Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/PR

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Recent editing by PalestineRemembered

A few days ago I noticed an editor, PalestineRemembered, on a few articles regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His edits concerned me, as they did not seemed make the articles more neutral or more informative, but instead more according to what appeared to be PalestineRemebered personal point of view regarding the conflict: [1]. Another thing that concerned me was that he was using the edit summaries for personal political comments and soapboxing: "Internationally recognised as Occupied - a status having significant daily effects on the life of all who live there."

Due to these concerns I decided to take a closer look at his efforts and found them to be very concerning. Many of his edits were in clear violation of Wikipedia's policies regarding neutrality:

  • The Hebron Massacre refers to the death of sixty-seven Jews (who "died of natural causes" in a violent mob riot?).
  • [2] - he removed information sourced by several reliable sources.

On the discussion pages he was soapboxing and made no secret of his personal opinions and intentions on the articles regarding the Israeli-palestinian conflict:

He also aggressively promoted the use of partisan websites such as jewsagainstzionism.com as sources on Wikipedia: "Defenders of Israel have huge problems with www.jewsagainstzionism.com because these folk are outraged that their faith is so horrendously abused. The fact they they're real practitioners of Judaism" [3]

Browsing some of his edits, I also noticed that PalestineRemembered has had a mentor for quite some time. However, as the above diffs makes it clear, this has failed to change his behavior into something that is even remotely acceptable. I therefore request that an admin now step in and ensure that PalestineRemembered do not continue his disruptive behavior and policy violations.

As it is obvious from his discussion page and his extensive block log, which include no less than eight block from this year, for disruption, 3RR etc, he has already been warned extensively about soapboxing and biased and confrontational editing. -- Karl Meier 09:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This looks like stirring for the sake of it, PalestineRemembered is well aware that his editors come under heavy scrutiny, take it to the article talk pages. Catchpole —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 09:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Whilst I don't agree with everything PR has done, it's a little unfair to criticise him for removing references to www.hebron.org.il (a settler website) but also for adding references from www.jewsagainstzionism.com. Several Israeli contributors have insisted on (and got away with) using partisan sources such as CAMERA in the same way that PR has referenced jewsagainstzionism, i.e. in cases where it is directly quoting people/documents. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see what CAMERA or POV of other editors have anything to do with this ANI, I did however see this new article which makes me suggest that, together with all the rest of the evidence, perhaps this user should be topic banned. --Gilisa 14:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
'partisan websites such as jewsagainstzionism' refers to a Haredi website which posted a translation (not impugned) of a talk given by an eyewitness survivor of the 1929 Hebron massacre. It is not a hate site, but is excluded, because the survivor showed not enmity against Arabs, notwithstanding the horror he witnessed, but charity whereas the person who removed it posted a document (equally valid as a document) from a site run by people who, on that site, call virtually all Palestinian Arabs, MPs in the Knesset, Palestinian officials, 'terrorists', and even accuse Netanyahu of supplying superior weaponry to the eternal enemies of Eretz Israel. I think either both sources are acceptable, or neither. But, as has occurred to date, to have PR challenged for citing a Haredi source while allowing PR's adversary a free run with the mirror site's material is hardly an instance of neutrality. Nishidani 21:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually there's no evidence the jewsagainstzionism website is a Haredi website, please see Talk:Jews Against Zionism (disambiguation) for past discussion demonstrating that it is a personal anonymous website that has nothing verifiable to link it to any organization, Jewish or otherwise. It fails as a reliable source and should be removed if any editor is indeed trying to use it as a Wikipedia reference. --MPerel 03:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Please note that 2 Hareidi users have already declared it as a hareidy website and evidence to it is on its web page; they only quote from Hareidi Rabbis what else of evidence can persuade somebody that this is more Hareidi?--יודל 13:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
OKay. The contested site simply repastes what can be found on Neturei Karta International. Jews United against Zionism,' associated with Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, an Haredi Jew = http://www.nkusa.org/Historical_Documents/KaplanInterview.cfm. What's the problem now? PR has simply got the wrong site for the right cite.Nishidani 09:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Hated Google Test is a complete waste of space and I would hope that PR requests {{db-author}} asap. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I have speedied the article as pov-pushing, an attempt to prove a point and a neologism with no assertion of notability. AecisBrievenbus 15:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
My apologies for having created something that appears not to exist anywhere other than the over-creative imagination of one Wikipedian editor. Perhaps I should recreate "Hated Google Test" as a significant part of WP:POLICY, along the lines of (but perhaps more important than) WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:BEANS. PRtalk 20:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you aware of the existence of WP:GOOGLE? AecisBrievenbus 20:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am (and was). WP:GOOGLE says "Raw hit count is a very crude measure of importance" and then some other stuff explaining why hit count must not be depended on. Maybe someone has a better example than I thought of, but it won't be easy to find any evidence this clear-cut that could go into an essay aspiring to become a guideline. PRtalk 14:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The above comment by Karl Meier is largely consistent with what was described at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered. That RfArb was closed early with no further actions taken, "as the dispute being arbitrated has been satisfactorily resolved by the major parties." It might not be such a bad idea to reopen the RfArb. AecisBrievenbus 14:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Where the allegations here are true, they are minor and not actionable, and where they are serious and actionable they are false. Going point-by-point:
  • PR absolutely did not allege that the Hebron victims "died of natural causes"; indeed, in the very diff you have linked, PR stated that '"Killed in mob violence" or "died in riots" are correct, "mass-murder" is not.' His argument, which one can agree or disagree with, was apparently that "mass murder" implies a level of systematic intent which may not have existed in this case. Nothing to see here.
    • indent comment (by Jaakobou) - you were not involved on the 1929 Hebron Massacre article: the website represents the Jewish municipality of Hebron and it links to a History book requested by User:Nishidani (i made a phone call to validate the source). JaakobouChalk Talk 08:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Jaakobou is an Unreliable Source for this, and his challenges to User:Eleland's good summary of the specific points contested are specious. I was there. Don't take my word for it though. There is a long discussion on this, and it is still under discussion, by those interested, on the talk page. Any attempt to deprive PR of a voice in that discussion will only stack the vote, not against PR, but against the problem raised. I support PR's continued presence here, as I do not oppose Jaakobou's though he demonstrably culls his material from a website run by a hate group (I can supply the evidence from their own website if required), that of Kiryat Arba, which is amply cited on pages not related to Kiryat Arba.Nishidani 10:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Nishidani, this assuming bad faith is exactly the reason i initially refused to translate the hebrew page for you. this and the lowering down the death toll (revert on 21:11, 18 July) from 67 to 59 even after i noted that the discrepancy (13:15, 16 July) is because 59 died immediately and 8 more died from their wounds in the hospital later. I was at first only a tad angered by your explanation that gilbert must be right because "Martin Gilbert is Jewish," (09:47, 19 July) and noted to you that (1) it doesn't matter that he's jewish, and (2) that this could be because of selective reading (something you denied at the time), but what clinched it for me was that you actually did later admit that it is a case of selectively reading the material. btw, i must thank you for that swift attempt at character assassination.
p.s. you've forgotten to address that you did in fact requested the book be inserted, and also assumed that i have not validated that the source is reliable. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Those are your serious actionable claims, which ring hollow. Your other claims are true but irrelevant; PR should try to keep his opinions to himself when they don't directly relate to improving the article, but such statements are hardly a serious disruption, let alone one worthy of administrator intervention. Furthermore, one of your examples is a semi-private discussion in his own user-space - who cares?
Finally, you report the blocks, but ignore the context. Three of those blocks were completely erroneous; PR was falsely accused of copying citations from a neo-Nazi group; he in fact cited a newspaper article which he hadn't read, instead of citing a credible scholarly book which he had read, and which cited the newspaper article accurately. Subsequently User:Jayjg called him out as a Nazi sympathizer without any evidence, and a "lynch mob" atmosphere almost prevailed until PR proved beyond any doubt that his source was not the neo-Nazis. Prior to that, Jayjg blocked him for making an on-topic editorial comment [4], to the effect that prominently labeling Israeli politicans by ethnic or sectarian identity was "harmful in society and ... damaging to the project." And most recently, we have a 3RR block which was overturned as an ambiguous situation, and a fifteen minute block "to think about which mentor you would be choosing. Anyone can unblock you if you come up w/ a name before the block is expired."
In summary, these charges are inflated beyond all reason, and the discussion here should be closed. Oh, except for the "Hated Google Test" thing, I don't know if he meant that to be in WP: namespace or what, but it's just weird. Maybe we could, you know ask him instead of handing out the pitchforks and torches, again. <eleland/talkedits> 16:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PalestineRemembered is grateful not to be blocked with prejudice as has happened repeatedly before

I'm doing my best to act in a responsible and consistent fashion in articles and Talk. Edits such as this (the first one I'm being challenged on) strike me as entirely proper. If a particular notable commentator (or public relations spokesman - or even propaganda operative) has commentated on a particular incident in world affairs, we should use his terminology for the event. His terminology is likely to be POV - so what? To quote him in any other fashion raises all kinds of issues, perhaps including BLP. The encyclopedia should not be going there.
The second charge against me seems to relate to standard international useage of the term "occupied territory". It's hardly POV on my part to assert that we use the recognised term - in fact, it's more than a teensy-weensy bit disturbing I should be taken to AN/I for defending a standard useage.
I won't bother going through the rest of these accusations point by point, I think we can take it as read that they are trivial. (Has anyone, ever, been taken to AN/I for creating an article? Particularily one that most editors would probably like to see included as policy - the thing I've called the "Hated Google Test"?)
But I will comment on the CSN and subsequent ArbCom Workshop and ArbCom evidence on the case that bears my name. I pleaded that the Committee examine the case properly and arbitrate definitively on the accusations against me. Opinion for doing so swung in my favour, reaching 4-1 (my memory, anyway?), before swinging back and being defeated. I will continue to assert that if vile accusations of "taking views and references from Holocaust Deniers" are bandied around in a reckless and provably false fashion, then they should be unequivocably retracted and apologised for. Simple justice demands no less.
Lastly, I have a plea of my own - it is clear that there are editors around who damage the encyclopedia (I don't include my current accuser in this case, I'm not aware our paths have ever crossed). Such editors: (Have removed my listing cluttering page PRtalk 14:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC))
All in all, there are really serious problems, up to and including outright disruption, going on in the project. But I'm small fry indeed in the scale of things! PRtalk 18:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't see anything here but an adventitious act of prosecutorial wikilawyering bullying based on spurious evidence, and am ashamed that such trivial accusations should be raised to clutter up the machinery of arbitration, which is better dedicated to serious matters.
Worse. Karl Meier's factitious jeremiad includes two pieces of 'evidence' involving passages in which I was in conflict with User:Palestine Remembered. I have some tough and stubborn all-Israeli(i.e.'Hear no evil, see no evil' attitudes) adversaries in these controversial pages, as full of POV as a po (and no doubt they see my editorial work in a similar light). I have personally seen however no grounds for taking these adversaries to arbitration. One fights these things out on the talk page. It's the actual page that has to be free of POV, not the talk page.
Since I have just noted, and been amazed by, this snooping, dossier building and then 'denunciation' to the authorities, I haven't given this much thought, since I thought that went out sometime before the end of the first half of the last century. But if the frivolous character of the accusation requires close analysis, I'm ready to weigh in with one, starting with the fact that on long-standing pages, Great Britain was (until I noted it casually this morning) arraigned (in the most objective prose, NPOV) as being corresponsible for the Holocaust. I could multiply such examples by the hundreds, and with this absurd POVing in NPOV dress throughout wikipedia, anyone who undertakes to clean it up gets, while no doubt having a POV hidden or otherwise of his/her own, into huge edit battles by people more familiar with wikilawyering than the principles of forensic evidence and the rules of neutral historian writing. Nishidani 18:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Block him. Wikipedia is not a place for false propoganda, and that's the cause he wants to use it for. M.V.E.i. 19:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. So "true propaganda" is OK, then? -- ChrisO 19:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It has become a Wikipedia tradition to drop in on one of these pages (AN/I, CSN, Arbcom) every month or so and try to get PR banned. Usually this involves some regular participant in the daily cafeteria foodfight of WP's Middle-East-related talk pages leaving the fray for a minute, wiping the applesauce and mayonnaise off his fingers and tucking in his shirt, then marching to the principle's office to announce in precocious adult-like tones that PR has been misbehaving again. What a load of balderdash. Again.--G-Dett 00:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

So says PR's "wiki-lawyer" and another chronic soapboxer. This is really boring. Despite the apologia, if PR himself can't see how his behaviour here is problematic, he's going to wind up the same way as M.V.E.i. below. <<-armon->> 02:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Why don't we ban all pro-Israeli editors instead, it's not as if the result would be any different save for the POV which gets across. The monthly whining about the existence of opposition is laughable. Letting the Wikipedia Jews (bad word?) have their way with the Middle East articles would be productive only in their own eyes. --SaberExcalibur! 09:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] comment regarding PR (by User:Jaakobou)

[edit] Disclaimer:

1. I have an overly prolonging conflict with PalestineRememberd, but seeing that his friends decided to advocate for him, i've decided to list the recent issues i've had with him.

2. noting the advocacy situation, i will not list down anything that might be presented later as a content related COI - i think it would be difficult for anyone to follow up what is true and what is false and i'd be worried that the conversation could get distracted from the main issue.

[edit] 1. evidence to support the old blocks.

Due to consistent harassments by PR, accusing me of, "a long history of disruptive behaviour on TalkPages", (sample) where he'd add a link to an old and complex ANI he was not even involved in, and after i repeatedly told him that his accusation is false and asked him to stop, i've decided in my anger to go back and inspect some of his history.

i went back 1500 edits and started going up - and stopped after a month and a half.

issues from November 5, 2006 to December 19, 2006. - in short, i think there's evidence to support the old blocks.

[edit] 2. harassment regarding my rich history (according to PR)

As mentioned above, there's an issue of him following me around telling everyone how rich my history of harassing people on their user pages supposedly is. i've not only explained to him that he misunderstood this (quite old) issue (he was not involved in) and requested him to stop on many occasions, but also reached the point where i was forced to place warnings and even opened an ANI to this issue.

example exchange - (easy read link - start: 21:29, 26 Aug. 07) ===== this was his response to my note about a very disruptive edit.

This situation escalated to an ANI after he insisted on repeating the attack - The AVI - closed without any administrative involvement to either the issue of abuse, or his status as "Mentorship challenged" (after his CSN).

after he continued his abuse, i've opened a forth ANI (first two were about him repeatedly accusing me to be a war criminal) demanding at least the issue of the mentor be resolved - and it ended with me finding User:Geni to be his a mentor.

ANI - no. 4 - i note that in this ANI User:Carlossuarez46 has expressed clearly that, "Users are given latitude as to what comments to keep and delete from their own user talk. However, removal of material is recognized as having read it, and now s/he's been warned of the harrassment you claim. If s/he conducts further harrassment, please report it - and link back here so that whoever has to deal with it knows that this editor has been warned of it before."

well, this issue has not ceased and here are just a few recent links:

[edit] 3. regarding the issue of PalestineRemembered mentor.

I believe User:Geni has been a very reasonable and neutral. whenever i raised an issue i'd be challenged by her with proper questions and was forced to prove my case fully - to which she'd make (pending if my case was convincing) comments to PalestineRemembered requesting him to explain his edit or avoid making an obvious breach.

I've been recently getting a tad frustrated with Geni's lack of response to the accumulative and exauhstive nature of the problem, to which i recieved a response that she not only does not see a problem, but also that she never believed there was ever a problem to begin with.

I have great respect for Geni as a reasonable and logical editor, but considering the community did believe there was a problem, I questioned why she hadn't made her position clear when she volunteered to mentor PalestineRemembered. Obviously, i would not have approved a mentor who thinks there was never a problem to begin with.

In short, I believe she's been quite helpful as an outside WP:3O, but hasn't really fulfilled the mission she signed up to.

[edit] summary

personally, i feel PalestineRemembered

  1. has been a major disruption to content disputes breaking policies whenever an opportunity presented itself. (despite advocacy by his friends)
  2. has not learned that repeatedly attacking others with false assertions was wrong.
  3. is not only still in breach of the post-CSN mandate he's been given but he's been doing it knowingly.

I hope that some steps be made to resolve the issue, be it a periodical ban, topic ban, a more constrictive mentor and editing mandate, or other. JaakobouChalk Talk 07:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute resolution process and ANI

So. . .is this page part of the DR process now? It's a lot of material (and sub-headings!) for an 'incident'. R. Baley 10:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I vote we just delete any article having to do with Israel, Palestine, abortion, or pedophilia.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 10:13, 10/8/2007
Seconded! <<-armon->> 14:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on Jaakobou's comment on PR

You called me a 'racist and a bigot' (and others 'antisemitic') for citing Sir Martin Gilbert's History of the Modern World on Hebron's massacre (59 slaughtered, as opposed to 67, the difference being that between immediate casualties and the final death toll), simply because I noted to you that he was Jewish, pro-Zionist and one of the most eminent historians of the modern world, i.e. several grounds for your not contesting him as a RS. You should sort your problems out with PR on the talk pages and not get involved with lobbying attempts to get rid of a person you find unwelcome because PR has in the past used language and accusations of a kind that you yourself have used. As I say, I don't worry about these accusations - water off a duck's back - we're supposed to be serious adults in here, not whingeing kids- and don't scurry to some legal mechanism to denounce the person who mouthes them. You needn't take my example, but all this interest on your part in getting PR banned is a matter of the pot calling the kettle black, and trying to make the task of getting your own pronounced POV over more easy.Nishidani 10:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

  1. i replied to you above for the 59/67 issue and the accusation of unreliability.
  2. i'm fairly certain i did not call you racist by that exact word, but rather called your comments and notes racist and bigoted. just to explain this, i note you that you declared that the Jewish Community of Hebron website is run by many people with criminal records.[5]
-- JaakobouChalk Talk 11:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Jaakobou have a history of calling people he disagrees with racists and simmilar. // Liftarn
Jaakobou posted a diff to illustrate his reasoning, so read it and respond accordingly instead of making a blanket statement like this.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 12:02, 10/8/2007
If anybody following this tedious exchange wishes to have documented why Jaakobou cannot be relied on as a reliable source to recount what happened in the discussions alluded to in here, take the last example.
Jaakobou writes:

(A).'i note you that you declared that the Jewish Community of Hebron website is run by many people with criminal records.[33]


(B). I orginally wrote: 'The book, itself a legitimate source for all sorts of details, is hosted by the Jewish Community of Hebron, which is, as I noted above, run by many people with criminal records, and (has) a meticulously documented history of hate, violence, theft and murder in that area.' (See your note 33)

I.e. I said the Jewish Community at Hebron is run by people with criminal records (check, to name but the most egregious of many examples:Moshe Levinger, Noam Federman, Baruch Marzel, and for the nonce, Baruch Goldstein, whose criminal record is posthumous but who is revered there for shooting 29 Arabs at prayer, mainly in the back, to celebrate Purim*.) I did not say their website is run by criminals, as Jaakobou cleverly twists those clear words to argue I did. Their website features David Wilder's articles, their spokesman, who accuses Netanyahu of all people of supplying Arab terrorists (Arafat) with guns with those superior in firepower to the ones in standard use in the IDF, Israel's past governments as regimes, all Arab members of the Knesset as 'terrorists', all Arabs in Eretz Israel as 'terrorists', and denounces the creeping AIDS (Arabs in Disguise Syndrome) threatening to destroy Zion with its terroristic infections. But that is another matter.
As I have said, the difficulty in editing pages with Jaakobou is that one has to persist over long stretches of Talk in explaining to him elementary aspects of English syntax, grammar and what is or is not implied by a standard sentence in that language
To anticipate and avoid a useless thread that may arise from my wording. Please don't jump at the phrase 'to celebrate Purim' here. If one is agitated, read before drafting a reply Ian Lustik's For the Land and the Lord American Council on Foreign Relations (1988) (1994) Preface. Nishidani 13:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
To get get back on topic. Can you explain how Jaakobou calling you a racist exonerates PR's behaviour? Also, I looked at the diff Jaakobou provided, and it looks like some pretty bigoted soapboxing and poor behaviour on your part. You didn't provide any diffs where where he calls you a racist, but I don't see how it's germane anyway. <<-armon->> 14:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Jaakobou's notorious unreliability in articles and now his apparent distorting evidence to an AN/I is highly relevant to the discussion. It's pretty rich of him to accuse others (not me, for some reason?!) of racism when he jeers at editors over their nationality. Here is his response to Alithein, a French speaking pro-Israeli who has stated that the equivalent article in the French Wikipedia (which Alithein wrote) uses better references: "best i'm aware, this is the english wikipedia, if the french version is unbalanced (what else is new), that is not my issue to solve" From an editor who repeatedly insists on putting non-English references into the encyclopedia (and is refusing to translate the texts) this is pretty astonishing behaviour. Also suggests he rates academics and scholarly work generally pretty low - as we see from his treatment of well-read and articulate editors in here. PRtalk 15:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
PS - Another example of Jaakobou's creative treatment of sources was elegantly dissected here this morning. PRtalk 16:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see anything in that diff that qualifies for the descriptions you're asserting. Furthermore none of it matters, even if everyone agreed with your assessments. You're forming a conclusion about a person to say whether not he's reliable based on your interpretations of his past statements, which is just not a tactic that has any place at ANI -- or anywhere else on Wikipedia. We don't generally make decisions about whether or not to trust a person based on a character assessment. Someone asked how Jaakobou calling you a racist exonerates your behavior, and you responded by citing more of Jaakobou's behavior. Rather than implying that the complainer is himself guilty and therefore somehow shouldn't be the one to complain, talk about yourself and the things people are complaining that you said instead.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:25, 10/8/2007

[edit] Role of the mentor

There is a serious problem here, if you don't mind my saying so, but I question whether it is entirely (if at all) PR's fault. Previously, the community imposed mandatory mentoring, but it failed to specify the conditions, timeframe or goals of such mentoring. So how can we evaluate the success of the mentor's role?! Perhaps PR and Geni (the mentor) bear some responsibility to come up with their definition of PR's shortcomings and their own goals for improvement. However, the burden should fall largely on the community.

Karl suggests that an admin intercede. Well, it's hard to say that PR is flawless, but I'm not sure if the community has done its part to ensure a good mentoring framework. What would you all think of the suggestion that an admin intercede in order to clarify and strengthen the mentoring arrangement? Maybe set clear and (somewhat) measurable goals? Only then can we give a fair assessment of PR's conduct within a mentoring set-up. (Or assess Geni, though I hear few complaints there.)

Alternatively, if the community is unwilling or unable to articulate what it wants out of mandatory mentoring, I recommend that the mentoring requirement be rescinded and that (hard as this may be) folks revisit the need for action due to PR's conduct.

I wish to avoid evaluating PR's conduct here myself. Instead, the community set up a process (mentoring), which it either needs to make work or abandon. As we say outside New England, fish or cut bait. My two cents. Good luck to all. HG | Talk 18:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I have to absolve you from the atrocious charge of being "a buddy" of mine - an accusation liable to cause you big problems (and very distorting anyway, however much respect I have and show for your judgements).
I have no great problem with being "mentored" by User:Geni - indeed there are big advantages to this arrangement. Between the 15th of September and the 7th of October (over 3 weeks!) it had protected me from repeated carpetings and kickings.
And this despite the fact it's moderately tiresome to be constantly defending myself from ludicrous allegations on the special UserPage I set up for this purpose. (Leastways, as best I can tell, most of the allegations have been wrong and the remainder have been trivial). However I sometimes wonder if Geni is getting more sick of the arrangement than I am and I have offered to let him off. PRtalk 12:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest that viewing the complaints as trivial as a mistake. In the other cases the explantion should have been given before the edit.Geni 16:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Jaakobou claimed that he'd "received a response that she not only does not see a problem, but also that she never believed there was ever a problem to begin with." Is that true Geni? <<-armon->> 00:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not think there was a problem to the extent that some suggest. In adition I would argue that past attempts to deal with what problems do exist have been poorly thought out due to people attempting putting shuting out POVs they disagree with ahead of trying to come up with a reasonable solution to the problem.Geni 01:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll agree that past descriptions of the problem have been over blown, and some of the past "solutions" were completely unacceptable. The first CSN proposal for a ban is a flagrant example. My stated willingness to unblock and undo that "solution" forced the matter to ArbComm, where most of those advocating or implementing the solution realized that the real problem was both different than, and much less severe than, originally claimed, and that the "solution" was the wrong move. I also agree with Geni's analysis of the poor choices about how to engage in dispute resolution on the part of PR's opponents. GRBerry 05:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) OK well here's what I think is a fundamental problem. Both yours and GRBerry's comments show, a) at the very least, a minority viewpoint on how disruptive PR is, and b) assuming it's just partisan game playing. I'm sorry, but that's just rubbish. I've compared PR to User:M.V.E.i. who's just got blocked for a year -same pattern, opposite POV. Please note the complete lack of apologia for M.V.E.i. from "the usual Zionist suspects" (or more correctly, those perceived as such). M.V.E.i. was shown the door, and that's good. Conversely, we have yet another debate about PR's behaviour. The point of mentorship should be that PR improves -and not just according to the people that didn't see a big problem in the first place, and the immediate end of his disruption. PR must start contributing according to both WP policy, and the community's standard of behavior or be shown the door. So far, about the only "improvement" I've seen is that PR has learned not to mention editors by name when launching personal attacks because it allows plausible deniability. Great. <<-armon->> 00:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I would advise anyone interested to examine the three diffs just provided by User:Armon and confirm them to be completely innocuous. Closer examination would suggest my words were puzzlingly restrained "We should not be labelling sources by their ethnicity. That's the kind of thing that the South Africans used to do." PalestineRemembered 14:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC) PRtalk 14:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by the Party PR's contested edits are assumed to offend

Karl Meier out of the blue notices an editor, PalestineRemembered, doing edits that worried him. 'They didn't make articles more neutral and informative' (i.e. he/she was behaving like half of the wiki community, and very much like Jaakobou, his/her adversary in these proceedings)

(1)Meier then charges PR with using edit summaries for soapboxing and cites:-

'Internationally recognised as Occupied - a status having significant daily effects on the life of all who live there.'

The first part is correct, since the International Court has established in a virtually unanimous opinion that the West Bank/Palestinian territories is 'Occupied Territory' despite the article in Wiki that messily endeavours to obfuscate the obvious.

The second part is waffly, and useless, it is hardly a threat to the integrity of Wikipedia editing. If anything, a word to PR to keep things brief and to the point, would be enough. Secondly, it is meaningless, so cannot be soapboxing.

Meier says he had the impression (1) PR's edits weren't making articles more neutral (neither are those of PR's opponents on the relevant controversial pages, so big deal). And a loose phrase in an edit summary is 'soapboxing'.

From this, he hits the panic button. Wikipedia is under threat, let's look closely at this PR chap, and, if my intuitions are right, get her banned (all this on the extremely loose and fragile basis of the original intuition, based on a general impression and one useless piece of pseudo evidence).

Meier then proceeds to a forensic examination.

(1)The edit putting 'death' for murdered or whatever on the 1929 Hebron Massacre Page.

This evidence is useless because Meier hasn't read the talk page there, as is evident from his comment that in writing 'death' PR was suggesting 67 Jews died of 'natural causes' in a violent mob riot. Actually, had Meier read the page, he would have known that 2-3 died of 'natural' causes, in so far as it is natural to have a heart-attack from shock on witnessing one act of carnage, or surviving some weeks to die of shock in the aftermath. The problem was that 64-5 were slaughtered, not 67, hence if you refer to 67, died doesn't create problems, whereas 'slaughtered/murdered' falsifies the record. Having followed my tussle with Jaakobou over this, PR knew that the key word is problematical, and suggested a change. I don't agree with it, but it is an innocuous suggestion that makes the verb in the sentence cohere with the facts of 67.

(2)Refers to two pieces of remonstration against two of my contributions to the Talk pages. PR here, in my view, completely misunderstood the purport of my evidence, but then so do many others (perhaps I don't explain myself well). It is no crime on a talk page to express your POV. Virtually everyone working on Israel/Palestinian articles has one, and to single out PR for this means you must then line up Jaakobou and several dozen others, myself included, for expressing POVs on the relevant talk pages. I object to PR's confusing bad partisan and irresponsible blindly Zionist editors, of which there are many, with 'Israelis', but we know where PR is coming from.

(3)PR's use of a partisan website jewsagainstzionism.com The evidence culled from that site is not contested, since, as I showed, it was copied and pasted from a respectable reliable source, namely Neturei karta Jews United against Zionism. You can get hysterical at 'Jewsagainstzionism' perhaps, but not against 'jewsunitedgainstzionism' since this is a legally qualified site. PR didn't search around sufficiently to get a good source, Okay, but the material she cited is acceptable as MPerel now notes, if sourced to Weiss's Haredi site.

True, on the talk page, PR adds 'these folk are outraged that their faith is so horrendously abused', a remark that, referring to a very small Haredi sect happens to be true. That Haredi sect is very small, but it carries on what was the majority opinion of Orthodox European Rabbis before the foundation of the State of Israel. The majority were horrified at Zionism for theological reasons, i.e. that secularists were doing the work delegated by Torah tradition to the Messiah, a blasphemy. So there's nothing wrong in PR reminding us of this forgotten fact.

(4) PR has a mentor, who has 'failed to change' PR's behaviour into something that is remotely acceptable.'

Excuse me but of the three issues raised, most editors whose work I am familiar with regularly fall into errors of this kind (a certain loss of patience, an intemperate outburst, a controversial edit. I am dealing myself with text and page disruptions by several anonymous or abusive posters (not reported, it's too time consuming). Nothing in (1) (2) (3) merits scapegoating PR, particularly since most of the evidence refers to conflict edits with me, Nishidani, and relates to comments of exasperation with me on a talk page, and I have found no reason to complain, unlike Karl Meier who, inexplicably, now rushes to my apparent, yet unrequested, need of assistance. I dislike someone jumping into our momentary conflict, and exploiting it for the purposes of banning the other person. I have found, in our exchanges, nothing that has troubled me, (since I have had similar conflicts with many other pro-Israeli editors and have not found it necessary to resort to arbitration) on the pages we both work on, and therefore am inclined to suspect this whole accusation is a , pretext for trying to get PR off Wikipedia, at least by adding another black mark on the record. I should be the person to complain not Meier, who has not worked on the pages cited in evidence against PR, were there 'disruptive behavior and policy violations'. In my view, there hasn't been anything serious of the sort.

(5)'he has already been warned extensively about soapboxing and biased and confrontational editing.'

Yes, and has visibly improved, though problems remain, but in the evidence presented by Karl Meier there is not a skerrick of material that would warrant more than a polite, stern rap over the knuckles for lapses of memory about the rules, of the kind many of us customarily receive here. This whole jeremiad is pretextual and embarrassingly POV.Nishidani 16:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

i don't appreciate the POV comparison and allegation. you have something note-worthy? open a proper ANI. otherwise, do me a favor. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
No favours. You waste an inordinate amount of time in futile wikilawyering when not POVing articles. I prefer to contribute to Wikipedia, not to waste other people's time and attention on immature whingeing to peers and authorities. 'If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen', don't worry the cooks Nishidani 17:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Geni

I would tend to argue that PR's behaviour has improved however he has continued to POV push and edit war although the second to a more limited extent. He has got better at discussing things on talk pages although he often needs prompting. One problem is that he does not appear to be able to take criticism of his actions seriously. The hated google test being a case in point.

As to his relation with other editors I do not believe that he functionally able to collaborate directly with Jaakobou at this time.

As such I believe some form of sanctions need to be put in place. However the problem is with coming up with sanctions that PR will take seriously and accept. At this point in time the conflict is so linked with Jaakobou that to an extent the two must be dealt with together. To that end I propose that PR should be banned from editing for one week any article he is found edit warring with anyone on. Where Jaakobou and PR are found edit warring with each other both should be banned from editing that article for one week. In addition I would suggest a 2 revert limit be imposed on PR with a 24 hour block from editing imposed if it is broken.Geni 17:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm highlighting Geni's proposal. Geni, pls revert highlighting if you wish! HG | Talk 23:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Clarifying questions. (1) Initially, Geni, you indicate the POV pushing is a bigger problem than edit warring. However, your sanction proposals seem to deal with the edit warring alone. By what means do you think the POV pushing should be identified (e.g., by whom), and what sanctions would you recommend for any continued POV pushing? (2) Are you saying that PR is only having difficulties -- again, with regard to POV pushing -- in settings with Jaakobou? If so, I'm curious about PR's efforts at Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus‎, where Jaakobou is absent. Has PR successfully avoided POV pushing there in your (or others') estimation? If so, that would support your read of the situation. Thanks for your consideration and patience, HG | Talk 18:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
(1) I don't know. (2)PR has had conflicts with others that is why I in his case I suggested the week bans from articles be put in place for edit waring with anyone however the conflicts with Jaakobou are particularly problematical.Geni 19:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
off course he has problems dealing with me, he's certain i'm a war criminal.[6]
i don't believe that contesting edits such as inserting this template(18:04, 26 Sep.) and also removing references to telegraph.co.uk, the Observer, Azure Magazine, nationalreview.com, ADL and the TIME."tele-daud","Crucible","azure",Time ([7]18:00, 26 Sep.,[8]21:07, 26 Sep.) should qualify as justification to suggest i should be banned so that PR will accept whatever sanction is suggested.
I also don't think that his reactions, attacking me with "history of harassment" accusations, not only on conversations that have little to do with him[9] but also if i ask him to find a reference to an assertion that "massacre" is clearly the word used by large sections of opinion.[[10] or just notify him that his mentor (you) told me to not try and continue working with him on a "article issues" page he created. [11] should have been ignored like this by you.
-- JaakobouChalk Talk 22:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not crazy about these sorts of "pox on both their houses"-type solutions. Yes, Jaakobou needs to try and disengage with PR, but the real issue here is PR. If there's a case against Jaakobou, that's a different situation. <<-armon->> 01:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
trying solve the issues in this case useing an isolated system model wont work.Geni 03:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
OK so PR trolls and stalks Jaakobou, calling him a war criminal, etc etc. Jaakobou gets pissed off and what, gets sanctioned because he complains about it? No. If there's a case against Jaakobou, it should stand independently of his fights with PR. <<-armon->> 01:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
No evidence has been presented of stalking; the comments occured on Talk:Battle of Jenin where both have long-term involvement, and on my talk page where both had previously left comments (thus likely watchlisting). PR also did not "call Jaakobou a war criminal", although he did ask an unjustified and provocatively phrased question in a way which strongly implied his own suspicions of the answer. Furthermore, this issue was already discussed extensively and resulted in a community remedy. Not even Jaakobou has accused PR of mentioning the "war criminal question" since that time. <eleland/talkedits> 01:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the role of the mentor in this case needs to practice more tough love. I don't see any evidence of you correcting or guiding him. PR has a serious problem with letting go of past issues. For example, he continuously refers to my statement that he was "buddy-buddy" with HG and I believe he refers to it here. Nevermind he misunderstood what "buddy-buddy" means. Even when I've disengaged from the debate, PR uses my statement out of context as some sort of weapon in his wiki-crusade. The mentorship hasn't made progress, I don't see that happening and I believe that if mentorship is failing. the CSD case needs to be reopened and PR needs to be dealt with, his problematic pattern of behavior really needs to be addressed properly (perhaps via topic banning?). I also find it disturbing that the person who has stepped up to police his behavior is not aware of PR's record as brought up by HG, shouldn't a mentor be aware of his ward's activities? Kyaa the Catlord 01:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
you have no idea what I am aware of.Geni 03:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Your statements that there is "no problem" above seem to belay your belief that PR is not a problem. That is what you seem to be unaware of.... PR's a huge problem and trivializing his disruption with one liners is not helpful. Kyaa the Catlord 03:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I have not until now used the text "no problem" in this debate.Geni 15:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

comment - Geni is aware that PR has not made any "breaches of 2RR" (perhaps one) and she's managed to come up with a suggestion that circumvents all the raised issues. in retrospect i'm not entirely sure Geni's proposals are in good faith, but i agree that they could be considered. JaakobouChalk Talk 01:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the mentorship has made significant progress, but Geni's proposal is better than none at all, so I'll support it. JoshuaZ 15:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought my mentorship under User:Geni has made huge progress and been tremendously useful. I've been careful about my edits, reverts and so forth (I wasn't aware I was still short on Talk participation, but that's a fair comment), no harm done, I'm pretty careful anyway (otherwise I'd not still be here, now would I?). All complaints went via Geni - which was brilliant, most times I felt I was justified, one time I made a simple mistake, once s/he told me not to take any position on policy, twice s/he told me I'd crossed red-lines, things that were politically incorrect - I abided with each of those injunctions without complaint. (Well, I complained belatedly about the last, to counter-balance the allegation that Gina was being too soft on me). Turns out that Geni was being harrassed and bullied for not bullying me properly, but I didn't get any clue of that until the last few days. (incidentally I've not exchanged e-mails with Geni, all correspondence on open diplay).
There were no complaints about my edit-warring - which I don't do anyway ..... so the only slightly sour note is the remedies high-lighted. In my humble opinion, they're nothing but a recipe for mischief, particularily when I'm on a roll, writing a whole bunch of new stuff, adding changes bit by bit, because they can be used to trip me up (with permanent affect, as far as I can tell?). User:Kyaa the Catlord already got me blocked for a non-existent 3RR once, that's because I'm productive, not because I've ever been an edit-warrior. But I can live with them with no problem.
Ultimately, the project will have to decide whether inserting good information into I/P articles is acceptable or not, and, if some of it is to be allowed, where the red-lines have to be drawn. With the help of my mentor, I now realise that a Palestinian's biography cannot use the word "massacre" for a particular event (even when it's being implied he lied over it) and the very well known web-site JewsAgainstZionism are guilty of having an "extreme minority view" and cannot be cited for the eye-witness testimony of a Rabbi. Knowing of these red-lines will definitely make my life easier and less stressful in future. Actually, I can wriggle round the immediate effect of the last restriction, because the interview I wish to use is on the Jews Not Zionists web-site, and for some reason the second site *is* acceptable. PRtalk 17:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Option re: POV-related conduct. In answer my Q1 above, Geni doesn't know quite how to handle what Geni terms "POV pushing" by PR. Presumably, this includes PR's input on Talk pages and how he handles user conduct issues. How might Geni handle PR's POV-related conduct? One option would be to require Geni and PR to use a tighter mentoring arrangement. E.g., PR's editing/Talk-ing could be vetted in advance by the mentor. I myself had proposed a very strict mentoring arrangement. At the time, PR rejected this -- and who can blame him, esp since it wasn't stipulated by the CSN/ArbCom. Still, a mentoring arrangement along these lines, perhaps not as strict, deserves consideration. HG | Talk 17:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

HG As the chat inflates, all purchase on origins and their contextual reality is swamped by hearsay and the habitus animorum, as Tacitus would put it. Back to first principles, then.
User Karl Meier raised this complaint, using evidence of what he says (I am surprised) was his casual encounter of PR's edit and POV statements in discussions on two issues with me. The whole gravamen of this trial's accusations rests on a representation made by a third party (whose own page reveals an esteem for two editors whose work is strongly anti-Islamic) who out of the blue takes his complaint to the Wikipedia community. Two pieces of evidence adduced are false, as I have explained elsewhere here. Two POV-pushing pieces to me were the result of a request to Pr to address private disagreements to me on the relevant pages, since I on principle have not enabled my email option. I like to keep everything in the public purview, unlike many, who coordinate strategies for controversial pages. I have deep disagreements with PR but personally have found nothing problematical in the way PR challenges my edits. I am afraid that this whole procedure looks like a kangaroo court, pushed by people with records decidedly adversative, on political grounds, to PR, and has degenerated into farcical wikilawyering and forum shopping, when the gravamen of the charges relates to a private on line exchange of edits and opinions between me and PR. Nishidani 17:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Nishidani. As the mentor, Geni's concerns are significant and deserve to be addressed. Those concerns go beyond Karl's complaint (I'm pretty sure). Unless you're saying on procedural grounds that we should set aside Geni's concerns, then a productive outcome here would be to deal with the mentorship. (If you are a supporter of PR, then this would be to your advantage, since the failure of the mentorship leaves PR worse off vis-a-vis the CSN/ArbCom.) My 2 cents, take care, HG | Talk 18:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I think personally that this case would have died a natural death had our friend PR simply ignored worrying about it. PR also means public relations, and too vocal and too frequent an espousal of what what considers one's just claims often works to contrary effect. Yet this said, I still think that this kind of problem is better handled by a few words off-line, and not a public pillory job. I dislike the odour of suspicion, and suspicion hangs over the way this issue has been raised. Twice from Denmark both PR and I have had newcomers, over the past week, coming in to support Jaakobou. I personally take this cum grano salis, since my own conscience is clear on the matter. But Jaakobou makes no secret of the intensely motivated POv which drives many of his edits in here. I have variously engaged with him, sometimes productively, as today in what is otherwise a very poor lynching job on Gideon Levi, and at other times with vigorous controversy. For having a POV, and we all do, particularly on these questions, is not salutary to the daily work of trying to get things right, and reasonable. Working on articles like 'Palestinians/Arabs Cheering 9/11', (as Jaakobou does) which shouldn't even figure on an intelligent encyclopedia, may help some national cause, but those who do so to that end should remind themselves that, according to good sources, huge cheering occurred at Kiryat Arba at the Purim-inspired Baruch Goldstein's massacre of 29 Arabs at prayer. I have never even thought of putting what the distinguished historian Ian Lustik wrote of Goldstein's probable biblical motivation on that page, because though I agree with it, I regard it as in poor taste, and though true, offensive to decent people who have a right to conduct that rite of memory serenely. Jaakobou, unfortunately, spends an inordinate amount of time digging for dirt, with often execrable sources, against his national adversaries, and pressing for material that places his own world in an ideal sanctuary, and challenges all those, with greater self-control than PR admittedly, who would defend the cause of Palestinians, at least by trying to ensure that articles dealing with them get their story out now, and not in 50 years time. I don't think Jaakobou works this way out of malice, but out of sincere conviction, as sincere convictions of an historic injustice of considerable magnitude drive PR. In this condition, the Holmes-and-Moriarty scenario at the Reichenbach falls gambit, the one who will not tumble is the one who proves clueyer with the rules, and faster in court before a jury that is a bit like the one chosen to deal with OJ Simpson. i.e. generally, apart from interested parties, not particularly au fait with the intricately boring details on record and in the shadows. But the problem is dual, one voice calls to the other. So I cannot extricate PR's case from that of Pr's adversary, Jaakobou.
I am astonished by the immense, Kafkian infinity of rules here, and admit to never reading them, until someone throws one my way. I duly go to the link, read it several times, and, except for two instances, have never found them cited correctly. And, though I admit this is not a persuasive argument, I often ask myself if the right and Solomonic solution in these conflicts would not simply to ask both editors swept up in the agon of dispute, to prove their good faith by working on one article, from stub to completion, and respectively alone, dealing with the other side. I.e. for Jaakobou to write say a strongly researched article on a Palestinian figure or incident that fulfils both NPOV criteria, and can be recognized as a contribution to the exact description of the subject, and for PR to write an article on some figure in Jewish history, or Israeli history, that fits both NPOV and quality standards. To put oneself, momentarily, in the other's boots, does wonders, and in the end, is more conducive to forming the kind of mentality required for making this an encyclopedia of quality than endless haranguing at slightly quizzical juries of bystanders. Regards Nishidani 21:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe that User:Geni's mentorship has failed, I'd suggest quite the reverse, it's been highly successful. Everyone of my "contentious" edits has either been explained (6 or more?), apologised for (1) or arbitrated by Geni (3). I wasn't actually satisfied by Geni's conclusions (as I've explained), but I abided by them with no complaint (well, until I was forced to prove that I thought Geni had been biased against me, not biased in favour of me). Despite having said goodbye to Geni, awarded her a Barnstar, and having greeted an alternative mentor, I'd be very happy to stay working with the arrangement as before. All I (and you) need request is that my mentor (old or new) not be harrassed by people who just want me out of the project at all costs on content dispute grounds. PRtalk 19:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by White Cat

If whatever User:PalestineRemembered is really disruptive (I haven't loaded a single diff and am completely ignorant on the mater), sanctions can be imposed. WP:RFAR may be better for this as WP:CSN is undergoing deletion.

-- Cat chi? 18:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please put my case to the RFAR, the Arbitration Committee. Actually, what I really want is full consideration of, and a conclusion to the earlier ArbCom case that bears my name, which I am confident was either not about me, or else was a gross abuse of process. My previous experience of being dragged in front of ArbCom apparently contributed to an unpublished conclusion which improved the operation of the project. Clearly, if I wrestle in the mud, the ArbCom (like the community) will be forced to hold their noses and probably cut up quite rough - but I am confident they'll judge me much, much cleaner than anyone I've wrestled with.
To all those who hate my participation - keep your chins up. I may appear to be extremely careful, aggravating you terribly without ever (yet) damaging articles or being in real breach of the word or intent of policy - but I am only human. Keep plugging away and you're bound to trip me up and force me into some capital breach one day.
Lastly, back in May, a top member of the project tried hard to persuade me to let the first ArbCom drop. I defied him/her and begged for the procedure to go ahead. In future I promise to be more cooperative and have more faith in you/others to act in all our interests. Whether I will ever stop making waves is difficult to say, but that's not my intention. I really am here to put good information (and tolerable writing) into articles. PRtalk 09:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
simple question.
are you ever going to raise the "history of harassing people on their talk pages" issue again? because i don't see you've either addressed this one or anything else raised for that matter. in fact you repeated the attack on a conversation not involving you.[12]
-- JaakobouChalk Talk 11:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
These remarks ought to be reason for an instant indef block. How can he get away with trying to drive an editor of an article like that? EconomicsGuy 15:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Please start a user RFC or something (yes I know RFC is a dead process). This isn't being productive in my opinion. -- Cat chi? 16:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Why do we need a RFC to determine that strongly hinting that someone is a war criminal to gain the upper hand in a dispute is a gross blockable offense under WP:NPA and (ought to be so) under WP:NLT? EconomicsGuy 16:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
You're re-treading a dispute which was extensively discussed at WP:CSN and resulted in a binding remedy - ie, the issue was closed. Jaakobou's persistent repetition of these charges may have confused you. <eleland/talkedits> 23:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
EconomicsGuy "War Criminals" aren't banned from editing wikipedia provided they stay in line with our policies and Guidelines. If he violates any Wikipedia guidelines or policies that is one thing but we are not an international court to trial him over "War Crimes". I do not know the details but please focus on whatever wikipedia policies or guidelines he violated instead. -- Cat chi? 23:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually nobody is saying that somebody should be blocked for being a war criminal. During a long dispute on Talk:Battle of Jenin PR at one point asked Jaakobou, a male Israeli Jew (ie, subject to mandatory military service) whether he'd been in the Jenin area in April 2002. He kept asking a couple of times, and finally posted a rather strange rant on my talk page, to the effect that Jaakobou should confirm or deny whether he was a war criminal, and think carefully because he might wind up in the Hague. This served as the launching point for another pitchforks-and-torches "ban PR!" campaign, which resulted in binding mentorship. EconGuy seems to be suggesting that the "war criminal question" should have been grounds for an instant perma-block, which is contrary to the decision of the CSN (which is not known for its moderation anyway...) <eleland/talkedits> 23:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
the CSN sanction for the "War criminal" issue was "enforced mentorship" as a "last chance" - i see no justification in (1) asking a "male israeli jew" if he's a war criminal as some way to bully an editor out of an article. (2) proclaiming the issue was closed when it's clearly not. JaakobouChalk Talk 00:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Right, I was talking about blocking PR not Jaakobou which given my comment would make no sense. One question though. Given those questions he asked Jaakobou do you still wonder why PR keeps appearing on ANI? Could it possibly be that PR might be the problem and not everyone else? As for mentorship I'll just say that whoever thinks you can reform someone who makes such serious personal remarks rather than comment on the content instead should reread WP:NPA. There is no such thing as a reformed troll, mentorship or not. If I or anyone else had asked PR if he was a terrorist or not 3 times I would have been perma banned for sure. EconomicsGuy 06:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarify and evaluate proposal(s) at hand

There are multiple proposals on the table. Perhaps it would be wise if folks -- esp those NOT fairly involved parties -- could help sort out the proposals here and evaluate them. From what I can tell, the options range (1) Karl's original request to (2) suggestions to move to another process (e.g., RfC or ArbCom), to (3) dismissing the matter. In addition, I peronally would like to highlight the importance of evaluating (4) the enforcement proposal of Geni (PR's mentor) above, if only because Geni's role is mandated by and presumably should be backed up by the community.

So, do you need more information to evaluate these options? If so, how would you like the info presented? If not, based on the info available, which options do you consider most reasonable? Thank you. HG | Talk 23:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  • At the very least, PR needs to be topic banned from Mid-east articles for trolling and pov-pushing. If s/he isn't a WP:SPA, then "Palestine Remembered" will have the chance to learn to abide by WP standards without editing his/her hot button topics. Mentorship was supposed to stop PR's disruption, but it hasn't. <<-armon->> 01:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
    • If PalestineRemembered is going to be banned from Mid-east articles for pov-pushing, so does Jaakobou. Both editors are coming from diametrically opposing POVs, and removing one of them might mean the articles are edit warred on a bit less, but they will be completely lop-sided. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
      • why don't we just block me instead?. Number 57, just because we argued about the designation of Ariel and you think it's "clearly not israeli territory", does NOT automatically make me "diametrically opposing" PR's POV or PR's behavior. well, you did claim i'm the second largest POV puser on wikipedia (at the time when your friend was under CSN for a possible community ban), so i request you avoid using this to promote your pro-palestinian POV by defending a person who removes 6 good sources in one blow (telegraph.co.uk, the Observer, Azure Magazine, nationalreview.com, ADL and the TIME) and creates pages like Hated Google Test after being here for over a year. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
          • In the edit Jaakobou refers to, PR rewrote a sentence that was grossly POV-pushing, and a serious misrepresentation of source material: "The battle [of Jenin] attracted widespread international attention due to Palestinian allegations that massacre was committed and as a result of inflated reports on body counts by Palestinian officials and Jenin residents." PR's edit did indeed entail the removal of "6 good sources," but those six sources had been misused, and PR's rewrite (by no means perfect in its own right) introduced good sources of his own. In other words, this is a content dispute. Jaakobou's case for the banning/blocking of PR is equal parts content disputes and once-resolved but newly exhumed grudges.--G-Dett 15:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
            • how were each of the 6 sources misused exactly? and let's say they were. does this excuse his insertion of that template? JaakobouChalk Talk 16:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
              • Jaakobou, discussions on the use of sources are content disputes not relevant to ANI. The template you mention was a simple misunderstanding of the use and purpose of templates; PalestineRemembered blanked that template more than two weeks ago. You were already told by the administrator who deleted the template that it was irrelevant (User talk:Jaakobou#Forum shopping), so I'd urge you to drop it. <eleland/talkedits> 17:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
                • that is ot what the archiving admin stated. JaakobouChalk Talk 19:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Firstly, this is not because we argued about Ariel; it is because you are a relentless edit-warring POV-pusher who has assumed control of several controversial Middle East-related articles such as Battle of Jenin and Muhammad al-Durrah. I am not defending PR here and he is not my friend in any way, but I am saying that if one POV-pusher is banned from certain topics, so should others be. As for accusing me of pro-Palestinian bias again, have you any evidence to prove this? пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
          • I think the issue of Ariel, which we both know will never be disengaged, is fair enough example that you have a certain POV on the topic. no one is asking to ban G-Dett, Nishidani, Eleland, Avi, Isarig, you, or any other person with POV here - i really don't see how you equate his policy breaking activity with that of the "normative POV pushers" and add the equivalent of "it's all or nothing!". JaakobouChalk Talk 13:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
            • Whilst I don't deny having a POV on Ariel in "real life" (indeed, I'm sure anyone who knows anything about it does), on Wikipedia I stick to using established facts. The fact is that Israel has not annexed any area of the West Bank except East Jerusalem, and therefore there is no way in which Ariel could be said to be in Israel. Your claim that Ariel is in Israel, or weasling that it is not possible to say it isn't, is thus a blatant violation of WP:POV and puts you firmly in the nationalist Israeli camp. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
              • it just means that we have difference in POVs, it makes us normative POV editors (something you vehemently deny) - on point: you're not addressed any of PR's breaches of policy and only wanted to include everyone on the same page. i've not seen you make the equivalent "let's include everyone on the same page" claim when User:M.V.E.i. was in clear breach of policy.[13] JaakobouChalk Talk 16:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
                • No, the point is that I stick to using facts on Wikipedia, whilst you stick to pushing your POV. Plain and simple. As for User:M.V.E.i., I am not familiar with his/her edits, so why should I get involved in that case? пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm familiar with that case, and I find Jaakobou's comparison to be utterly outrageous. The user was blocked for posting multiple extremely racist rants. Not racist in the Jaakobou-ian sense of "he said Zionism is bad, so he's racist", but in the sense of explicitly denying that a given ethnic group is human at all, and are in fact "HORSE SHIT" who should all be "shot dead". PR has never done anything remotely like this, as Jaakobou well knows. <eleland/talkedits> 18:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    • In Karl Meier's list of questionable material two pieces of 'evidence' clearly reflect a lack of knowledge of the debate. He was patently wrong in saying PR's edit on 'death' constituted bad behaviour. It corresponded to a problem in the text, still unresolved. (2)He was wrong on the Baruch Kaplan evidence, which is reliable since it is posted on a site, by Neturei Karta, as well, and the charge that this is a hate site is untrue. (3) PR's remonstrations with me, were simply that, remonstrations I was at liberty to ignore. Particularly since PR requested the possibility some days earlier that I enable the email function. I didn't, preferring all communications, personal or otherwise, to remain in the public domain. Those two passages were personal communications, which I welcome,and for which I bear responsibility because I inadvertently forced PR to use a public page for what was intended as a private communication.
    • I do not therefore understand why PR's challenges to me can be adduced by third parties, since I found them innocuous. Nota Bene: here PR's adversaries have not been offended, but are jumping on basically a difference of opinion between the undersigned and PR. I have not raised a complaint, since the whole matter is petty, and I ask myself regularly, why are so many people not a party to our dialogue so keen to harvest this trivia in order to get PR banned from participating on pages they themselves work on, with undisguised POVs no less visible than PR's, if more competently, in some instances, disguised? This looks very much like a nasty pretextual challenge by adversaries exploiting other people's material to gang up against an editor they personally dislike.Nishidani 07:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I therefore ask that one suspend this whole matter, while I enable my email: for my refusal to do so is directly responsible for PR's use of a public page for what was a private communication, in the only two pieces of 'evidence' which remain as marginally valid for deliberating on whether PR has exceeded the limits. Nishidani 09:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Mentor" Geni under attack (by PR)

Worth noting is that almost every person who has ever "defended" me, plus every person who has ever offered to "mentor" me, and even some people I was disagreeing with (but in a collegiate fashion, so it's not always been obvious), have suffered some form of (sometimes very nasty) personal attack. I was pondering how much I'd document this - seeing the additional harrassment this discussion has generated, perhaps it's a good thing I don't quote anyone in this respect. However, I think you get the message - the three examples below are just the most prominent people of the last 8 weeks when this practice, if anything, has been less marked than before.

[edit] Geni attacked

My mentor, User:Geni is being attacked, here and on a special page set up for the purpose (it's been deleted). Harrassment of this kind is atrocious - I've had lots of exchanges with Geni, none of them mutually congratulatory. Because of the harrassment of him/her, I was forced to select two of our disagreements and accuse him (rather credibly) of having acted ideologically - not in order to be personal, just to even out the balance. I'm not sure whether I've been a good mentee or not, but Geni has apparently been forced into a corner and had to publicly tell one of my accusers to stop making a nuisance of himself.

[edit] HG attacked suffers allegations against his good-faith

User:HG might have been my mentor but (despite my regard for him), we were not agreeing on anything and I rejected him. His mediation on an article around that time was rejected with the absurd accusation of his being "much too buddy-buddy with PR".

[edit] A mentor blocked

A possible mentor "SpecialJane" was found to be a sock-puppet and was blocked. Perhaps it was necessary to block this special purpose account? I don't know, but it's bound to have cast a chill on anyone preparing to act in a collegiate way towards me. (This blocking was touted around as if it reflected on me, casting further chill!).

Taken from Specialjane's userpage: "This user is a sock puppet of Dereks1x, and has been blocked indefinitely." A proven sockpuppet being blocked by an administrator per policy. Do you believe that WP administrators should not enforce policy? Kyaa the Catlord 11:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
You have placed this harrassing nonsense here twice. I have opened an AN/I on this conduct, below, the first official complaint I have ever made on anyone. PRtalk 13:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I have made my comment in that subsection. Please feel free to read it at your leisure. Cordially, Kyaa the Catlord 14:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Same throughout my experience

It is less obvious now than it was, but every discussion concerning my participation has brought out lots of people who have wished to "defend me", usually resulting in attacks on their good faith. Some of those people are almost certainly watching now, but don't wish to join in because of what they've suffered before - and an increasing suspicion they'll be on the losing side, since with tactics this nasty, I'm bound to be forced off the project one way or another, no matter what the justice of the case.

[edit] Pointless attacks on me

While I'm at it, and in case you're new to the attempts to stop me, please note that, with some 3,000 edits in a year, only one of those edits, ever, is generally agreed to have been offensive (and it's been dealt with). You'll not see lists of questionable diffs I've made, no such lists have *ever* been presented. This is in startling contrast to disciplinary cases against (all?) other editors (ever?). Note how, in this case, the accusations against me concern my differences with User:Nishidani, who rejects this accusatory chorus. The new allegations against me really are trivial, just as all but one of the old allegations were. PRtalk 10:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brief comment by HG

(Regarding PR's subsection about HG, reply moved:) I agree (w/Kyaa) that I have not been attacked. Per my previous request, I ask that PR strikeout (not delete) the above heading and the second sentence. (Note: Also, I did not propose to mediate, in the formal sense, so it is inaccurate to say that my participation was "rejected.") Thanks. HG | Talk 14:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Take your intrusive demands out of this portion of my evidence, please. There is no question that the allegations laid at your good faith (whether they amounted to an attack or not), are part of a pattern of harrassment against anyone who attempts to deal with me in a collegiate fashion, as I believed you were doing. If it is not your intention that I be free to defend myself at this AN/I without harrassment, or you believe it right that anyone in these processes "defending" others be harrassed, please come straight out and say so. PRtalk 15:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully, most folks would assume that I do welcome PR to defend himself, and did not imply otherwise. I'm merely disagreeing here with PR with the aspect of his defense concerning me. HG | Talk 16:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Please take your tanks off my lawn. I'm a highly cooperative person, who has always done everything you've asked, and there is no reason or excuse for the vandalising harrassment of my entries to this evidence page. Please lean on "buddy-buddy" to do the same. PRtalk 16:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Gee, PR, I did move it. I think what's happening is that you expect your comments above to be left alone, as they would be for an Evidence statement in ArbCom proceedings. In AN/I, commenting on such sections is usually acceptable etiquette. Still, I may be mistaken, and out of respect for your wishes, I've placed a dividing subheading leaving your section intact. I am not trying to harrass you or vandalize your comments. I'm sorry if it appeared that way. Ok? I can appreciate that this is an unpleasant experience and I'm not trying to make it any harder for you. Please sit tight and give folks some space to think this thru. Take care, HG | Talk 17:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou, User talk:HG, I knew I could depend on you. Now, what do I have to do to stop other people vandalising my contributions to the AN/I that bears my name and harrassing me on it? Harrassment means "making life unpleasant with unwanted and in-your-face comments" - which is what I've been getting. What are you going to do about it? PRtalk 18:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
What exactly is an attack there? I raised a valid concern that HG may not be a suitable mediator. I did not attack him, I just questioned his impartiality. HG understands my concerns, it is beyond time that you put away the victim card and comprehend that the world is not aligned against you. Kyaa the Catlord 11:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

<snip, comment moved below. HG | Talk 16:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)>

Taken from Specialjane's userpage: "This user is a sock puppet of Dereks1x, and has been blocked indefinitely." A proven sockpuppet being blocked by an administrator per policy. Do you believe that WP administrators should not enforce policy? Kyaa the Catlord 11:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
You have placed this harrassing nonsense here twice. I have opened an AN/I on this conduct, below, the first official complaint I have ever made on anyone. PRtalk 13:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I have made my comment in that subsection. Please feel free to read it at your leisure. Cordially, Kyaa the Catlord 14:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Apology from PR - it was wrong of me to suggest that User:HG was "attacked" with the comment "too buddy-buddy with PR", because he has previously objected to my describing it as an "attack". I have struck out the offending word (which never appeared in the body of my entry). Like many others, HG wishes (and is entirely right) to reject being dragged into the mud-pit the way I've been dragged in, even when comments which are clearly prejudicial about him are levelled.

However, I'd be interested to know what HG thinks of another comment that appeared here "this is no joke, two mentors already allowed repeated violations" which I think is aimed at him. (It's false, HG was never my mentor, but I cannot see who else it can refer to). May I refer to this as an "attack" on you, or is it just an allegation against your good faith? I'll point this question out to HG, though I believe he will be unable to respond for some hours, I trust he'd prefer to comment on it here. He may prefer to ignore it and delete this rider to my apology, I have no objection to him doing that. PRtalk 11:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

PR, I appreciate your apology and the strikeout. But it still feels like you're trying to milk the "buddy-buddy" comment for more that it's worth. (1) Kyaa wasn't alleging "bad faith" (i.e., my trying to hurt Wikipedia) -- but merely concerned that I'm too much on your side to mediate on Jenin. As I've always said, I feel more honored (or humored) than insulted by Kyaa's impression. (2) Right after your apology, you continue to do it. You say Kyaa's remarks were "prejudicial" -- that's overstated and, I'd add, Kyaa hasn't repeated his words elsewhere, as you have. Further, you talk about what "HG wishes" regarding you being "dragged into the mud-pit." Please, PR, don't write about what I wish, write about your own wishes. I am willing to be "dragged" into focusing on you and your situation, but I'd like to do it efficiently and calmly. By exaggerating and dramatizing (e.g., mud-pit), you both worsen your own case and you make the work of "outside" parties harder. (3) Likewise, with the "two mentors" quote, it looks like you are trying to provoke more drama. For heaven's sake, PR, stop trying to find more "attacks" against me (or you). You're acting as if"the best defense is a good offense" -- however, the opposite it true. At this juncture, your best defense is to not be offensive, not go on the offense, and not to take offense. When I said please sit tight, I meant, wait patiently, don't stir any conflicts. PR, you asked above, "what am I going to do about it?" What I am doing is giving you the best advice I can, to tell you what I think is in your best interests. Sit tight and simply watch, simply trust, what I and other folks are going to do about the situation. Maybe you won't like the outcome, but I don't think your current line of agitated activity will strengthen your defense. Be well, take care, HG | Talk 01:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Your reminder to sit tight and leave it to others could be wise indeed. Is that what worked for me the first time round, when I was effectively blocked for so long? Looking at the record, I cannot be sure, it may have done. And if a "take no prisoners" approach to truth'n'lies threatens to make discussion of the real issues more difficult, then I'll leave it to others, initially for 24 hours. PRtalk 07:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by GHcool

It doesn't look like this has been brought up yet, but PalestineRemembered has been exceptionally obnoxious on Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus and participated in some edit warring in Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. I won't go into the whole story, but I'd like to add for everybody's consideration the following two falsehoods that PalestineRemembered has been unethically and dishonestly promoting and soapboxing virtually non-stop for the past month or so:

PalestineRemembered. Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. 18:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This is farcical. Are you endeavouring to place limits on analogies in Talk Forums? See immediately below.Nishidani 17:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The Reality: David Irving is the notorious English Holocaust denier and pseudo-historian exposed as a fraud and a racist in a court of law. He associates with neo-Nazis and served a prison sentence in Austria. Not a single reasonable person takes him seriously as an academic and a historian. The research of the historians referenced in the Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus (namely Joseph B. Schechtman and Shmuel Katz on the "traditional" side, and Benny Morris on the "revisionist" side) are controversial, but no reasonable person would claim that any of the above historians would be exposed as frauds and racists in a court of law, nor do they associate with underground groups dedicated to racism, race-supremacy, xenophobia, and violence. The comparison is embarrassingly falsifiable at best and offensive and disgusting at worst. Since this accusation has been made, the weight given to the above scholars in "Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus" has shifted greatly and for the better. Now the "traditional" side is represented mostly by the research of Efraim Karsh with supplemental material from Katz and Schechtman. The "revisionist" side is still represented mostly by Morris with supplemental material (in my opinion, too much material) by Simha Flapan. Other historians' research that defy such categorization are also included prominently. The article is much better now than it was in the beginning September 2007, but the accusation and response above are still relevent. Not surpringly, as of this writing, PalestineRemembered continues to compare reliable pro-Israeli historians with the writings of David Irving while calling them "hate sources." On October 13, 2007, he disgracefully applied this comparison to the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America.[14]


  • The Accusation: "Israel is expelling those who dare to criticise it (eg Pappe)." -- PalestineRemembered. Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. 21:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The Reality: Israel is a free country with laws concerning freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press similar to the United States. Israeli politicians, editorialists, and reporters use this right every single day in their newspapers. Haaretz is especially well known for its criticism of Israeli policies, but Israel's other two leading newspapers (Yedioth Ahronoth and The Jerusalem Post) also criticize Israel virtually daily. All three of these newspapers are translated into English and are readily available on the Internet.[15][16][17] There is an organization in Israel called B'Tselem that is devoted to documenting and criticizing abuses by the Israeli government. Knesset ministers of the left and right wing regularly criticize Israel as strongly as Ilan Pappe ever did. None of the above have any fear of being deported or "expelled" from Israel. The standards for academic freedom are also similar to that of the United States as evidenced by the New Historians. The case of Ilan Pappe is a strange one, but it is a downright lie to say that he was "expelled" from Israel because of his controversial research. The truth is much less dramatic. Pappe supported a British academic boycott of Israeli academics in 2005. In response, the University of Haifa suggested (but did not force) that he apply the boycott to his own self since he is also an Israeli academic.[18] Two full years after that, Pappe voluntarily left Israel and took a position at the University of Exeter.[19] As far as I know, Pappe has never been arrested or tried for his views by Israeli authorities or the University of Haifa.

--GHcool 18:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

GHcool You write of Irving:'Not a single reasonable person takes him seriously as an academic and a historian.'
Fact. His early books were well reviewed by mainstream scholars. When his absurd prejudices about the Holocaust came to light, judgements changed. Raul Hilberg, the doyen of Holocaust scholars, disagreed profoundly with Irving's later manias, but was untroubled by his denials, and opposed attempts to censor them. If anything, he added, such fringe lunatic theories (my judgement), as driven by men like Irving who do know the sources intimately, are actually useful to the mainstream world of Holocaust scholarship, in that very occasionally they come up with questions that force mainstream scholars like himself to be complacent about nothing, and therefore prompt them to dig deeper (i.e. can Zyklon B alone kill people or not?)
Joseph B. Schechtman was a founding member of Revisionist Zionism, which had radical positions close to Jabotinsky's and Shmuel Katz was, correct me if I am wrong, closely associated with the Irgun, a terrorist organization, or 'underground group' as it is put euphemistically so often here. This current in Zionism led to several violent racist (expulsionist) groups, Irgun, Lehi/Stern, and this gives the lie to your assertion that they do not 'associate with underground groups dedicated to racism, race-supremacy, xenophobia, and violence.' The Irgun performed acts that qualify under all of these headings. What they wrote or write is not to be put on a par, as sources, with works by distinguished and qualified historians like Benny Morris (Morris shares some of Schechtman's views. His books on the same period use Schechtman exceedingly sparsely) or Uri Milstein.
'None of the above have any fear of being deported or 'expelled' from Israel.'
True. But many Palestinians have, i.e. starting with the Peace theorist and activist Mubarak Awad in 1988, and extreme difficulties placed with many Palestinian academics or researchers trying to study abroad, or return to study in the West Bank.
'The standards for academic freedom are also similar to that of the United States as evidenced by the New Historians.
If we are dealing with Israelis, yes. Indeed, I would say that the Israeli historians have a far greater degree of liberty in research than what is possible in the mainstream US academy, as the cases of Joel Beinin and Norman Finkelstein show.
Generally I find your remarks censorious of views on Talk Pages, views that are widely echoed in critical works by many major if controversial scholars. Whether they are right or wrong is another matter. But that talk pages should allow people to express these contrarian opinions seems to me obvious. Your remarks look like an endeavour to paint PR as an extremist fanatic on the strength of a few desultory remarks. I repeat, this farcical lynching of one editor for relatively innocuous remarks shows a degree of focused and organized assault that I find deeply disturbing. Today I was called a 'professed bigot' by one of the initiators of this assault, Jaakabou on the 1929 Hebron Massacre, and have not run to a board to denounce the smear, and initiate a massive motion to get that editor monitored or banned or suspended. Unlike PR, I do not rise to the bait, for that is presumably what people who use that language want. Neither should he or his friends raise this huge ruckus over evidence that originally concerned only my differences with PR.Nishidani 17:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to comment on this because it so confused, the evidence presented does not concern anything that was raised by this AN/I, or anything that has been added later. The edit-warring allegation is laughable, there are a series of content-disputes, which GHcool is probably "losing" (but not to me). He's been editing there at 4 times the rate that I've been doing. Perhaps he's fed up that a pro-Israel editor has agreed with me that Schechtman is a hate-source - but then, isn't that what Talk is supposed to be about? PRtalk 01:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion, which is due to my own imprecise postings. i do not agree that Schectman is a hate source in any way. What I meant to convey was a light degree of sarcasm; what i really should have written was, "so what if he's a 'hate source'?" What i meant by this was that some sources which seem hateful to some groups, may only be expressing some political views which may be extreme, but are not in fact hateful. so in that case, they should not be considered hateful. So they should still be included. So i do not agree that Schectman is a hate source at all, and I did not mean that when I made that posting either. Thanks. i do not have any comment on any other aspect of this matter, and will allow others to comment on this. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 23:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inanity

Forgive the strong titling, but being familiar with PR's long history of blocks based on the most ludicrous of pretenses, I am quite shocked to see the campaigning against him continuing here once again. Despite having read and re-read the entire discussion here, I cannot make heads or tales of what this latest attempt to permanently ban PR is based on. There is no evidence to back any of the complaints being put forward, old issues that have already been the subject of community discussions and decisions are being re-aired as though they are open and pending issues, and the entire thread is riddled with personal attacks that do nothing to improve the project and indeed seem to have forgotten the project altogether. With respect, I ask that specific diffs providing evidence of a specific problem not dealt with in earlier discussions be represented here. Failing that, I ask that the entire case be closed. This is waste of time, energy and good-will and I see no reason to subject PR to any further srcutiny in view of the lack of any solid complaint. Note that if such evidence is provided and the community feels it is worthy of further discussion, the appropriate venue for this would be either a User:RfC or ArbComm. With respect, Tiamut 12:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

'Failing that, I ask that the entire case be closed.' User:Tiamut
I second the request. This is farcical to put the best light on it, and slightly sinister when those who promote this banning campaign are extraneous to the original charges, which concern only myself and two pages where I and PR happened to disagree on two edits.Nishidani 12:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kyaa the Catlord harrassing me on this page

It is highly misleading to imply that EconomicsGuy is some kind of uninvolved editor applying the usual standards of the project. Everyone seeing this must be puzzled how an AN/I on something so damaging to the processes of the project can be archived without action in less than an hour. PRtalk 15:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I read EliminatorJR's closing remark as criticism of both yours as well as my remark on that thread which is also why I disengaged. You should try that sometime rather than attack anyone who dares to speak to you or edit your part of the debate. It is getting very obvious that you are comletely unable to absorb and constructively use any criticism of your actions. Your attack against HG above is clear evidence of this. When on trial for assault don't punch your own defense team. EconomicsGuy 16:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi. There is nothing misleading. Nobody is claiming EconomicsGuy is uninvolved. Wikidemo 16:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This does not appear to be achieving anything, and none of the participants are exactly advancing their cause. ELIMINATORJR 14:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Kyaa the Catlord is harrassing me on this very page by posting nonsense into the middle of my evidence, and doing something similar on my TalkPage here. I request this be dealt with firmly - it is likely part of a pattern of disruption which, amongst other things, destroyed the attempts of an independent person to rescue an article that is still, 8 weeks later, a train wreck. PRtalk 13:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I offer no defense. If an administrator finds my actions to be disruptive, I will submit to any punishment granted for the actions that PR has reported me on. Kyaa the Catlord 13:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
This page is an open discussion area within Wikipedia. If you add a statement to this page, anybody else on Wikipedia including User:Kyaa the Catlord is free to comment on your statement. I see nothing nonsensical or improper about Kyaa the Catlord's comments. Whether you agree with them or not the user is entitled to say them. Conversely, your removal of the statements is improper - other people's talk page comments should never be altered or deleted without a strong valid reason and you have no such reason to delete them. You removed the comments twice and they were reverted twice by different users. Further, your calling the comments Kyaa the Catlord "vandalism" is improper. Please do not accuse other editors of vandalism unless they clearly fit the definition here. These did not. Kyaa the Catlord placed a very mild caution on your talk page to say that you should not have deleted the comments. The notice used, {{test1}}, is the wrong one - it is an automated template that says you did it as an "experiment." In fact, you removed the material deliberately so the correct notice would be a stronger warning.
By accusing Kyaa the Catlord of "harassing" you, posting "nonsense", and committing "disruption" you are essentially accusing the user of bad faith. I see no evidence of bad faith at all. Please Please assume good faith. Do not accuse other editors of improper behavior without good grounds. I have not had anything to do with you or any articles you edited, as far as I remember, so I will try to stay neutral. However, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that you are getting into some personal conflicts here on Wikipedia that are unnecessary. If you can concentrate on writing and editing articles, and not worry so much about what other people are doing wrong, you will not have these conflicts. If you are in a mentoring situation then other people have obviously discussed this with you. Wikidemo 13:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Definition of harrassment - "a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely."
User:Kyaa the Catlord has carried out this behaviour 3 times today, even before this last threatening implication I'll be unable to have civilised discourse with anyone anywhere in the project without idiocy being inserted. Please note, this is the first time I've made an official complaint against anyone, Kyaa has done it against me twice, one time getting me blocked with a malicious 3RR report (lifted with exoneration once I'd appealed and it was examined). PRtalk 13:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Please speedy close this thread as yet another example of pointless trolling. It is this kind of thing I spoke about on the MfD for CSN. Why do we continue to put up with this when it is obvious that PR's worst enemy here is himself. EconomicsGuy 14:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Note - EconomicsGuy's comment was made while this was an independent section - 14:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] Motion to close

If there are specific, actionable claims here, I have been unable to detect them. PR was ordered to mentorship without any specific conditions of that mentorship; therefore, no incident can be said to have violated the conditions. In any case, the hostile free-for-all atmosphere of this posting is accomplishing nothing. Therefore I move that this discussion be closed as beyond the scope of ANI.

If serious concerns about PR's behavior still exist, they should be taken to ArbCom. <eleland/talkedits> 17:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My thinking was in line with the above comment 10 sections (not counting the "sub-sub" sections) and 4 days ago. . .still is. R. Baley 18:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Whatever but please remember that per the discussion on CSN mentorship was meant only as a substitute for a ban if it actually worked. For that reason it is not unreasonable to discuss if the mentorship is working or not and any editor should be allowed to voice their concerns freely. To claim that mentorship was agreed upon unconditionally is a misrepresentation of the debate in question. But as I said; whatever, because this is going to end up on ArbCom sooner or later anyway. To think otherwise is an illusion. EconomicsGuy 18:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
geez, Eleland. he's only harassed me twice to defend you... and you've done the same, only not as vigurously, to defend him [20] ... you sure you're unable to detect anything actionable?
i still have't seen PR adress any of the issues mentioned and promise not to repeat. i move to topic-ban PR until a new metor and provisions are clearly stated, that is, if the community deems he deserves another chance. JaakobouChalk Talk 18:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Please do not accuse me of harassment without providing any evidence. Your linked diff is of me telling PR that he made a mistake in asking you the question, and noting my confusion at your refusal to deny a CoI even in general terms. (I called you an "IDF member" by mistake, I should have said "someone who is, by circumstance, very likely to be an IDF member".) Your suggestion of a temporary topic-ban while a new mentor and conditions are worked out seems reasonable. <eleland/talkedits> 18:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
interesting response to you admitting you also asked the question (while attacking me for pursuing action against your friend). JaakobouChalk Talk 19:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The question I asked was in full, "Do you have a potential conflict of interest related to the Battle of Jenin? Were you a participant in the event?" [21] [22] which is prima facie legitimate, and you have never answered it. <eleland/talkedits> 20:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
a simple observation at the "you seem to mirror your country" insults is more revealing than your quote suggests. please stop pretending that PR did not attack me at least twice in your presence when he was uninvolved. JaakobouChalk Talk 23:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
As the person to whom PR's 'controversial' edits, as cited by Karl Meier, were directed, as someone who found them perfectly innocuous, as someone who is responsible for PR writing a private comment to me on a public page ( See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nishidani&diff=prev&oldid=158903787), and as someone who is astonished this sort of kangaroo-courting can take place over trivial disputes, as someone who remains outraged that noseyparkers can butt in like this to cause one of my interlocutors, and wikipedia editors here, to waste so much time, I second User:Eleland's motion.Nishidani 18:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
can anyone PR has not drive by reverted for [23] make a statement? JaakobouChalk Talk 19:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
JaakobouPlease rephrase that. It is unintelligible in normal English.Nishidani 19:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, now I gather what the import of your snide gambit was. I'll make an exception and show you how my mind works offline.
The drift of your little snub is that I shouldn't be trusted to comment on Karl Meier's request that PR be subject to further sanctions because, as you show, PR once reverted to my version and in doing so complimented me.
Well, it has nothing to do with debts to flattery. I only noticed this motion to increase bans on PR by chance. The first thing that struck me was its oddity. In my many interactions with PR on pages we have edited in common, I had never heard of Karl Meier, nor seen a squidgeon of his interest in those pages. I only saw you, omnipresent wherever pages touch on what you appear to consider your country's impeccable claims to a flawless record in purity of arms and biblical rights to other people's land. There you are intransigent and ready to work 24/7 to challenge revert, contest, forage for quibbles, to rebut or deflect anything that might spoil the perfect image.
So I asked myself, why is this otherwise unknown Karl Meier jumping into pages where Jaakobou has an ongoing edit conflict with me, and PR, saying that he, the innocent, innocuous bystander, just happened, out of the blue, to chance upon a few pages where PR edits, and to be deeply troubled by the unwiki tenor of PR's edits, so troubled indeed that he thought the Administrators' board should be warned of a serious 'incident'.
I then asked myself, of the hundreds of thousands of pages, of the thousands of editors who get into trouble from time to time, why has this Karl Meier picked on PR, and why has he, in raising a question against PR's behaviour, singled out exclusively evidence from my edit conflicts with PR on pages where you are in conflict with both of us? The answer, in the Italian (and Spanish proverb) is a bon intenditor, poche parole. I.e., this doesn't look, as Meier presents it, a casual matter, but rather may, one cannot say with certainty, but just may be a case of an arranged indictment by third parties to get someone you are frequently in conflict with, off the pages where you and I also edit. Indeed, you immediately jumped at the opportunity to join in the fray, and jerryrig what to all intents and purposes looks like a settling of old scores, but by someone who is only, disinterestedly, in the interests of Wikipedia, endeavouring to guarantee quality in Wikipedia.
There can be no proof either way. And I should add that my inferences are purely subjective and may well reflect more on me than either you, Jaakobou, or Karl Meier, who may indeed be what you represent yourselves to be, editors concerned with the health and neutrality of Wiki articles. Yet, I chose to intervene, on the outside possibility that these proceedings might indeed be rigged, if only because the substance of the 'incidents' as listed by Karl Meier deal with PR's conflicts with me, and not with either Karl Meier or Jaakobou. As such, I was the only party who had a due right, if I felt there were reasons to protest, to call in the Administrators. Even the slightest odour of suspicion of an entrapment scam involving others gets me on my high horse as an extreme civil libertarian ready to pitch in for the defence, and thus I have spent some hours defending PR, because, gentlemen, this whole interlude strikes me as profoundly sordid, as well as ludicrously trivial. It reminds me of snitching to bureaucracies in totalitarian countries, and grown-ups in a democratic forum should have more sobriety, equanimity and toughness than to rush out at the slightest emotional discomfort they may feel in the presence of a cast of mind they dislike, to engage in forum shopping and denounce the person for what they take as unsocial or unpleasant behaviour, when it is simply a matter of someone else with a profound and equally strongly motivated POV on the world that happens to be diametrically opposed to their own. Nishidani 19:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
geez, you wonder why i use the word succinctly so many times around you? JaakobouChalk Talk 23:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Jaakobou. As Conan Doyle might have once quipped: 'Der Teufel steckt im Detail.'Nishidani 09:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by PR on Mentorship and ArbCom

  • Comments by PR, subject of this AN/I - in all this mess, one thing must be clear to everyone. The operation of the project is coming to be over-run by personal harrassment. It's not just aimed at 'partisans' who might think my particular "problems" are a witch-hunt - it's reached such an atrocious level that anyone, for instance, put forward as a potential mentor by well-respected "outsiders", now finds themselves subject to it.
  • Parties to this dispute are making demands on the latest "coopted" volunteer: "care to make a mission statement such as "what sanctions would you implement for which breaches" and "how do you perceive each of the violations mentioned on the open ANIs?" (please check this for yourself - no violations were found in the complaints that this AN/I were supposed to settle).
  • These questions are directly followed by attacks on the efforts of those who've gone before "this is no joke, two mentors already allowed repeated violations and I see no statement by you to suggest you take this issue seriously." An apparent failure to answer these questions results (30 hours later) in this same volunteer/nominee getting an intrusive question on his TalkPage "do you have a second user or is this your only user?", hinting at sock-puppetry (a complaint of this so baseless as to amount to malice has previously been made).
  • Harrassment of this kind seems to have brought my mentorship to an abrupt end after just 3 weeks, during which time I believe it was working well (I was fully expecting it to run for 6 months, perhaps more).
  • Even at this current AN/I, my previous "mentor"'s efforts, contributions and conclusions are rejected with prejudice ("find it disturbing that the person who has stepped up to police his behavior is not aware of PR's record" and "Your statements that there is "no problem" above seem to belay your belief that PR is not a problem. That is what you seem to be unaware of.... PR's a huge problem and trivializing his disruption with one liners is not helpful.").
  • I have restricted my evidence of this harrassment situation to just those two three people who have most recently stepped up to the plate themselves (or been put forward) as "mentors", more-or-less "neutral" people trying to help the project. I can assure everyone that this situation has been much, much worse in the past when "partisan" contributors have been involved and have tried to present their case. (Many of these people have this time round obscured the good relations they've had with me previously, which may account for the fact it's not as evident on this occasion). Harrassment of "mentors" and "neutral persons" has accelerated however, perhaps because they are still trying to take their positions seriously.
  • Comment #2 - another issue arises, and this also casts terminal doubt on the worth of "mentoring", at least in my case. I had a mentor, I have been totally cooperative/compliant with that person (nobody disputes this). And, yet the witch-hunt has been re-started after just 3 weeks. Mentoring has indeed failed - but it was nothing to do with User:Geni's efforts (and I'd be astonished if anyone thinks I've upset it).
  • Summary - for both these reasons (neither of them concerning my conduct), I believe that "mentorship" has been rendered a dead-duck (at least in my case). Reviving it will not be to the good of the project, it will simply result in more and more individuals in good-standing being victimised by harrassment (and often wrongly accused of being unfit by partisanship). The debate over my "mentorship" threatens lasting damage to the project.
  • The near future - the ArbCom I see coming is going to be exceptionally messy. I request it bear my name (like the one that was dropped over my protests), because I'm the most prominent victim of the harrassment that's become so overwhelming. (Even though it's spread to other editors in good-standing and even to admins, which is clearly much more serious than any discomfiture to me). Titling it "Harrassment of PalestineRemembered" (or anything including my name) will help sharpen people's focus, and enable all the arguments, diffs etc that people have already assembled to be properly aired and considered by the panel. I believe that my case is the one with the fewest confusing factors, breaches of civility, edit-warring etc etc, and it is my belief that the panel will fnd this helpful to their deliberations. The last thing we need is a case that magnifies complaints against the management, admins, mediators, mentors etc. PRtalk 11:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recommend ArbCom reopen the case

As I said in my comment above (October 7, 14:22), the best solution to this case might be to reopen Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered. These allegations have been hanging over PR's head like a Sword of Damocles. I suggest we get it over with. If he's innocent of what he's being accused of, he deserves to be cleared, and if he's guilty, further action might need to be taken. AecisBrievenbus 13:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I pleaded for that particular case in May 2007 to be arbitrated to completion and was horrified when it was dropped. On reflection, I decided that I don't mind. I can live with unretracted allegations, however nasty, when everyone knows them to have been (by a piece of astonishing good fortune) proved completely baseless.
I've made a case for one particular way of handling what I believe to be a different problem, increasingly endemic, but obviously the ArbCom will have to make up their own minds on how to deal with things.
Having said which, there could be a very good reason for re-opening my case - because the accusation against me was "quoting from hate-sources". I've never been very aware of the problem (by keeping away from them, there's no danger of me picking up lies and retailing them). But I have increasingly noticed that there are hate-sources around that somehow get treated as "Reliable Sources" (and they might qualify by current standards). Perhaps it's time for the ArbCom to deliberate on this problem and perhaps cross off any source that speaks of "Palestinian duplicity", just as we all agree we'd not touch something that spoke of "Jewish duplicity". PRtalk 16:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptions to this noticeboard

I seems thus user has made some disruptive edits to this noticeboard, like this one for example. It is disruption to remove others comments from talk pages, and that shouldn't be tolerated. Yahel Guhan 07:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Despite being the target of this behavior, his new mentor (this time with admin powers) is aware of this and reverted him. I'm willing to give his mentor a chance to instruct him on proper wikiquette before leaping all over him. Kyaa the Catlord 07:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
If he is going to take a 24 hour break from the site, I will let him. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
putting PRs commentary on this ANI into one phrase, "so much soap and not one mention that shows understand of why he's been brought here". I still stand by the suggestion that he'd be topic banned at least until new mentorship is cleared out with some notes about the infractions listed in this ANI and possible punishment in the event that he'd repeat them. JaakobouChalk Talk 09:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
For the sake of putting an end to this by now very long debate I suggest that Zscout370, a trusted and respected admin, be given a chance to mentor PR and hopefully avoid an ArbCom case. The consequences of PR repeating his past mistakes under mentorship are already clear from the debate on CSN. This could actually put an end to endless flow of PR related threads here on AN/I. EconomicsGuy 09:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that we should give Zscout a chance to work with PR. I think having an admin watching his every move will resolve the problematic pattern of behavior that PR displays. Having an admin actively watching the pages that PR frequents will also be helpful in keeping the edit warring to a minimum on the hot-button pages PR tends to frequent as well. Kyaa the Catlord 10:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

For the mentorship to work, the community would be wise to exercise its responsibility and be sure the expectations or framework of the mentorship are better specified. To demonstrate his buy-in, PR could state how he expects to improve from mentoring. Likewise, the community could specify, via or w/Zscout, its goals. It would help to know thru what procedure, for instance, Zscout would handle complaints. More clarity would be in everybody's best interests, including PR, Zscout (or any mentor), complainants, and those of us trying to evaluate the situation. I could justify this at great length, or do folks see what I'm trying to get at? Thanks.HG | Talk 14:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If you still wish to take it to ArbCom, that is your decision. Do not let me stop you from doing that. I can still mentor him, but I still believe he is on his break. I would also welcome ideas on how to best observe him. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Zscout, good question. One idea would be to set up a user page, where he could post his draft article or Talk edits for you to review. Another idea would be to limit the number of articles he edits. Another idea would be to ask him to edit at certain times, convenient for you and prior to your observation period(s). Do you have any concerns about the community expressing, or asking PR to express, in what ways he would improve from the mentoring? Or maybe you have a sense of your priorities in mentoring him? Thanks. HG | Talk 20:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I just want him to edit and not get into fights or major problems. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
PR has stated that he thought the mentorship would last 6 months. He also seemed proud of the fact that all communications with his past mentor were public for everyone to see. As a show of good faith, and to end these threads once and for all, how about letting bygones be bygones under the condition that he cooperates fully with Zscout? That would greatly uncomplicate this matter as PR would essentially be starting over with a blank sheet and every opportunity to regain the trust of those he have gotten into conflict with in the past. Of course, this would also mean that those same editors would have to show the same good faith but given the potential benefits that would follow from this it might be worth a try. It's a radical suggestion but unless something is done these past disputes will always come back to haunt him and judging from his comments today and his self-imposed break from the project he seems willing to change and learn. EconomicsGuy 23:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I would also welcome ideas on how to best observe him - ZScout

I don't think there's much point in getting involved in debates about alleged POV editing on mainpages - PR is no different in that regard than numerous other users on the Arab-Israeli pages. IMO, the problem is PR's tendency to soapbox on talk pages, which in some cases at least could arguably be interpreted as trolling. I think it's that tendency that leads to the complaints about him.

My suggestion would be to draw his attention to this behaviour whenever he indulges it (in whatever way you see fit). I think though, it should be up to his critics to inform you of when he is soapboxing, because I don't see why you should have to go chasing after every edit he makes on your own behalf. Gatoclass 05:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

that system has not worked with his previous mentor, and as of now, it's elicited a repetition (1), (2) of some of the things noted on the current ANI. JaakobouChalk Talk 05:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Jaakobou, I sense that most folks want more of an opportunity to see if mentoring will be different under ZScout370. Questions: How many weeks would you be willing to let ZScout work out their mentoring arrangement? Do you have ideas on how ZScout can observe PR or otherwise set up the process? By what top priority criteria would you evaluate the mentorship? Look forward to your reply, HG | Talk 08:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
i couldn't care as long as this issue stops being such a disruption (trolling, repeating the attacks, anon. IPs that appear right after him, statements on edit summary that are in contrast with talks he's been part of, etc.) i stand by my note that PR should be topic banned, same as User:Isarig, and that his mentorship take a more up-close and personal approach. he just repeated the ANI offense twice, and that in my opinion, already deserves a 24 hour block just to get his attention - since he seems to think, and will continue to think that, this behavior is proper. JaakobouChalk Talk 08:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Jaakobou, I can raise your block req w/ZScout. Let me ask you here: What specifically would it entail on ZScout's part to have "a more up-close and personal approach"? HG | Talk 08:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I brought PR's comments to Jaaka to Zscout's attention and he responded to PR in a way that I see as a good step forward. I'd like to see more of this and if the attacks and incivility continue that he take steps then. I'll admit I didn't look at the timestamps in the evidence Jaaka presented but if I was Zscout I'd compare them to when he warned PR and if PR continued after warning it is time for some time out which is within Zscout's power. I am confident that Zscout's enough of a hardass (this is a compliment, not an attack) to deal with someone as flamboyant as PR based on past encounters with the gentleman. Kyaa the Catlord 09:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I believe the mentoring arrangement operated by User:Geni worked very well. As proof, I offer the fact that, if there were any practices of mine that caused trouble, they definitely didn't happen on Geni's watch. Nevertheless, this arrangement with Geni came to an abrupt end after just 3 weeks. Let's examine the reasons for this "failure". None of them concern my behaviour, nor the set-up, nor any failure by Geni - who acted entirely properly and conscientiously throughout.
  • First failure - the result of Geni's careful analysis seems to have been an escalating chorus of bullying e-mails and public accusations against her good faith. Numerous complaints seem to have been posted (privately - why?) to Geni by involved editors. In her judgement, not one of them had any validity (unless you count three content disputes, see second paragraph here. Nothing wrong in fact or tone or weight or any regular WP policy). This "failure" of mentorship is definitely something imposed from outside the arrangement.
  • Second failure - with the "mentoring" process in place and working well, after 3 weeks a completely unnecessary AN/I was raised on me with (I presume) no attempt to go through the channel that was open. None of the accusations therein had any substance whatsoever. Two of them concerned arguments with another editor with whom I have an excellent relationship, as clearly expressed by him and me in various postings. Again, this "failure" is definitely something imposed from outside the arrangement. A WQA was then taken out on this editor who had dared to defend me. This is part of a pattern of harassment of all who dare to edit with me instead of against me - lots of detail if people are interested.
  • Third failure - when Geni "reported" to the AN/I on her "findings", her words were distorted to make it appear that maybe she had detected the "problems" that my accusers were so desperate to have verified. This unpleasantness and the fresh accusations that appeared led to Geni being by-passed by all and effectively dropping out. For the third (?) time, I lost a mentor/possible mentor.
  • Conclusion - the sum total of a dozen or more "disciplinaries" on me is one edit (from 2,500 +) that is generally agreed to have been offensive (but not policy breaking), and for which I have to be "mentored" (a process invented for me, previously unknown to WP). Everyone who has shown themselves willing to act towards me in a collegiate fashion has been harassed - this was clearly evident even while I was discussing mentorship with User:HG in August, because I warned him about it. This highly successful bullying has greatly accelerated since. "Forum Shopping" was identified a short time ago in yet another, parallel attempt to shut me up, and what we're seeing now is "Mentor Shopping". Everyone watching this knows it nonsense and should stop.
  • PS - this particular affair (notice how the accusations have long been dropped) was started as an AN/I where everyone could see it and contribute. When it had ballooned hugely with nothing worthwhile produced, it was hived off here - and was due to be closed because there'd been no movement for almost 48 hours. (AN/Is are normally archived after 24 hours of inaction). Suddenly, there are 6 posts in 4 hours calling for me to be hanged. If anyone believes this is a serious process dealing with real problems in the project, or that it is a fit way to deal with such problems, I'm sure you'll tell me. PRtalk 16:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, just to let you know, mentorship is not a new process and was not invented for you. That comment I made on your talk page about "a Wikipedia first" was in reference to the rationale for mentorship, which was apparently that you'd made a legal threat against Jaakobou by implying that if he was involved in the Battle of Jenin, he could be subjected to war crimes extradition to the Hague. Mentorship was invented at least two years ago. Other than that, your summary seems to be pretty accurate. Interestingly, now that I go back and read the comment, I predicted that "rather than being banned from editing, you'll be banned from effective editing on any article you actually care about". Given the kerfuffle over your completely correct determination that hebron.org.il is an extremist source that can't be used for anything but an article on its owners, I'm afraid that prediction is looking more accurate all the time. <eleland/talkedits> 17:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] repetition - mentorship where?

repetition (1), (2) of some of the things noted on the current ANI.

where is this mentorship process going? - i don't see anyone working on a set of rules or anything similar to the case of User:Isarig. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Because the case and the abuses by isarig constituted far more serious violations than anything attributed to Palestine Remembered's editing habits. This is not a vengeance gambit, is it. An eye for an eye, ..?Nishidani 21:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
i'd like to hear an explanation on why using anon. IPs[24][25], making a bunch of false statements (sample: last comment above), not to mention everything else brought up in this ANI -- which he addressed by saying, "there's an unreliable which hunt! my mentors are under attack!... wikipedia also!" -- is less of an offense than the offenses by Isarig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). actually, i'm not interested in another one of your disruptive long essays about wikilawyering and kangaroo-courting - PalestineRemembered is the one who should have been responding to the issues raised and make due note of them that they will not repeat - he did take note, and he repeated on purpouse - which makes the issue pop up again and again. -- JaakobouChalk Talk 09:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


a which hunt is, I must presume, a philological pursuit engaged in by experts on prose style much troubled by the subtleties of the 'which'/'that' confusion in contemporary writing. Come now, sir: see reason. This pertinacious pursuit of just one poster is tiresome, and pointless. As to anonymous IPs, I am constantly reverted by new editors with the same kind of anonymity, and believe it is a lamentable commonplace here.
PR has a new mentor. Let us see how this works.Nishidani 09:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

repetition (3), JaakobouChalk Talk 07:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Jaaka, he was blocked for like 24 hours for posting that yesterday. :P He DOES need a new mentor. Perhaps it is time to bring that up on ANI. Kyaa the Catlord 08:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
That his mentor resigned (all of his mentorships, not just this one due to a <censored> action by Jimbo) is already on AN/I, and has been for more than 24 hours already. No need for it to be raised again. GRBerry 13:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
actually, he's been blocked for 31 hours for this 3rd repetition under the new mentorship (discounting all the other repetitions), only about 20 of which were upheld without any sign that he understood the problem - to the contrary even, his note -- where all the shticks were repeated -- was shockingly portrayed as "advancement" and an attempt at dispute resolution. regardless, i've noted him that he should find a new mentor quickly if he wishes to avoid Arbcom. JaakobouChalk Talk 22:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)