User talk:PalestineRemembered

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Block re-instated, now 2 months

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

Congratulations for taking 3 hours to consider the case and act this time, and not 13 minutes as last time.
Still nowhere near enough time for people who appreciate my edits to come in and defend me (as 2 attempted to do last time, 24 hours after the deed was done).
Still nothing remotely like "a process of consultation", or anything resembling transparency, but less suggestive of a collusionary process. (Yes, I know you also have 100s of real trolls to deal with every day).
Now some questions for you (though one of my crimes is trying to get answers to questions, including the accuser who has got me blocked on both these occasions):
  1. Is Wikipedia willing or able to stamp out the practice of inserting completely pointless slurs into the Biographies of Living People (BLP), eg [1]? This is aggressively done to critics of Israel (including private citizens as above) - meanwhile, Zionist politicians who have made the most interesting statements about ME issues get their biographies protected eg [2].
  2. Is the Wikipedia bothered about the widespread practise of administrators claiming privilege (both to themselves and for others) on the basis of their ethnicity? Here's an ArbComm member doing it [3]. Many other examples of discrimination and harrassment, by editors and administrators, as it if was perfectly acceptable.
  3. Is Wikipedia willing or able to clean up the nest of POV administrators currently dominating the project? (And to a lesser extent, restrict the activities of certain POV editors?). The individuals in both classes are easy to spot, and it would appear that the same people appear on nearly everyone's lists. See [4] for a blatant example of obstructionism, 15,500 words in order to make sure another BLP critic of Israel is slurred even worse.
  4. Further to the above, if administrators are going to expend enormous numbers of electrons in order not to reach consensus, how about them spending time providing actual examples of WP:OR and WP:NOR in order that editors can feel they've learnt something and not be driven away in total frustration?
PalestineRemembered 17:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked 1 month in a most suspicious and likely improper fashion

The process of blocking me [5] would appear to be most suspicious and likely improper.

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Wear it as a badge of honour

The fact that you were blocked for a month shows the extent to which they fear the truth and exposes the limits of the "neutrality" of wikipedia. [Potentially offensive comment edited by Chovain per my talk page. See history for details Chovain(t|c) 23:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)] Abu ali 10:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't wish to damage Wikipedia, or change the way it functions. I don't even wish to breach WP:AGF, but if administrators behave [6] in ways suggesting that they're hi-jacking the project, then the community needs to know about it.
Do you know of examples of administrator abuse you'd like to see recorded? (I can't post to your TalkPage until my block is lifted, and I've never been able to e-mail almost anyone here!).
PS - I see you've said "I would rather that there be no reference to the mother's ethnicity as it is not really relevant to the subjects notability", and it's one of the first things I said when I arrived here. The constant claims of "You posted that in his biography because he's Jewish" is something else that needs to be stamped out. It's particularily bizarre when I see an administrator objecting to the Argentinian Prosecutor being labelled as Jewish over the synagogue bombing case they have going on there. There are clear cases of rules being made up to suit the interests of one particular group.
PalestineRemembered 22:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't really follow the actions of the administrators here, so I can not tell you how much they abuse power or give you any examples beyond your individual case. Abu ali 10:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I've only seen what they did to me - repeatdly reverting edits that I really thought were WP:RS - and then blocking me on in a fashion that strongly suggests collusion. 13 minutes cannot possibly be a carefully considered response. It took over 24 hours before "suppporters" of mine arrived - how could it be that my detractors arrived within such a short time?
Has your e-mail been activated? Mine hadn't been (and still has not been) after 540 edits. That leaves me completely divorced from help/advice/assistance/warnings by other editors, some of whom clearly appeciated my contributions. Later discovered this was my own mistake! PalestineRemembered 10:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I detect the hi-jacking of the project by editors (and administrators) with quite serious POV.
Contact me on andy.dyer9.tiscali.co.uk - because otherwise I don't have a single point of contact to other editors, some of whom I know supported my position. PalestineRemembered 22:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who is dominating these pages with POV?

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Footnotes

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

    [edit] I was going to say "welcome back"

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

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

    And then hopefully some Zionist won't pass your writing samples around to your neighboring wikipedians on WP:ANI; I suspect the irony of doing just what you were complaining about someone doing went completely over Jayjg's head. Better luck next time. -- Kendrick7talk 17:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Biased view

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

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

    I've learnt my lesson. There are people allowed to express their opinion, and even to launch personal attacks, but I'm not included in either of those privileged groups. I will still stand by most all of the edits I made, even as I watch more of them being erased. Here is one of them finally and completely torn up this week in the last of five small steps [8]. PalestineRemembered 22:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

    I'm new as well, but it seems to me that if you want to be a valued part of this community, then just like any other community, you will integrate best if you abide by its principles and listen to its members. If you find the principles or members abhorrent, then perhaps you should ask yourself why you want to be part of the community in the first place. Antgel 02:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    The only principle of WP that I have trouble with is WP:AGF. I've repeatedly seen really good, well referenced information being removed by people who know it to be genuine, but are determined it will not appear. The people who do this are often quite blatant about it, their (often distant) attachment to the Zionist enterprise entitles them to remove whatever they feel like.
    I carried out some 540 edits in the 6 weeks I was allowed to contribute (and I regret to say, in the later stages, my frustration showed). I suffered a blizzard of totally unhelpful accusations on my Talk-Page, many of which were clearly intended to be personal (I've removed most of this stuff, sorry, I'm sure you can imagine).
    What am I complaining about? See [9] for feeble excuses. Or look at [10], [11], [12] and [13] as my contributions were stalked (?) around the system and pointlessly reverted.
    Here are two of the people I looked forwards to cooperating with (each of them far better editors than me). They were driven from the project as I was, by precisely the kind of abusive behaviour that I suffered. [14] and [15] and PalestineRemembered 19:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

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

    [edit] Barnstar

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

    [edit] Blocked again

    PalestineRemembered, you have been blocked for another month. You are fresh off your two month block, and your second edit is to malign other editors of the project and soapbox about politics on a Talk: page: [16] I'm not sure how to get you to stop doing this, but I'm hoping a third block will convince you, on your return, to stick solely to discussing article content. Jayjg (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

    And you are lucky that Jayjg got you first, because I was about to block for it for 6 weeks. JoshuaZ 02:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/l/User_talk%7EPalestineRemembered_f766.html"