User talk:Screen stalker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Hello from Nick

Welcome!
Welcome!

Hello, Screen stalker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! ~ thesublime514 • talk • sign 21:04, April 8, 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. If you have any questions, be sure to ask. ~ thesublime514 • talk • sign 17:20, April 9, 2007 (UTC)
You can just follow this link and create the page. Or you can click on the tab at the top of this page that says "user page", or you can click on your username at the very top of the screen, next to "my talk". ~ thesublime514 • talk • sign 21:06, April 9, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Palestinian Exodus

Two problems with your edits: The Atiyah quote was already in the article, further down and at greater length that makes his views much clearer and makes putting him in as expounding an Instigated-Flight Theory not too appropriate. The Walid Khalidi quotation section is in grammatical, if perhaps clumsy English. The quotes are from Khalidi. It is saying that Khalidi said that Schechtman basically made up the instigated flight theory. So I think it belongs in the article. Oh, and welcome to Wikipedia too. Hope you have a good time editting!4.234.12.197 23:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Point well taken on the Atiyah quotation. As for the issue of welcoming immigration, I think that is relevant to the discussion. If Arab nations said that they are willing to absorb Palestinian refugees until they saved Palestine, I think that behavior strengthens the desire of Palestinians to leave Israel. I will start a discussion on the matter and see how things go.
I would write this on your talk page, but I think you forgot to log on. I don't know who you are... Screen stalker 15:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Palestinian exodus (2)

Hi,
Could you give your mind here ? [1].
Thanks, Alithien 08:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Just wanted to welcome you back to Wikipedia. Zeq 07:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli-Palestinian conflict

would be best if you also leave a short comment on the talk page to explain your revert. Jaakobou 21:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus

Hi Screen stalker. You are off to such a great start on the article Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee (Talk) 17:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the barnstar

Dear Screen stalker,

Thanks for the barn star for the Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus article, but I fear that the page is still kind of a mess. I like most of the ideas you propose on the talk page. Hopefully they will be adopted. --GHcool 23:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I justed added a note to Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus and wish I'd have put your name in the edit summary, since you were concerned about WP:SYN and the concluding overview idea. I agree that Wikipedians shouldn't try to adjudicate maj vs minority views, but pls see my comment there. Take care. HG | Talk 19:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks also

Just to thank you for it. It was my first! I will not be able to work to much on the articles for a while, but I think at the end we will arrive at something interesting. See you around. --Jorditxei 01:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus

Sabakh el nur. I have posted a question for you on the last discussion item of Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. I hope that you will answer it. Screen stalker 14:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what question you have for me - I've added to the table as follows: Yes. However, there are gaps in existing policy when it comes to scholarship on some "nationalist" issues. Policy needs updating with something that (I'm pretty sure) we all agree on, hate-authors (and hate-sites) must be excluded. PS - found your question after all, tried to answer it. PRtalk 21:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
PS - you had two other questions for me - please see my attempt at an answer here. I think I have an outstanding answer I was hoping to get from you, below. PRtalk 14:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Hakim

Since you have challenged my to explain why I think a very large portion of the exodus was caused by the tribulations of war or by Arab leaders, I will attempt to do so.

Let us examine this as follows: Suppose that we accept Morris as a source (and I am not saying that we should).

  1. Morris says five villages and part of Haifa were evacuated due to Arab orders. The figure you attach to this is 5% of the exodus. Note that this does not include cases where Arabs encouraged but did not order an evacuation, and is thus not representative of the entire amount of refugees who fled due to the influence of their leaders.
  2. Morris says 215 villages were evacuated due to military assault. This is a tribulation of war. Armies fight one another, and civilians in the area flee. This is not ethnic cleansing.
  3. Morris says 59 villages were evacuated due to influence from a nearby town's fall. Surely you cannot say that it is ethnic cleansing for the Jewish militias to have won military victories...
  4. I will make no attempt at the present time to explain why the 53 villages whose inhabitants were allegedly expelled by Jewish forces were not an example of ethnic cleansing. I will, for the sake of argument, not contest these at this time as being caused by the tribulations of war.
  5. The 48 villages which Morris claims were emptied by fear certainly fall under tribulations of war (hereafter referred to as ToW). What is fear if not a direct consequence of being in the middle of a war?
  6. On whispering campaigns, again, I see no reason to debate. For the sake of argument I will grant those as not being ToW, at least for now.
  7. The "unknown" category is very large: 44 villages (by Morris' claims). If you don't know why a village fled, that means no cause can be explicitly proven. But people left for some reason or another. Expulsion, massacres or whisper campaigns would all have been documented. This leaves only the psychological explanations: influence from fall of nearby town, fear of being attacked, etc. Actually, they all come down to fear of one kind or another. In other words, they are ToW.

If we look beyond Morris, the evidence that ToW and Arab leaders' actions led to the exodus is in the article. Read the EoF section.

As for your argument that Morris was essentially forced to become racist, that is OR. If you don't think saying that Palestinians are as innocent as Nazi collaborators is hate-speech, then I don't see why what Schechtman says is hate speech. Screen stalker 00:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for doing that .... I'm wondering why such a roundup is not in the article Talk.
However, I don't understand any of it. "Military assault" is not Tow "causing civilians to flee" - or certainly not in Palestine. Tow (tribulations of war) is ethnic cleansing, at least in these circumstances. There are ways in which "Military Asssault" could be Tow eg where a "friendly" army retreats into a village/town and are shelled - but it didn't happen. There is an example where the Egyptian army was driven back into villages, the Faluja pocket. The civilians (and many refugees) were still there when the Egyptians withdrew 5 months later. We know the rest of that story, don't we? Another possibility is siege - but Faluja is the only significant example of that too. Tow simply doesn't stand up.
Incidentally - saying (in Talk) that people have made statements under duress is not OR. Pressure on revisionist historians can be proved, look at Pappe. Morris has done far more damage to Israel than did the virtual exposure of the Tantura massacre, Morris's academic colleague left Israel saying "increasingly difficult to live" with his "unwelcome views and convictions.". Calling it duress makes a lot more sense than "does not include cases where Arabs encouraged but did not order an evacuation" for which I don't believe there is any scrap of evidence, but is effectively part of the article.
Who says "Palestinians are as innocent as Nazi collaborators"? You're not refering to the outrageous attack on Finkelstein's mother, patently untrue, but still not retracted, are you? PRtalk 07:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
This discussion wasn't on the talk because it's irrelevant to the issue which the article discusses. The article is intended to explore the causes of the Palestinian exodus, not whether there was ethnic cleansing against them or not. So this argumentation in the discussion section of the article would be soapboxing.
This quotation from Morris himself is where I derive his comparison of the innocence of Palestinians to the innocence of Nazi collaborators:
There was nothing “innocent,” as Mearsheimer and Walt put it, about the Palestinians and their behavior before their eviction-evacuation in 1947-1948 (as there was nothing innocent about Haj Amin al Husseini’s work for the Nazis in Berlin from 1941 to 1945, broadcasting anti-Allied propaganda and recruiting Muslim troops for the Wehrmacht). And what befell the Palestinians was not “a moral crime,” whatever that might mean; it was something the Palestinians brought down upon themselves, with their own decisions and actions, their own historical agency. But they like to deny their historical agency, and many “sympathetic” outsiders like to abet them in this illusion, which is significantly responsible for their continued statelessness.
I have posted this and many other quotations with a similar message in the discussion. Didn't you read them? These quotations are why, if we use your standards of judging sources, Morris must be excluded as "hate-speech."
As per the question of whether military assault was ethnic cleansing, there were many cases in which an assault upon a village was intended to uproot military forces. Even if, on paper, there was no Arab military force in the village we must remember that this was a war of militias; every village--Jew or Arab--was full of combatants. Even in the case of Deir Yassin--which I think was arguably the most inconceivably condemnable attack in which the Jewish forces engaged during the whole conflict--there were resistance forces in Deir Yassin which attacked the Jews. Sometimes soldiers dressed as women in order to avoid detection. And don't forget that the Irgun commander was killed before the massacre.
Even if a military assault upon a village revealed that there was no armed group residing therein, that does not automatically prove ethnic cleansing. If leaders of Jewish militias believed that there was a military presence in those villages, then the intent of attack could not have been ethnic cleansing. So before you make exceptional claims of ethnic cleansing you must at least prove that (a) there was no military target within these villages, and (b) Irgun leaders knew there was no military target within these villages and decided to attack them anyways.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that I accepted your position that an attack upon a village is ethnic cleansing. Then wouldn't you agree that there was a whole lot of ethnic cleansing against the Jews during the war?
My biggest concern with regard to the use of Morris isn't that I think he is racist or a hate monger (I don't think that he is one, although I am surprised that you have not called him one). My biggest concern is that he is being misconstrued as implying that Yishuv forces were responsible for the Palestinian exodus when clearly his intent is that Palestinians bear the responsibility. Screen stalker 15:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I tell you what, I'm still not sure of the point of this article - that's part of what keeps bringing me back to it, hoping to understand some new and strange thinking. The discussion is obviously civil and amongst editors who respect each other. But I still find it very puzzling - how come Finkelstein has been removed, when there's 5.5 votes for him and 1.5 votes against? How come we're tolerating Schechtman, who is clearly a "blatant falsifier" (even if you reject me on the "hate-source"?).
Not sure how I've come to miss the Morris quotes from you. I'd seen that article, and it's one of the things that make me think "the guy's now under heavy pressure to cheat". His personal attacks on Mearshimer and Walt are playing to the peanut gallery, and act to diminish any point he's apparently trying to make. Their "Zionists had larger, better equipped and better led forces during the 1947-49 ... in 1956 ... in 1967 – all ... before large-scale US aid began flowing." is sloppy but doesn't earn a counter blast like that. It might cause you to examine the rest of it more carefully, but you'd not damn them for it.
However, you're right as regards the content and tone of the Morris clip - find me anything like that from his earlier years, and we'd have to exclude him from any trustworthiness defending Israel. Not as bad as Schechtmaan, but out of contention for anything that criticised individual Palestinians (let alone the entire ethnicity, as he appears to do there!).
I think you're wrong on Deir Yassin and wrong on what constitutes ethnic cleansing. If you tell me that a phrase so specific doesn't belong in the article, I'll take your word for it - as I said, this article doesn't make a lot of sense to me. PRtalk 21:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Misunderstanding

Hi,
There is a big misunderstanding.
So I answered you on both the talk page on the article History of Israel and Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus.
Based what is published in the article from Ha'aretz, survival of the fittest, JaapBoBo has introduced in several articles that Benny Morris called the 1948 events an ethnic cleansing.
Ceedjee (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What "article" can't you find ? Ceedjee (talk) 07:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It is here. Ceedjee (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
but if you type "survival of the fittest" "Benny Morris" in google, you will find this too. Ceedjee (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arab citizens of Israel

User talk:RolandR doesn’t seem to like the changes I made to Arab citizens of Israel. What I thought were constructive changes, he calls vandalism! I can see you have expanded on this page significantly. Please look through the recent changes and messages left on User talk:RolandR talk page and let me know your view? Best, Chesdovi (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Username

Your username appears to be inappropriate or inflammatory, as it indicates an uncivil action. Please change it. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Jeff G.

Thank you for your concern regarding my user name. The Wikilink you provided did not work.

I do not mean to sound argumentative, but I would like to keep my current user name. I like it. I am somewhat ignorant about the way things work in Wikipedia, so help me figure this out: were there any editors who felt threatened by my user name or otherwise uncomfortable with it? I assure you that I have no intention of stalking anyone. I came up with this name in jest, not malice. I hope you will rethink your request. Screen stalker (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[4]

Sorry about the bad link, I replaced it.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, but I would rather keep the username, as I said. Screen stalker (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[5]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and I am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy for the following reason: inappropriate or inflammatory, as it indicates an uncivil action. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?

I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.

You have several options freely available to you:

Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Screen stalker. I just wanted to let you know that the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names regarding your username has concluded. The result was overwhelmingly in your favor, so there is no need to consider changing it. Sorry for the hassle, take care. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your username is allowed

Hello, Screen stalker. While there had been some discussion here about whether your username met Wikipedia policy on what usernames editors can use, the result was to allow it, and that discussion has now been closed. If you would like to see what concerns were raised, you can find a link to the discussion in the archive. You do not need to change your username. Thank you. -- Is he back? (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Thank you

I wanted to say thank you for the compliment, but decided that your user talk page was a better place for a personal message. You are a very good editor as well with an eye for verifiability and fairness and accuracy in reporting. Thank you for your work on this article specifically and Wikipedia generally. --GHcool (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GHcool

I thought this might interest you. --GHcool (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for calling my attention to this attempt to curtail your ability to design your own user page. As you can see, I have taken approriate action. I hope the defense goes well. Screen stalker (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for voting Keep in my MfD poll. With your help, the debate ended with "no consensus" (although a large majority voted to "keep"). --GHcool (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I am glad. It is your user page, so logic tells me you should be able to design it. Screen stalker (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations

Hello,

I thought you should be aware of this - an editor has raised an accusation (of sorts) against you on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby campaign (specifically here). This is with respect to the whole CAMERA wiki lobbying affair, if you're aware of it. He claims you might be one of the people involved there, identified as "gilead".

Just thought you ought to know when people are making accusations behind your back.

okedem (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for making me aware of this. Screen stalker (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Your behind the times with your defence of Zeq, an admin has given evidence privately that the redacted email address goes to user Zeq due to comunications he had well before this whole thing started. Should you be part of this group i have some advice for you, admit it and show that you understand why many wikipedians are very pissed off at this and accept a topic ban on IvP articles. (Hypnosadist) 03:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
This is really starting to remind me of the Salem witch trials. Have you read The Crucible? If not, you should. Screen stalker (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the problem: admit you're a witch, and god will spare your immortal soul. okedem (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Man, if I were a witch, I don't think I'd agree to put up with being hanged. I think I'd much sooner use my magic to get out of the situation... Of course logic doesn't tend to work in these sort of situations. Screen stalker (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Insulting editors is not the way to convince people that you are willing to play nice. If you hadn't noticed playing the race card does not go down well. (Hypnosadist) 14:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry if you found what I wrote insulting, but I think it's true. I think that there is a group of editors who have decided to pursue this isra-wiki in a manner inconsistent with common decency. I will leave it to you to prove me wrong. I think there are a lot of parallels between this event and similar historical events. Let's face it: this is just wikipedia; the ramifications are nowhere near as great as with McCarthyism, but this is an interesting case study. Screen stalker (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering that you opened a re-naming debate at 2006 Lebanon war, three days after someone using the email redacted suggested that he would do just that while calling for back-up from fellow editors in this group of documents here, I'm concerned that you may be engaged in canvassing and meat-puppetry. I would like to therefore ask you, if redacted is in fact an email address that you use? Thanks. Tiamuttalk 15:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut, I understand your suspicion. It's fairly reasonable, given the circumstances. But the evidence you present is purely circumstantial. Regarding your inquiry about redacted, if I wanted my email address to be public information, I would have posted it on my user profile. Screen stalker (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FYI - arbitration on Israeli Wiki Lobbying

I have filed an arbitration request in regards to the Israeli Wiki Lobbying and attacks uncovered: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Israeli Wiki Lobbying. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me regarding this dispute. Screen stalker (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block and topic ban

Per WP:ARBPIA you are blocked for one month for attempting to recruit new editors to Wikipedia for the purpose of influencing a survey, performing reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus, in violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, and you are banned for six months from all articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict in relation to your involvement in an off-wiki group under the alias of "I <3 Israel". Please note that this topic-ban will be enforced by blocks if necessary. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Shameful. Both with regard to the specifics, and with regard to due process.
You have failed to bring any evidence against Screen Stalker, have failed to show any misbehavior on his part, have failed to show any connection between him and this CAMERA business. Your single piece of "evidence" is the 3 day gap between a suggestion on the mailing list, and Screen Stalker's suggestion on the talk page. You are blocking him despite your lack of evidence, and despite the fact he acted in the most honorable fashion in the matter at hand, as can be witnessed by anyone in Talk:2006 Lebanon War.
On the point of due process, you are blocking him without warning, and without prior notification of the remedies of WP:ARBPIA, directly violating the instructions there, specifically: "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision". He was not given a fair chance to defend himself, either.
You seem to have lost all sight of the guiding principles of justice and due process, to say nothing of WP:AGF.
In case I wasn't clear, let me write this in boldface: A single coincidence is not evidence! okedem (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to make this clear: the ban is based on the evidence of those part of the CAMERA e-mails that were sent to Arbcom and a few of us admins in private and not published by EI. They do contain incontrovertible proof Screen stalker was "I <3 Israel". A public statement by ChrisO, Moreschi and myself summarising the evidence will be out shortly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, as some seemed to regard the 3 day gap as serious evidence, I find your statement less than compelling, at this time. Additionally, I saw no one approach Screen Stalker with this evidence, or allow him a chance to defend himself regarding it. Have you done so via another means of communication? Otherwise, this is not due process. okedem (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I'm a little naive, but I thought I was entitled to see the evidence against me and have an opportunity to refute it. Screen stalker (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Evidently, I have been banned even from editing other users' talk pages, so there is no way that I can protest this restriction. That puts me directly in a catch 22 where there is no way I can defend my innocence. Could I ask that someone who is allowed to edit (okedem, if you could, that would be great) please demand that the alleged evidence against me be brought into the open before I am banned. Behind-the-scenes discussions about mysterious evidence seems unbecoming of wikipedia as an institution. Screen stalker (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

On 12 April, 12:38 UTC, "I <3 Israel" on the isra-pedia list wrote: "Alright. I have added discussion <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2006_Lebanon_War#Article_Title">here</a>." The link is to your edit, made exactly 4 minutes earlier. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Finally, we're getting somewhere, and perhaps inching towards some semblance of due process in this whole business.
Screen Stalker, the case against you has now become quite severe. Assuming authenticity, I find it difficult to explain the quote Fut.Perf. presented in any other way than the obvious. In the email by "I <3 Israel" quoted in the second batch (p. 12), the user replies to the discussion about votes, showing he is aware of the discussions taking place in that group, many of them concern abusing the Wikipedia system. If the quote is accurate, and you are "I <3 Israel", then this shows you have participated in this attempt to abuse Wikipedia.
Now, the floor is yours. Did you write those emails? Is the quote presented by Fut.Perf. authentic and accurate? Can you explain why they should not be viewed as an attempt to abuse the system? Anything else you'd like to say?
The way your block was done was very wrong in my view, and I have already commented on that. I have also warned of the air of witch-hunting in this issue. But look beyond this. These are serious charges, and I do expect serious answers. okedem (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Okedem, I appreciate you standing by Wikipedia policies. You never argued that I was innocent, only that I did not receive a fair chance to prove my innocence.
Before I comment any more, I would very much like to see those files. I think I'm entitled to it. Screen stalker (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Uhm, why? You evidently know what you said or didn't say, right? If this mail is genuine, you know it is and you know what else was said in the list; if it is not genuine, why don't you say so? Do you want to know how much of the rest of your correspondence we already have or don't have, so you can calculate how much you need to admit or not? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I just think it's reasonable for someone to see the evidence that is being used against him. Allow me to ask you, in turn, what's the harm of showing me. If everything you say is right, then I should already know everything that's on that email, right? Screen stalker (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
May I suggest that you provide Screen Stalker, at the very least, with the email from which you quoted here? If you're reluctant to reveal other emails, I understand that, and if they as not part of the evidence against him - that would be fine.
Of course, if he did write that email, there could be no harm in this - he already knows you have it, and obviously knows what he wrote, or has access to a copy of it. okedem (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
This is very much out of the same playbook that Zeq was working from: misdirection and non-denials. Notice how Screen stalker hasn't answered your questions, Okedem? I would also point out that nobody has a "right" to edit Wikipedia, and editing privileges can be removed at any time at the reasonable discretion of an administrator. As for the "harm", had you considered that Screen stalker probably wants to know who leaked the e-mail and might be angling to get that info from the headers. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Then give him the email sans the specific headers. okedem (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I already did, it's the quoted bit above. That was the full text of it, if I remember correctly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Then I have nothing more to say. Screen Stalker - if you'd like to reply to my questions above, go ahead. okedem (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
If I'm looking at the same link, I believe that links to discussion within wikipedia, not to the page of evidence. W/e, though. You don't have to show me that page. I think I'm done with this business. Screen stalker (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notification of review

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Statement re Wikilobby campaign for the conclusions of an administrative review concerning the CAMERA mailing list. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope you read this, because I can't post it on your user talk page. Don't you suppose it's reasonable that I see the alleged evidence that is being used against me? I think if you really had it, you'd let me see it. Screen stalker (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oversite of your email

Look at this post --> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AChrisO&diff=208703632&oldid=208661502 (Hypnosadist) 07:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC) I've got your email address oversited. (Hypnosadist) 08:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance, but what does this page mean? All I see there is that there is no ChrisO page. What does "oversited" mean? Screen stalker (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Oversiteing is when a piece of information is restricted to being only viewed by about 15 people this include Jimbo and the board of directors and is the closest thing to real deletion on wikipedia. I have been asking for your email along with that of the others involved to be oversited to protect the privacy of the israpedia editors. As i said on ChrisO's page it took me two minutes of googleing to find a hell of a lot of info about you and your Dad. Heres a piece of advice that you need to take, call your dad and tell him what has happened and then both of you sign up for a credit monitoring service as there is enough info on your dad to sign him up for a credit card. Believe me this had been done before on wikipedia, and no matter what happens on wikipedia your personal info will still be on display FOREVER on EI and i'd worry much more about the people reading that site than wikipedians. (Hypnosadist) 01:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for oversiting. That is very gracious of you. You might want to let ********@**.*** about it. Perhaps it would be best if the oversiting also extended here, here and here. Screen stalker (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] just wanted to let you know

That I appreciate your comments & your attempt to defend yourself on this page. I too was banned for editing Israel/Pal conflict articles for a whole year, apparently based on my membership in the Israpedia group which I did not dispute. I did nothing wrong, but that has not prevented them from banning me. They will shortly ban me from this pageas wll because they believe I have talked enough, even though no one has addressed any of my points or told me exactly what action I have been banned for. It makes me believe that some of the members of the Israpedia group were right when they said that Israel and those with a pro-Israel POV are in fact in a minority and are being persecuted for their POV. It reminds me of the UN and Durban. A good idea on the face of it but ending up not being a fair body at all. !Juanita (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Werdnabot

Werdnabot used to be a bot that would automatically archive user talk pages. I think it's gone inactive now though, as it hasn't archived my talk page in months. There's probably a new bot that replaced it, but I have found it yet. ← George [talk] 07:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

User:MiszaBot does this now. Look at the top of my talkpage to see an example of how to configure it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick note: it looks like there is also a new version of Werdnabot that can be used by just putting {{werdnabot}} at the top of your talk page. Hope that helps. ← George [talk] 23:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for not posting anything on this arbitration case, but I can't add any evidence. I have been banned from editing, and wikipedia will not even let me edit the page to which you linked. I also cannot post this message on your user talk page (for the same reason), so I hope you will find it here. Screen stalker (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
you are now unblocked to participate in the arb case only. Do not edit pages not related thereto. You may edit my talk page and the arbs' talk pages also. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't quit Wikipedia

Dear Screen stalker,
I was disappointed to read that you might be considering quitting Wikipedia voluntarily. Personally, I hope you do not. This whole Isra-pedia affair has had a damaging effect on pro-Israel editors' public image, and especially on CAMERA's public image on Wikipedia. I do not know if you are guilty or innocent of the charges against you, but you are generally a very good editor, at least in comparison to the other alleged lobbyist editors and certainly in comparison to the anti-Israel editors quoted on my user page. I would be sorry if you left and I think Wikipedia would suffer as well. I hope you change your mind. --GHcool (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

GHcool, thank you for the vote of confidence. I am sorry to disappoint. My decision is by no means permanent or irreversible, but I just feel terrible at the pit of my stomach when I sit down to edit wikipedia. It just seems to be more about the politics than the information. Screen stalker (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
If your up for some more advice i'd say take a wikibreak for a month while the arbcom is on, for two reasons. The first being arbcoms can get heated and i don't want you to get draged down to Jaunita's level and get a community ban (like her mouth will almost certainly get her), and second many editors get pissed off at wikipedia or the community from time to time and a wikibreak is the almost universl cure for that (anger fades and bruised egos heal). Good luck with whatever you decide to do. (Hypnosadist) 04:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't say I'm pissed off. Disenchanted is more like it. Screen stalker (talk) 11:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
And I left my registered account on wikipedia years ago because of the cabal of Pro-Israelis who reverted my edits and harassed me. Your Disenchantment is the result of the actions of that group which you were part of. I hope you don't leave, but pick better friends and associates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.95.56 (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Just kidding! Jesus loves you! 64.230.95.56 (talk) 04:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Final decision in CAMERA lobbying arbitration case

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Mere membership by an editor in some external group that has been involved in violations of policy is not actionable without evidence that the editor has some personal involvement in said violations. Sanctions previously imposed are confirmed. An amnesty is extended towards any editors who may have been involved in this external group and who have not been sanctioned for their participation in it. This is coupled with an expectation that these editors will not participate in similar efforts in the future. Members of the community who may have information regarding similar efforts by external groups to unduly influence our content are urged to forward that information to the Committee for review. Hypnosadist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is admonished to maintain an appropriate level of professionalism at all times, and to avoid misrepresenting Wikipedia policy to other editors. For the committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 20:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)