of the ArbCom probation and further evidence that Zeq has little interest in adhering to Wikipedia policies or editing in good faith. I would recommend that Zeq's article ban be extended to all articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as he has been causing disruption to these articles for two years now. For the record, I blocked Zeq for 24 hours due to this incident. Also, for the record, I have no involvement in any of the articles in question. Kaldari 16:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed some edit-warring at Arab citizens of Israel between Zeq and other users. Zeq has been responsive to my intervention (I reported the incident as 3RR, though it did not meet the technical requirements and Zeq himself did not violate 3RR). He communicated with me in a civil manner on my talk page about the reverts and his probation. He is also responding at the article Talk in what I would ordinarily interpret as a good faith discussion. Similarly, Zeq initially started editing (BRD) at Allegations of Israeli apartheid in a manner unsuited to such a volatile page. Since then, he seems to be engaged usefully in the Talk page discussion. Granted, I sense that he tends to promote a POV rather than work entirely thru a neutral viewpoint, but I must say that seems to be quite common for Israel-related topics. Though I don't know the history or severity of the case, I wonder if a topic ban would be hasty. In any case, perhaps you should look at his apparent responsiveness (with me) before deciding. Thanks. HG | Talk 18:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because POV-pushing is common on Israel-related topics does not mean it is to be tolerated or ignored. Yes, Zeq has learned how to edit within policy (most of the time, and only after severe and sustained efforts to rein him in). However, the extent to which he edits within policy is only just as much as is required to avoid sanctions. He is clearly here for one purpose only - to push his specific point of view. He has been doing this without rest for 2 years. If Zeq was content to channel his POV-pushing into adamant debate and discussion, I would say he's a great asset to Wikipedia. The fact that he edits tendentiously and disruptively, however, and has eaten up at least as much administrator time and effort as any of our worst trolls or vandals, convinces me that Wikipedia would be better off without him. Wikipedia is NOT a battleground. However, as long as Zeq and similar users are given free reign, it sure as hell looks like one. Kaldari 21:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since User:Kaldari was kind enough to unblock me I just wanted to say that the facts - as he presented them above, as well as his descriptions of me as "POV pusher" are not true. As for the facts (number of edit, when did they occur) a simple review of the history files will show that the way he describe the issue is not what took place. I will save you the detail unless someone really care. I am not this monster some people try to paint me as. I am working on some of the most difficult articles in wikipedia, I am doing it under conditions of probation for two years and most of the time I only get into problems becausee people think that my probation give them the justification to ignore me (or revert me) and some admins who make the mistake and block me based on some misunderstanding. many of my blocks over the last two years have ended up in being unblocked once the facts cleared. maybe it is time to remove this probation all together or make sure there is policy which allow users under probation - who wish to edit within policy - to edit without the stigma of "probation". Zeq 21:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, sometimes even I am inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt, but when one stumbles across pages like User:Zeq/apartheid propeganda, it makes it a little difficult to see anything but "POV pushing" here. I realize it is an old userspace page, but it kinda makes it clear that you've got a particular axe to grind. Tarc 23:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, it is a priavte page created a year ago during the big "israeli apartheid" discussion. that is all. means nothing and never completed. don't make any concusions from half baked ideas. But it prooves my point: People go out of their way to find fault in what I do. I have forgot about this page and I don't know how you found it. Zeq 04:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost uninvolved editor - I don't expect to agree with anyone all the time, and I expect to disagree with some editors a lot. But I don't expect to have to question their judgement. Edits such as this, inserting this little essay on Arab citizens of Israel from User:Zeq are very worrying, and he's reinserted it once and then again only last week. The whole thing appears to be aimed at inciting hatred and fear - worse still, some of the references (eg this, the last one) are totally worthless and could never have said what is claimed of them. This topic, more than most, deserves integrity from the editors participating. PR^talk 15:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Almost uninvolved editor part II - I find more disturbing insertions even in this same article. This edit here suggests that the "PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION has stated" certain things eg "There was no doubt that it had largely contributed to increasing the hostile feelings of the Arabs for the Jews.". But examining the actual report (not referenced, I've had to find it), it turns out this is not what the report has stated, it's what one witness, a "M. Van Rees" has put in his evidence. I've not removed this particular claim and sizable clip from the article so far, I've only provided one historians synopsis of the whole business, but it's quite worrying to discover that this kind of distortion is being inserted into articles. PR^talk 21:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - A reply from Zeq to the so-called "Almost uninvolved editor: You are always welcome to disagree politly with my edit but stop doubting my intentions. Always WP:AGF. I am tired of people accusing me in things I did not do. The facts are clear: The refernced document [14]include a section from which I quoted excatly what is in the article. The source quotes page 31 of the Shaw report. That is what I said no more no less. PS an editor with the name "Palestine Rememebered" (which is also happnd to be a an advocay/propeganda web site can not claim that he is uninvolved in this issue. I wonder alos if your user name comply with Wikipedia policy. Zeq 10:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the original remedy allows any admin to extend the ban to any other article, the question is somewhat moot. Any administrator (e.g. Kaldari) is empowered to ban you from the forked article regardless of whether or not it is considered to be equivalent to the original one. Kirill 04:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

makes perfect sense and simple. Thank You. I will stay away from that article although no formal ban has been issued by any admin as of now. Zeq 10:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's common sense. Fred Bauder 11:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify please: Is Kaldari extending the ban to Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus or (per K's recommendation above) to the entire Israeli-Palestinian topic? Kirill apparently refers to a single article. Thanks. HG | Talk 16:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq's probation allows any admin to ban him from any article he disrupts. Zeq must be notified on his talk page and the ban must be logged here. No ban is currently logged. It is to everyone's benefit for admins enforcing such remedies to be as clear as possible to prevent misunderstandings, so you should ask Kaldari what his specific intent is and ask him to properly log it. Thatcher131 13:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute removed. Take it elsewhere. Are there further questions as to the application and enforcement of the probation? Thatcher131 22:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not. Picaroon (t) 02:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]