Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Phrase vs. a fact

This article is about a phrase not a fact. IZAK 18:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is about propeganda useage of a phrase. Zeq 18:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you, but it's still a phrase. IZAK 18:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Guys, this move is not properly done. Please discuss it further. Cheers -- Szvest 18:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It should be Israeli "apartheid" (use of the phrase) Zeq 18:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

1) we do not put words in quotation marks when rendering article titles. 2) see above about adding (phrase), that would be needed if we were disambiguating from other forms of Israeli apartheid, as we aren't it's a ridiculous add-on. Homey 18:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure about that Zeq as i am not an expert but my comment is about the unilateral move and decision. Cheers -- Szvest 18:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Homey seems to have confused quotation marks with parentheses. We frequently put words in parentheses on Wikipedia. Pecher Talk 19:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't confusing anything - I was referring to Zeq's suggested title of Israeli "apartheid" (use of phrase). Homey 19:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I am going to stop editing this article for a while

It is impossible to conduct a fair discussion here since Homey has blocked me while placing this edit:

User_talk:Zeq#I_wasabout_to_put_this_on_the_talkpage_of_Israeli_apartheid_.28phrase.29_but_got_blocked

[1]

The facts here are very clear:

Homey starts a POV article, put in disputed content from a non WP:RS source. He edit war 5 times with anyone who disgree with him.

When he suggest that if "his" source is not WP:RS also other sources should be disqulafied as well I agree with him that both sources could be disputed under WP:RS he just continue his edit war.

Other users point out that the "facts" he quotesd are simply wrong [2] but he prefer to block (misuse of admin power) instead of discussing the issue. Zeq 19:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I blocked you for three minutes for vandalizing the article after being warned not to. I unblocked you after three minutes because I thought it would make more sense either for someone else to block you or to take you to ArbComm. Homey 19:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Homey: Regardless of the fact that you may have had good reasons, it is VERY bad form for an admin to block anyone when they are having a dispute with, when they (the admin) is involved in writing the article (besides I have never heard of a "3 minute block" -- is that meant to frighten and intimidate?) The correct thing would be to call on a one or two NEUTRAL admins, not involved with this article, and ask them for their input. If they feel that someone is overstepping the rules then they should give a warning to the person they feel is wrong and then if he disregards that warning take the needed action, by all means, as long as they can justify themselves. But you should not have acted as both advocate and editor of the article as well as the executioner admin and final arbiter. Justice not only needs to be, it must also appear to be done! And in this case it clearly was not. IZAK 19:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I blocked Zeq for 24 hours, then I thought better of it after three minutes and unblocked him since I didn't think I should be the one doing the block. There are a number of editors attacking this and a related article for POV reasons in what seems to be an effort to destroy it. I find this very frustrating. I would urge people to try to make the article NPOV by adding to it, not by removing things they don't like. Homey 19:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should move this to an WP:RFC on the issue of WP:RS and the fact that Homey totaly ignored this edit:

[3] as well as this section of the talk page:

Talk:Israeli_apartheid_(phrase)#Disputed_content

Zeq 19:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should examine your vandalism in doing things like adding "propaganda" before "phrase" and "false" before "analogy". How can such changes possibly be considered NPOV? And why shouldn't those changes made repeatedly result in your being banned?Homey 19:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I want to understand: So you disgree with my edits and decides to take advantage of the fact that I was once before ArbCom and decided to ban me ?
Hopefully, I misunderstood what you just wrote and if so I appologize. Zeq 19:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Homey: Ok, I am sure the intent was good, but it's a (over-) heated subject! I don't know how long you have been editing and writing these type of articles, but by now you should be well aware that they arouse DEEP and heated responses and therefor one needs to be highly sensitive to people who disagree with this POV who may even view it as flamebait. So you needn't over-react, especially as an admin, by using threats like "take you to ArbComm", when as you know, there are lots of more mature steps before that, like a variety of mediation measures. Also, avoid "shooting the messenger" because you don't like the message. IZAK 19:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

To Zeq: This phrase exists and is very "popular" today (in my view it's unfortunate, but what can you do, we cannot control the universe). The phrase is coming up more and more in the media, academia, and in political debates, so it is a valid Wikipedia article, no question about it. It can present all the views in the body of the article. There is nothing to fear. I think it is too early to ask that the article go to "Request for Comment". If you and Homey can calm down and debate it rationally then it can be resolved here. Let us ask other more seasoned editors to give their views here first. Stay calm, everyone. IZAK 19:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. This is the first issue to consider: [4] and also WP:RS Zeq 19:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"I want to understand: So you disgree with my edits and decides to take advantage of the fact that I was once before ArbCom and decided to ban me ?"

Actually, I did not know you were before the Arbcom before. Given your edits and behaviour here it doesn't surprise me. Evidently you learned nothing from your experience. Homey 20:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute. You're telling me that HOTR, the person who started this article in the first place and has edit-warred over it, is an administrator? I find that unsettling. 6SJ7 20:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC) (Edited my own comment. 6SJ7 20:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC))

Do we have a sockppupet ?

WHOIS results for 207.195.242.123

Location: United States [City: Wilmington, Delaware]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29&diff=prev&oldid=55781804


would anyone here care to tell us what IP address you edit from ? mine starts with 85.x.x.x .

Zeq 19:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm in Toronto. My IP address starts with a 69.Homey 20:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Zeq: you are acting very aggressively. The IP restored a lot of material that did seem like it was deleted arbitrarily with a POV-intent -- especially since the detailed criticism section wasn't also deleted. --Ben Houston 20:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Both parts need to be deleted. New additions from Btselm are now used as far as e-Jerusalem but btselem never argued that such policies in e.jerusalem are "aparthide". This whole article is mostly a disgrace for wikipedia. If I would agree with IZAK that if the term is used we can have an article about it still does not mean that this article will become a freerange attck on israel. Serious shortening of this article is in order with great care taken to WP:NPOV it. So far not one of you have bothered to do that, so naturaly my edits (and arguments now limited to talk) may seem "aggressive". What is agressive is that i got blocked and this article is a disgrace for wikipedia. Zeq 20:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
It is true that B'Tselem never argued that it is "apartheid" (note the spelling), they just called it discriminatory. I can't help but wonder if all these claims and counter claims are covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. I owuld expect that they have been. Maybe we can just link to them for the most part. --Ben Houston 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
How about we just summarize the book by Uri, and the Desmond Tutu article contents (which are both clearly notable) rather than try to put together something from other sources -- then it becomes contentious. Also we should include only responses in reputable sources to these two articles -- let's also avoid a new original combination of sources in response. Thus we are just documenting a book, and article and the response to them. --Ben Houston 20:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what is wrong with citing the global exchange article as a source. Homey 20:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, there is nothing wrong with citing globalexchange except for a nuisance called WP:RS. Pecher Talk 20:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

To Zeq: So basically the article is ok as long as it doesn't actually quote any sources that claim Israel is an "apartheid state" or cite any of their arguments. Can you see why that attitude is POV?Homey 20:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Good question. see proposal at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29/sandbox Zeq 20:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

A completely one-sided and POV proposal. Zeq, to be NPOV the article has to discuss both sides objectively, including the side you don't like. Can you try to rewrite your proposal so it actually includes what your opponents are saying. Also, a number of left-wing Zionists (such as some in Yahad/Meretz) have also used the apartheid comparison, particularly in reference to the West Bank so your claim that this term is used only by those who want to destroy Israel is obviously wrong. Homey 20:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

wendy campbell

WC is listed as source for this article. To understand how far things have detoriorated here see this:

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Wendy+Campbell%22+nazi&btnG=Search

Zeq 20:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Campbell is *not* a source for the article, she is listed as an external link. I'm fine if you want to remove the link. Homey 20:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge Apartheid wall into article

Apartheid wall not only repeats some of the ideas in this article but also seems that it would be a very good section of this article as the topics are very similar but this one seems to be more of an umbrella title which Apartheid wall would fit under. --Strothra 15:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I tentatively agree, for slightly different reasons: One preposterous name-calling article that should not exist is better than two preposterous name-calling articles that should not exist. (See my comments, going back several months, on Talk:Apartheid wall). 6SJ7 16:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge would be a good idea. --Ben Houston 16:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree. Merging would be a good idea.Bless sins 16:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The consensus at the Apartheid Wall AFD was to merge with Israeli West Bank barrier and that has been done. We should add some reference to the barrier in this article, however. Homey 16:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge Israeli apartheid into Israeli-occupied territories

The current title is offensive. Clearly, the Jewish state is chosen for demonization: compare this proliferation of what some here call "NPOV" with the 3-line-long section Human rights in Saudi Arabia#Segregation. I think that salvageable content of this article should be merged into Israeli-occupied territories, and the content of Apartheid Wall - into Israeli West Bank barrier. The offensive epithets belong to hate blogs, not encyclopedia. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed! Why hasn't someone written an article about Arab apartheid, such as how Saudi Arabia forbids non-Moslems from entering its borders or living there, or how Christians are persecuted and killed in the Sudan, or how Syrian (and Iraq under Saddam) treat/ed the Kurds, or how Sunnis hate Sh'ites (Iran-Iraq wars). It's a long list, but it's Israel that gets "singled out". IZAK 21:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I support the merge too. Pecher Talk 21:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Agrre with both. Zeq 21:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
It's actually not all that difficult to get into Saudi Arabia. Many outsiders go in simply by claiming to be Muslim. A few of my friends did this already and I am planning to go with them the next time they do it. There's no Muslim test and there's nothing that they could do to prove that you're lying if you're American because your passport won't contain your religion. It definately helps to know the culture and the religion, however. A lot of people do it and smuggle in alcohol which can fetch a good amount there but there are extremely harsh punishments if you're caught. But also, I've never really heard the term Arab apartheid before. Does that exist? --Strothra 21:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I find this comment hypocritical. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I obviously didn't mean if the fact or idea of Arab apartheid existed but whether it existed as a term such as Israeli apartheid does. I mean the term has been found in publications and I've heard it since the early 90's. According to the article it's been around since the late 80's. Is Arab apartheid an actual term is what I was asking. --Strothra 02:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
If you check the sources using this propaganda epithet, you'll find that they are not WP:RS. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with a merger. I do not know which article is the correct one for it to merge into, as there are so many articles about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict I see a new one (with material overlapping other articles) almost every time I look around. I have wondered if it wouldn't be best to wipe out ALL articles except the ones that are specifically about geographic locations (Israel, Jerusalem, Ramallah etc.) and start over. The result could hardly be worse than the mess that exists now, and that was true even before this article came along. Anyway, yes on merger. 6SJ7 00:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is about a sentence (or a phrase) that exists. There is no reason to merge this anywhere. This must be treated npov. That's all. Alithien 22:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC) No reason to write the article "arab apartheid" simply because it is not used. BUT it must be absolutely removed from the article any argument that would state this sentence is justified or unjustified "objectively"; only different minds should be given. Alithien 22:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. The "Israeli apartheid" is used to imply Israeli policies against Arabs within the 1967 borders. Merging that information would be relevent.Bless sins 16:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian Voting Rights

While I personally tend to agree with Zeq that it is ridiculous to claim that not giving Palestinians living outside Israel the right to vote in Israeli elections is an act of oppression- by analogy, all Iraqis would have to be given voting rights (and citizenship?) in US. Still, the argument is often mentioned, and thus is notable. I edited to make it clear that this applies only to Palestinians living outside Israel; hope it is good now. -- Heptor talk 11:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's so ridiculous. Those individuals have families and interests which remain in the occupied territories. Those territories are occupied and governed by the Israeli government. Why shouldn't they have a say? Those Palestinians are not foreign citizens but natural born citizens of the occupied territories and thus that government is still responsible to them in a democratic system. The same works for American expatriates living abroad. Also, Iraqis living in the U.S. were allowed to vote in the last Iraqi election. --Strothra 16:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Interesting point. But voting for a goverment in a country is always limited to its citizens. Simply being affected by some Goverment does not give anyone the right to be represented in that Goverment, even if it may be considered unfair. Another point, Israeli Goverment is responsible for the Palestinians by the Geneve conventions (fifth, I think), there is nothing democratic in that. -- Heptor talk 16:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What does WP:NPOV mean ?

NPOV does not mean that we take any lunatic idea and write an article about it with two sections: 1. Why people think about thjis Idea 2. Why there are people who think the other way

Some ideas are so far fetched that we, as editors, must use judgment and just write: "This is a lunatic idea used by xyz for badmothing ABC"

As to your argument: The palestinians territories are run by the PA and the Palestinians VOTE to the PA parliment (PLC) and to the president. Yes, the raea is occupied by Isral, yes Israel claim to have rights for the area and the world say it is not so. (I happend to think that Israel is wrong) but all these issues are addressed in article about the west bank, the palestinian territories, israel and Int'l law, the Palestinian Authority etc.

Here, we should only say what a propeganda term this is and who invnted it and how they use it (against israel) to argue in the article the question of weather israel is or is not an aparthide state is exactly what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Zeq 17:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Disputed text

This is bad english, does not make sense and based on ridiculus analogy:

"Palestinians who live outside Israel and do not have Israeli citizenship do not have voting rights in Israel as do citizens of Israel (Israeli Arabs including), but they are under Israeli occupation and subject to the laws and policies of the Israeli government and its military. "

Zeq 12:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This is what the proponents argue.Like it or not. Bless sins 02:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"This is bad english, does not make sense and based on ridiculus analogy" ... I'm sorry but you don't seem like the type to be in much authority to correct English grammar. Thanks for attempting though. --Strothra 02:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

(phrase)

User:6SJ7 writes in his edit comments "moved Israeli apartheid to Israeli apartheid (phrase): Moving back to having "phrase" in the title; maybe this is the start of a new standard for articles about controversial phrases"

Well, at least he's admitting that adding "(phrase)" to the name of an article that has an otherwise non-shared name is unorthodox (ie (phrase) is not needed to disambiguate the article). If 6SJ7 or Pecher want to change wikipedia's naming policy they should argue it out on the relevant Policy page not try to "start a new standard" here.Homey 04:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Homey, I didn't "admit" anything. I don't know that it is unorthodox or non-standard. That is your claim. I made a flippant remark within the limited confines of an edit summary, and it meant, if it really is a standard, maybe it's time for a new standard. But the burden is on you: Prove there is a standard against keeping "phrase" in the title. If there is such a standard that is accepted on Wikipedia, maybe I will propose changing it. But first, prove it. Also, since the question of phrase vs. fact had been discussed before, I think it was inappropriate for you to move it without discussing it and trying to get some consensus. It also seems to me that you think you own this article, and I know there is a standard against that. 6SJ7 04:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Plus, I just looked at the section above on phrase vs. fact. Pecher said that parenthetical phrases in titles are often done. So I guess it isn't so standard. But I will leave it to others to comment, should the name of the article be changed again? 6SJ7 04:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


See Wikipedia:Naming conventions. The use of parantheses is only mentioned in reference to disambiguation. Also:

"If you wish to propose a new naming convention, do so on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions, whilst also publicising the proposal at Requests for comment and the Village Pump, as well as at any related pages. Once a strong consensus has formed, it can be adopted as a naming convention and listed below."

You are proposing a new naming convention, you should go to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions and submit your idea rather than act unilaterally here. Homey 04:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, we wouldn't want to have anyone act unilaterally... Anyway, I read the Naming conventions. It gives examples of when parentheses can be used. I didn't see anything that says they cannot be used in other instances. And I think their use here is perfectly consistent with what it says in the naming conventions, because "disambiguation" is just a method of avoiding confusion. Here, the "(phrase)" was employed to avoid confusion between something that does not exist ("Israeli apartheid") and something that does exist (the phrase, "Israeli apartheid.") So the name was fine with "(phrase)" in it. 6SJ7 04:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry guys but i moved it back to its original name. Discussion about moving titles should be prior to the action itself. Discuss it first and decide what to do with the name. Cheers -- Szvest 17:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™

Well, discussing it, "Israeli Apartheid" is a phrase; having an article called Israeli Apartheid suggests that there exists some entity that is called "Israeli Apartheid", like "South African Apartheid" or "Italian Fascism", which is of course POV. Hence, the article should be called "Israeli Apartheid (term)" to avoid any possible confusion; Israeli Apartheid should redirect to Israeli Apartheid (phrase) to allow easy searching. -- Heptor talk 17:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
You are somehow right Heptor. HOwever, what i am focusing on is to let editors avoid edit warring and conflicts. To do so, it is reasonable to leave it as it is and see what discussions would lead to. This is not the first time that this occurs and Islamofascism is the best example. Cheers -- Szvest 17:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™

Disruptive editing + violations of WP:Point , WP:3RR, WP:SP and admin abuse

Everything I have seen so far in this article (from it's creation) demonstrate that Homey is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. In fact, I would say that this is a very strong disruption. He has even violated 3RR (5 times) and edited under a sockpppuet (to block me while he was blocked) using his admin power (blocking a user with whom he had a dsipute) to intimidate me from editing this article. He also engaged in a campaiagn to ban me from this article so that he can continue using it as a propeganda vehicle. I would suggest to anyone who care to stop editing this article and refert this issue first to Wikipedia ArbCom or to Jimbo Wales. If not this disgracefull article will surly be of interst to others as well.

For more on this issue see: User_talk:Sean_Black#May_I_suggest

Zeq 04:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Zeq but a sock puppet wouldn't have been able to block you unless the sock pupper were also an admin. I blocked you as User:HOTR, not as a sock puppet as is clear from your block log. Speculation is not fact so please don't make up accusations based on false assumptions. As for my "campaign" to ban you from this article, you are on probation because of an ArbComm decision, you violated that probation by tendentious editing - an Arbitrator, Tony Sideway, placed a notice of your probation violation on the ArbComm request section of the Admin notice board and an admin, Steve banned you from this article as a result. That is, an arbitrator and another admin agreed upon examining your edits that they were a violation of your probation.Homey 05:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Homey, you blocked me while being blocked from editing [5] and then edited using this sockppuet: [6]. The above shows you are also trying now to hide the truth. As for your campaign I know by far more than you think. Zeq 05:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

PS, you have misrepresent what Tony did, all he did was to move your request to the right place where your request should have been and he told you about where such request be moved to: [7], [8] Zeq 05:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you do an IP check as 205.188.116.67 is not and has never been my IP. I am in Canada and have no access to US AOL IPs (and don't use AOL as my ISP in any case) I suspect from the fact that that IP was also editing New York State related articles, an IP trace will find that that IP is no where near my location. Sorry. Again, when you make assumptions you only make an ass of yourself. Homey 05:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


Homey, you blocked me while you were blocked from editing. (do you deny that ?) You blocked a user withwhom you had a dispute. (do you deny that ?) Your whole behaviour in this issue is completly inappropriate. (Do you deny that ?)
It is quite possible to use a dial-up and place a message of ban on my user page from NY although you are editing from canada. In fact, the only person in the whole world have the desire to "celebrate his win" and place the "this user is banned for ever notice" on my user page is you (and we have the testimony of Fred Bauder that you have banned me after misundestanding his e-mail to you). Please do not add lies to a whole list of mis use of admin power. Zeq 05:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Why would I bother doing that? Why would I call long distance to put a tag on your page rather than use a local ISP? In any case, a check of the IPs I've logged in from will show that I have *never* used an AOL IP. By your theory, I would have subscribed to AOL in the US rather than Canada, dial long distance just I could tag your page (and make some edits to New York state related articles). Sorry but that's begging credulity.

Zeq, you are on probation (do you admit that?), the ArbComm ruling against you allows any admin to take action against you if you violate your probation (do you admit that?). Nevertheless, I emailed *all* the Arbitrators in your case before doing anything and only acted once I got a response from Fred Bauder. I then reversed the ban after a few minutes because I thought if I banned you you'd argue conflict of interest so it would be better if I presented the evidence of your edits and allowed others to act. I did so and they did so. End of story. And still you can't just say "sorry" for breaking your probation and making tendentious edits. Zeq, are you able to admit your edits violated your probation? If you aren't then I fear it won't be long til you get in trouble again.Homey 05:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


You took unilatheral action against an editor you were invloved in dispute. That is on record.
Now you also admit a wide scale e-mail campaign against me.
This shows intent to do what you did next. Zeq 05:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it showed intent not to act unilaterally and intent to ensure that I had the support of the ArbComm before taking any action against you. And what did *you* do to get *yourself* banned, Zeq? Anything? Anything at all? Did you do anything wrong? Are you able to admit that you violated your probation? Or do you only ever see yourself as a victim?Homey 06:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


  • More misreprestnation: We all know you acted unilaterlay and inappropertly :
Here is what others had to say about it:

Homey: Regardless of the fact that you may have had good reasons, it is VERY bad form for an admin to block anyone when they are having a dispute with, when they (the admin) is involved in writing the article (besides I have never heard of a "3 minute block" -- is that meant to frighten and intimidate?) The correct thing would be to call on a one or two NEUTRAL admins, not involved with this article, and ask them for their input. If they feel that someone is overstepping the rules then they should give a warning to the person they feel is wrong and then if he disregards that warning take the needed action, by all means, as long as they can justify themselves. But you should not have acted as both advocate and editor of the article as well as the executioner admin and final arbiter. Justice not only needs to be, it must also appear to be done! And in this case it clearly was not. IZAK 19:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

User:HOTR has just reverted the same article once again despite being warned not to. To attempt to get around this he stated he was removing vandalism, even though it was clear the edits wouldn't qualify as such by any criteria.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Its obvious Homey is attempting to drum up support so that he can get out of a block.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  • After no admin wesnt along with you, you acted unilaterly and blocked me. (only later did you start the e-mail campaign).
  • you attempt to confuse the timing of these issues is not honest. Zeq 06:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


Zeq, you have yet to deal with the edits that actually got you banned from this article. You have a lot to say about everything except the actual actions *by you* that got you banned. Take some responsibility for heaven's sake. I'm done talking to you about this. Homey 06:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

  • of course I am rsponsible(I was not using SockPupet) My edits were reasonable and this will come out eventually. Zeq 06:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
taking responsibility for your own actions means being able to see that a) you made a mistake by violating your probation b) your own actions led to your being banned c) expressing regret for your mistake. Instead you insist your edits were "reasonable" even after *other* admins (ie not me) have ruled them tendentious and meriting a ban. Evidently, you've learned nothing from your ArbComm experience and nothing from probation. Homey 06:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


"Tony did, all he did was to move your request to the right place where your request should have been and he told you about where such request be moved to"

Actually, if you read that board you'll see that only Arbitrators can report incidents there. Sorry. Homey 05:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing on this sock puppet accusation you were tagged by an AOL IP at the same time that I was logged in as HOTR from a non-AOL IP so, for your theory to work, I would have needed two computers and two different phone lines. As I said earlier, why would anyone have bothered?Homey 06:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You have no right to ask anyone to take responsibility, Zeq's actions have been far from exemplary, but they pale in comparison to yours. You continue to abuse your adminstrative tools by using them to gain an edge in a dispute, one in which you are undoubtedly the prime instigator of. When anybody even touches your tendentious edits you accuse them of violating at least one of several rules. You seem to forget that admins technically have no more status the other users, as it actually seems that you believe that disagreeing with you is grounds for a block. I have seen few editors behave as badly as you have these last two days, it makes it infintitely worse that you are an administrator.-Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've made no tendentious edits. As for Zeq, he was on probation (why don't you go find out *why* he was on probation). He violated his probation despite warnings. Other admins have ruled that he was in violation and another admin has banned Zeq as a result. Accept it. Homey 06:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You have made 45 edits in 48 hours in this article. (although for 24 hours of which you were under block for 5 violation sof 3RR) . Your edits included noumerous other edits resulting in restoring this article to more or less the initial revision which you started. This is clear tendentious edits, disruptive and WP:Point violations. (also clear violation of WP:RS by using a biased source for most of this article.
On the other hand I have made 3-4 edits (10% of you) but that was enough for you to convince other admins (1 of the many you e-mailed) that this was "tendentious edits". This is a joke and clear abuse of your Admin tools. I am sure that out of the many Admins you have took this campiagn you were able to find one , who when he also would bother bother to check all facts will recind this ban. We already saw what you wrote to Fred which was a misreprestation of what went on here. Zeq 06:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
As I've already stated, I'm not letting Zeq of the hook, I rarely agree with the way that he edits and this is no execption. However, your violations really took it to the next level. If by tendentious edits you mean disagreeing with User:HOTR, then I suppose you didn't make any, however if by tendentious you mean "Marked by a strong implicit point of view; partisan: a tendentious account of the recent elections" then you more guilty of it than any administrator I have ever encountered, you have also been incredibly stubborn, condenscending, and arrogant. All of which puts you far from a position where you can credibly criticize others.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel_and_apartheid/Archive_2&oldid=1136828520"