User talk:Factomancer

Ommatoiulus moreletii

No worries, I was going to start that one myself but you beat me to it. Nice work! Melburnian (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiLove is good

← George ^talk has given you a falafel sandwich! Falafel sandwiches are a specialty of the Middle East. With a little tahini and maybe a spicy sauce, they are delicious and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day.

Spread the goodness of falafel by adding {{subst:Falafel}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give a falafel sandwich to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

Baruch Goldstein

Thanks for your improvement to the Baruch Goldstein article. By adding these bits, you actually aid those people in publicizing them. I don't think that was your intention... --Shuki (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Shuki, exposing evil for the world to see is the best way to fight it, like sunlight keeps out darkness. Hiding it from public view and normalizing it is doing these guys a favour. Factsontheground (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that 'exposing evil' is on the top of your list. At least keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia that strives for NPOV and does not tolerate many things including NN events. Even if this event really occurred, there are no celebrations, only a few seconds of one guy dancing (who is he?) and nothing to attribute to 'settlers' at all. Should we include every instance of Jews dancing to WP? --Shuki (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't you guys ever get sick of playing that card? Factsontheground (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

And what is that? To demand that your editing be NPOV and you not apply a double standard to everything about Israel and the Arabs you? --Shuki (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ha. You know what I'm talking about. Factsontheground (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Banned User

Hi FotG. The comments and edits you are replacing on Munich (film) are actually from a banned user. You might actually have seen, in my edit summary, where I write "banned user." I don't have the diff to hand, but what you are doing, no doubt inadvertently, can be seen as meatpuppeting for a banned user. I'm also curious how you came to that particular article? In any case, if you wish to make the same edits the banned user did, and stand behind them, I'm fine with that. Just please don't restore talk from him. This has been a long-term aggravation for me; trust me when I tell you you don't want to become a part of it. Cheers. IronDuke 12:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. See [1] for a discussion of why we don't allow banned users to post. I didn't mean for the above to sound ominous. I doubt anything seriously bad would happen to you for proxying for a banned user, for good or ill. And how did you come to that page again? Did you say? Thanks. IronDuke 12:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Last question first: no no problem at all how you got to that article. Thanks for answering. Unfortunately, I can't go into details about this particular user/stalker. Suffice it to say, it's a tax I pay for editing here. IronDuke 15:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

spear civilians

Well spotted at Gaza War :) Bjmullan (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem

I tend to agree with GregorB that the article has been bowlderized and gives a POV presentation of the spying allegations after its rewrite. But I'm not interested in taking on the material again right now. Perhaps in the future, there could be an article on Israeli spying in the US that covers those allegations. But that would have to be developed in user space before making its debut and be based solely on RS discussing the issue to have ny chance of survival. Though even then, its unlikely. Instead, we get wonderful articles on non-existent subjects like Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (Gaza Strip) that are kept by bloc voting without regard to whether they are truly notable. Anyway, thanks for thanks and happy editing. Tiamut^talk 14:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tapuah junction stabbing

This afd in which you participated is being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 March 12.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:TPO

I will suggest that if you are going to cite WP:TPO as policy when reverting other people's contributions, that you at least familiarize yourself with the contents first. According to WP:TPO, comments can be removed appropriately for various reasons, including: "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism." Breein1007 (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Robert Kennedy AfD

Please stop reverting Mbz1's edits. You're not accomplishing anything. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Factsontheground (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Temporary topic ban re Mbz01

I don't blame you for starting this, but we need to separate the parties and calm this down, so...

(copied from ANI)

As an uninvolved administrator - I am temporarily banning the "involved parties" here from responding to each others' contributions or talk pages, interpreted broadly, for the next 24 hours. Without regard to origin of the dispute it's being perpetuated beyond reasonable limits. I would like to STRONGLY DISCOURAGE further snipes on ANI but this venue remains open for discussion without threat of sanction.

(end of copy)

Mbz01 is the user looking at sanctions, but we need all the involved parties to stop poking each other for a bit.

Thanks.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Good decision, George. Read and understood. The whole thing is a big distraction anyway. Don't forget to tell Breein1007 about the topic ban too, I wouldn't want to see him banned. Factsontheground (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:Israeli settlement graph

Hello, Factomancer. You have new messages at Fastily's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum

Regarding this edit and this edit,

Please do not use talk pages for intimidating editors. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. --Mbz1 (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

What was the point of warning Factsontheground now for two edits made 5 days ago, which preceded the SPI determination that the suspicious edit pattern was merely coincidence and that you and the IP are unrelated?

The edits were not AGF - but they're old. Dredging up 5 day old comments for a warning like this isn't helpful either.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It is even not about AGF. I posted here before I removed the edits from the article's talk page because they have absolutely nothing to do with the article, never should have been posted there in a first place, but the user reinstalled them right back. Oh well...BTW what do you think, Georgewilliamherbert, should the messages stay in the article's talk page, or they should be removed simply because they do not belong there? --Mbz1 (talk) 11:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

As a rule - if you're in a conflict with another editor, you are the worst possible person to be removing comments as inappropriate, anywhere other than on your own talk page.

You are biased because you're in conflict with them, and you doing the removals tends to increase conflict and drama rather than reducing them.

You two are not the only editors. There are many others, including many admins, reading the same talk pages. If there's a clear problem and comment needing removal, let them do it. 20:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The comments were relevant to the article because a mysterious IP suddenly showed up with no editing history yet a precocious knowledge of Wikipedia policies and started edit warring on that article to restore Mbz1's version as well as attempting to discourage other editors such as George. Assuming it was a sockpuppet or meatpuppet was only common sense, and I still think it could be one.

By the way, Mbz1 and GWH, why should I assume the good faith of an editor that defended posting hate speech from a site like Masada 2000 in Wikipedia? I believe that Mbz1 demonstrated a racist anti-Palestinian agenda in her defense of Gilabrand's hate speech and I don't see why I should have to assume the good faith of somebody who has demonstrated none and has made repeated personal attacks against myself and other Palestinian editors for no apparent reason. Factsontheground (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record. Factsontheground saying: "Mbz1 demonstrated a racist anti-Palestinian agenda in her defense of Gilabrand's hate speech" is the same as to say that an attorney of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is demonstrating that he is supporting murdering thousands of innocent men, women and children by Islamic terrorists on September 11, 2001.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That will be enough with acusations of racism aimed at anyone, please. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, don't you think your comment would have looked much better, if you put it like that: "Factsontheground, that will be enough with accusations of racism aimed at anyone, please."--Mbz1 (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, George, I just want to move on. This whole conflict is really boring me. Factsontheground (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Art student scam

On March 18, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Art student scam, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Mifter (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

Hi. I thought you should know that you're part of the discussion at WP:AN/I#Mbz1 is at it again. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Malik! Factsontheground (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring coupled with incivility on Defamation (film). Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Factomancer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I wasn't edit warring, I was discussing my changes on the talk page. I only made 2 reverts, let alone 4. I wasn't being uncivil whatsoever. In fact I was the target of multiple personal attacks. This block is massively disproportionate.

Decline reason:

Users may remove almost anything from their own talk pages. That does not extend to article talk pages. It could be the most vile, vicious hate speech and you still wouldn't be on the right side of policy. And certainly not in doing it twice. — Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

That reasoning makes no sense. Facts was not blocked for removing content from a talk page, but for adding content to an article. Did you actually check the history before declining the unblock request? RolandR (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Facts was blocked for her incivil communication and for deleting my post from the article talk page. [2] [3] .--Gilisa (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Diffs that contributed to my decision to block:

• 1R edit summary: "Undo vandalistic removal of sourced content"
• 2R edit summary: "Restoring sourced material removed by vandalistic blanking"
• talkpage edit: "Gilisa and Mbz1 stop behaving like vandals and restore the sourced material that you have blanked!"
• talkpage edit: "'And how exactly did it cause to that my post removed?' Sorry, but that is not proper English. I can't understand you."

There are others.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Mbz1 was refusing to discuss her changes and simply removing material. That is vandalistic. Besides, Mbz1 has treated me with nothing but contempt and personal attacks and she is openly racist against Palestinians, defending the inclusion of hate speech from Masada 2000 in Wikipedia.

Here are some of her personal attacks against me:

• "Better safe(sic) your time to come up with a new conspiracy theory" - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=348323422

• "At least you got blocked fighting for the right cause" - [4]

• [5] - Reverts my signature for no reason

• [6] - intervenes in a harassing way in an issue that has nothing to do with her

• [7] - "Factsontheground, you might be right in something. All your reports on the different boards should be ignored, as one would ignore an importunate fly"

• [8] "Trolling as usual?" - in reply to a civl comment.

It is just unbelievable that you administrators haven't lifted a finger against Mbz1's constant abuse against me but you block me for minor issues at the drop of a hat!

And that final comment is perfectly civil! I really cannot understand what Gilisa meant. It _isn't_ English.

Breen1007 told me to "get over myself" and that I had "half a brain". Why isn't he being blocked for personal attacks!????Factsontheground (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Because "get over yourself" isn't a personal attack, and he didn't say that you had only half a brain.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a personal attack, actually. And how is asking Gilisa to clarify himself a personal attack then? Factsontheground (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I take it from your conspicuous silence, "Sarek" that you cannot justify yourself. You are clearly acting out of hatred, not logic. Factsontheground (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Factsontheground, please read WP:NOTTHEM. The fact that you had two open edit-warring complaints against you, coupled with the insults, indicates that this 24-hour block was hardly "massively disproportionate". You may e-mail me if you wish to discuss things during your block. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Policy on removing commments from talk pages

WP:TPO says regarding the removal of harmful posts: "This generally does not extend to messages that are merely incivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial."WP:RPA says specifically that there is no policy on this, outside of user talk pages. I think, as an editor/administrator from out in the fields, far from the drama department, that a not inconsiderable amount of that could be avoided if people simply resisted the urge to delete any comments by other people outside of their own talk pages in almost all circumstances. If people knew they had to live with what they said when they shot their keyboards off, I think they'd be a lot more careful.

I only remove vandalism from my talk page. I leave all other comments there (as I will yours), no matter how shortsighted or thoughtless, leaving it to those who made them to strike them through or remove them when they decide to do so. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

JzG

(JzG is responding to a provocative rant which made an accusation against him. In the interests of civility I have removed the rant.) Factomancer (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Sometimes when people oppose you it's because you are violating policy. Your assumption of bad faith is noted but wild assertions of racism are inappropriate and at least some of those you name above have had precisely the same allegations from those on the other side of the Israel-Palestine debate, suggesting that the fault may well lie in those with strong nationalist feelings rather than those with no obvious axe to grind. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't have time to reply to this at the time, but all I can say is that an accusation of assuming bad faith from somebody who charged me with canvassing on some random website with no evidence whatsoever is pretty god d*mn hilarious. Factsontheground (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

So charges against other editors like this are completely unacceptable. I appreciate that you deleted it regardless of the timing. I hope you will have that same attitude and delete this section which comes across like an attack. One admin mentioned water on the bridge. Everything could work out just fine ff you stick to that and people who are your supposed enemies learn the same lesson.Cptnono (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Justice?

You made two reverts, and were blocked within 15 minutes of being reported. Meanwhile, five days ago I reported NMMNG for four reverts within four hours, and the case is still open. Just how loud do you have to shout to attract an admin's attention? Or does it help to know the right people? RolandR (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Palestinians don't get justice on Wikipedia. Factsontheground (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

See? That proves Wikipedia is a mirror of the real world.RolandR (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) RolandR is right. Wikipedia is reflection of the real world. And you are right Factsontheground: there is no justice to be found here, just like in the real world. I'm sorry about your block. I have experienced many of my own where others have gotten off scot free for equal or greater infractions (like No More Mr Nice Guy above). At least two admins who blocked me later told me they wouldn't have now (much good that does, since everytime I have a conflict over content, people point to my block log, which doesn't register those post facto apologia). Anyway, your block expires soon and I hope you can just put it behind you. Because just like it the real world, taking it to any kind of Wiki court will only result in the offenders adopting a self-righteous justificatory position, making a mockery of the "law". People will be encouraged to see you as the troublemaker instead of the victim, just like in real life. Don't worry though my friend, because it is all really awham min beit il ankaboot. Tiamut^talk 08:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, you ended your comment with a sentence which is last words are written in Arabic: Don't worry though my friend, because it is all really awha(m) min beit il ankaboot. The translation of it is "Don't worry though my friend, because it is all really stronger than the house of the spider". Please notice that you should always add translation when you write in language different than English. Also, the term "house of the spider" is famous tem that was coined by and regulary use Hezbolla leader when he speak out publicaly against Israel-according to him, Israel is "the house of the spider". So, in this context, I just want to ask you if that's what you refered to? Does anyone who oppose some of FoG edits, to the matter of fact, is included in what you refered to as "the house of the spider"?--Gilisa (talk) 10:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Gilisa, I am not sure who translated that to you, but it reminds me of how MEMRI translate things. awha(m) min beit il ankaboot (Arabic: أوهام من بيت العنكبوت) means literally, "illusions from/of the house of the spider." While the version without the (m), would be translated as "weaker (more fragile) than a house of a spider," not "stronger" as you proposed (needless to say, it's a metaphor). Having said that, I should leave Tiamut to explain what she meant, if she so pleases. And by the way, you do realize that half of your talk page is in Hebrew, right? I would imagine that should leave you little space to pontificate about other people using languages other than English. Mou? (That's Shami for "right?") Yazan (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yazan, my translation-my (Israeli) Arabic is not at Native level, but realy I don't think that now the essence is somehow different. As for the correspondence on my talk page in Hebrew, they are all very old, mostly between me and the direct editor involved and since I was noted it's not accepted I add translation to the new ones. And in any case, it wasn't my point.--Gilisa (talk) 11:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

[redacted] Breein1007 (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I answered Gilisa's query on my talk page. Breein1007, your comment above crosses all kinds of lines, and I would appreciate it if you would strike and stay off FatG's talk page, per her request to you. Tiamut^talk 16:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

He can't strike it, because I just blocked him for it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for being consistent in your application of blocks for inappropriate commentary. Tiamut^talk 17:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Enough is enough

Stop calling me a racist. I've never been one, and never will be. Read here. It was addressed to the user, who has hate propaganda image about Israel on his user page. What I said in that message written a year or so ago is what I feel. So, you'd better stop calling me a racist, and stop it right now.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy, saying I believe that Mbz1 demonstrated a racist anti-Palestinian agenda in her defense of Gilabrand's hate speech is not the same as calling you a racist. -- ZScarpia (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is in fact the same thing. IronDuke 00:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that I'm talking about accuracy. Saying that you believe something about someone is not the same as saying that something is a fact. Also, it's not a given that demonstrating a racist agenda makes somebody a racist. -- ZScarpia (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

@ZScarpia, You have missed on that one: "Besides, Mbz1 has treated me with nothing but contempt and personal attacks and she is openly racist against Palestinians, defending the inclusion of hate speech from Masada 2000 in Wikipedia", just above at that very talk page, but I guess you would be able to explain it just as well.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I did miss that one. Is it untrue that you were defending the inclusion of material from the Masada2000 site? -- ZScarpia (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"Disruption only account"

I noticed you accused me of being a "disruption-only account" at WP:ANI. Aside from being a failure to assume good faith, you are simply wrong. In fact, I created the following articles in the last few weeks from scratch alone.

• Yoav Shamir
• Munich: Mossad's Revenge
• Israeli settlement timeline
• (not an article but a graph) File:IsraeliSettlementGrowthLineGraph.png
• Ommatoiulus moreletii
• Art student scam

What have you contributed to Wikipedia recently? Factsontheground (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been busy with vandalism patrol the last few days. To sum it up, i reverted around 4.200 counts of vandalism in the last 8 days. Around is loosely, as vandalism most times takes two edits (Removal + warning), but sometimes i don't see the need to warn the user if it seems to be an error instead of a mistake. Naturally i have also been making ANI and AIAV edits so the amount goes down a bit, but 4.200 is a good estimate i presume. Feel free to check it yourself though.

Aside from this, your user page is (was) WAY out of line. Seeing you actually blanked it right before coming here shows that you are quite aware of that. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

So are you maintaining your assessment of me as a disruption-only account with no positive input or not? Factsontheground (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No, i am not maintaining that assessment as you made positive contributions as well, so disruption only is overly harsh. However, i maintain the assessment that you are way out of Civ and NPA policy. Not just because they are policies, but because Wikipedia is a collaborative environment where many editors with many different opinions reside. You are bound to run into people disagreeing with you, and such disagreements should be discussed politely. Name-calling and other personal attacks has in the past only led to bans or editors growing disgusted with the project and eachother. You have my apologies for being too harsh, but i urge you to rethink your approach towards other editors. I guarantee you that not doing means constantly smacking into the WP:ANI wall with due consequences, which is neither productive, nor enjoyable for anyone. I very much prefer seeing bans being handed to vandals, then to regular users. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought the millipede article was interesting. I hadn't heard of them before. Thanks for writing it. --Avenue (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow ... I'm really sorry ...

For all the harrassment and hounding you have had to put up with for making a few mistakes. People with partisan agendas here seem to enjoy poking dead horses with sticks.

My advice? Always keep your cool. Don't press save without reading and re-reading what you have written to ask yourself if it will escalate or help diffuse the situation. I know its hard not to respond to provocations with similar invective, but believe me, as that's the aim of the provocations, when you fail to respond in kind, its a much bigger finger back than any set of insults or curse words you could string together.

You have much of value to add here so focus on that. When you see people deleting things you have added, post to talk with a diff of what you tried to add. Go to WP:RSN if they are rejecting the source to open a discussion, or the other noticeboards like the one for WP:NPOV. Open RfCs, post at WP:PALESTINE or WP:IPCOLL asking for extra eyes. Leave the article for a while if necessary and go elsewhere. If they following you wherever you go, you can made a case for hounding. But try to get away to quiet places where you can edit with pleasure. Ask others to join you in building articles that need work.

Its very challenging to edit here as a Palestinian. There's only a handful of us and we tend to get disproportionate attention from people who would prefer to believe we don't exist, or that we exist quietly on their terms only. Don't let them get to you. Rise above the crap, don't descend into it and start flinging it around with them. And everything will turn just fine. When you feel your heart beating really fast and your face getting flushed, don't type responses. Make yourself a cup of tea, and think about how absurb it is and just smile my friend. Its nothing compared to what our brethren face everyday at the checkpoints, or in the prison of Gaza. Til we meet under the olive tree, Tiamut^talk 16:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Brief block / disruption

All of User:Factsontheground, User:Gilisa, and User:Mbz1 are blocked briefly (12 hours) for disruption for recent behavior in thier editor conflicts.

I am going to be proposing a permanent interaction ban and possibly other topic bans on ANI immediately after posting these notices.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Please reconsider retirement. I don't think you deserved to be blocked for 12 hours, but its a short block and a mutual interaction ban isn't so bad, and at least it will keep them away from you. A topic ban will not be enforced as there is no justification for it whatsoever and the only supporters are obvious partisan editors who would be happy to see a content builder like yourself prevented from building content. Anyway, I hope you will reconsider. I retired a couple of times and came back. Perhaps you will too. Tiamut^talk 08:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tiamut's wise words, and hope you will reconsider. Your presence here is beneficial, despite the unfair attacks you have endured. Why reward those who want to drive you away? Stay, refuse to rise to their bait, and carry on patiently improving articles, removing bias, and contributing to our discussions. RolandR (talk) 09:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh FotG, don't leave us. Throwing your hands up in frustration is not the answer! NickCT (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all, I really appreciate your kindness. Despite the fact that I am being harassed, I realize that I have over-reacted and become too emotional. This has played right into my antagonists' hands.

I am not going to quit Wikipedia. Retiring is exactly what they want me to do.

Instead, I am going to try to keep a cool head and be less impulsive in future. Instead of getting angry, I am going to put the laptop away and make myself a cup of tea, play with my cats or go for a walk in the park. Life is too short. :) Factsontheground (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Here, let me offer you one. Playing with cats and walking in the park are also very calming; in fact, I think I'll do all three right now too.RolandR (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I love playing with my cats too. It hasn't been calming as of late, only because poor Qizha had a huge abscess on her face that exploded and drained yesterday. She's feeling much better today. Thankfully, it totally opened up and after being cleaned up seems to be much better. Glad you have reconsidered, facts. Thanks for the tea RolandR, I think I'll have a cup myself too. :) Tiamut^talk 13:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a shame, vets are expensive! Glad to hear she is better, though. My Burmese developed a bad abscess on his rear after being bitten a couple of years ago. That was nasty. He's only a small cat but he's constantly getting into fights with big toms and losing. He takes after me ;). Factsontheground (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm also glad you decided to return. Don't give other editors the satisfaction of driving you away.

By the way, while I appreciate your message notifying me of the AN/I discussion, your request that I put in a good word for you is regarded as canvassing, which is considered inappropriate. In the future, please try to use more neutral language, or trust that your page is on my Watchlist and I'll find my way to AN/I on my own. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Malik, I appreciate it and apologies for canvassing you.

When I wrote that message to you, people were discussing permabanning me on ANI, so I acted in a blind panic without thinking. I knew it was wrong but I was scared sh**less :). Given the reasonable outcome, in future I will have more faith in the process. Factsontheground (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Should I be topic banned from Israel-Palestine topics?

See [9].

I don't want to prolong the unnecessary drama, but I must say that I found the proposal to topic ban me from Israel/Palestine topics and/or ban me altogether from Wikipedia to be extremely surprising and worrying. Not so much that it was proposed at all (sh*t happens on WP:ANI after all) but that so many editors supported the idea - 14.

My contributions to the topic have been, if I may say so myself, always written in an encyclopedic manner and rigorously sourced from reliable and mainstream media such as the BBC. I have made major contributions to the topic, creating the articles Israeli settlement timeline, Israeli settler violence and Israeli settlements, Palestinians and human rights. In response to claims that I am biased or one sided in my edits, I have no problem writing in favour of Israel if and when the sources support it. I can provide diffs if needed. I strictly adhere to Wikipedia's content policies and am confident that they will resolve any perceived bias in the final product.

But despite this, 14 users advocated on WP:ANI that I should be banned from the Israel-Palestine topic; some from Wikipedia altogether. The ANI entry started because I had some material on my user page that some people didn't like; I quickly blanked my user page in response but that wasn't enough (it never is). The drama snowballed as editor after editor threw in their two cents. And the opinion amongst a certain clique of editors was a unanimous thumbs down - "Ban her!":

• Brewcrewer - wanted a "permanent" ban
• Gilisa
• Gilabrand (topic banned from I-P)
• Stellarkid (topic banned from I-P)
• My Canada
• Mbz1
• Kuratowski's Ghost - wanted a "permaban"
• Plot Spoiler/ShamWow
• Epeefleche
• Cptnono - wants me "off the project" (banned from pursuing another Palestinian user)
• Ironduke - proposed a mentor since the topic ban was unlikely to pass
• Nsaum75
• Marokwitz
• Breein1007 - recent blocked for accusing to Palestinian editors of employing "terrorist rhetoric"
• ברוקולי/Broccoli - [10]

That's a lot of editors. Perhaps they are right? Should I be banned?

Personally, I think Peter cohen nailed it when he noted "Far too much of the !voting in this discussion seems to be from POV warriors backing people on their side of the I/P debate and callign for blocks or topic bands for those on the other".

It doesn't take a genius to put 2 and 2 together and note where all these editors stand on the Israel-Palestine conflict.

I just think it's sad and very worrying that so many editors would be so cynical about Wikipedia that they would try and get a fellow editor banned simply because of a disagreement in opinion.

It goes against everything Wikipedia stands for.

Anyway I just wrote this to invite comment on the matter from the Wikipedia community. After all, if 14 editors are out to get me banned, it's only a matter of time before it will happen. Factsontheground (talk) 03:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I have had no interaction with you on any of the articles (hence its not "personal" for me), but I have observed what has gone on...and that is what I based my support of some sort of a topic ban on. Anyhow, it is late here and I have to get some shut eye. Regards. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 04:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

So your support of a topic ban is entirely based on my contributions and nothing to do with your opinions on the Israel-Palestinian conflict? Factsontheground (talk) 04:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Your actions and behavior on the articles/talk pages, plus the way in which you have interacted with other editors (ie: your userpage rant etc) is what I am basing my support of some sort of topic ban on. Sometimes people need an extended cooling off, and I think this might be such a situation. An interaction ban will do nothing, because it doesn't address the issue as to whats causing things to get out of hand in the first place. Passionate editing can be a good thing, but sometimes it works against us, and we have to sit back and take a breather. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 04:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Why are you pretending to be a neutral party in this? You should be honest and disclose your personal relationships with involved users.

Firstly, you are friends with Gilabrand, a banned user that has constantly attacked me since I complained that they were inserting hate speech in an article I wrote ([11], [12], [13], [14])

You implicitly accused me of antisemitism for complaining about Gilabrand's personal attacks.

You are entitled to your opinion on this matter. But don't pretend that you don't have conflicts of interest here and that you are a neutral third party, because you are not. This is exactly the kind of duplicitous behaviour that is the problem here. Factsontheground (talk) 04:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for proving my point as to why I support a modified topic ban (short-term topic ban, topic ban with talk-page rights etc), or a mentoring at the very least. Your rude and accusational responses to someone who has never had any interaction with you before help to reinforce my concerns that if something is not done, you will continue to create problems not only at articles but with other editors as well. Assume Good Faith is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. I have done NOTHING to you and have said nothing to you prior to this situation. However you have passed some sort of judgment on me and declared that I have some sort of ulterior motive based upon editors I interact with. Again, thank you for so clearly proving my point and position. I am finished here and finished with this conversation. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 06:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You have interacted with me in the past. What did this comment mean, Nsaum? Factsontheground (talk) 07:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure, if I am invited to take a part in the discussion. If I do not, you could always delete it. I haven't had a "pleasure" to work on many articles with you, but what strikes me about you is an extreme dishonesty in your conduct on Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948) deletion request. For example you write: "Note that the author is reverting any attempts to fix the obvious NPOV problems and sourcing problems by removing balanced Kennedy quotes and keeping the ones uncritical of Israel and by keeping distorted summaries of Kennedy's view points without explaining himself on talk - [15], [16]." Even after I've proven to you that the first quote was found only in a fiction book, and the second is the fact mentioned in black and white by famous writer, you never bothered to remove your statement. Then of course you mentioned 2 times at the article discussion page that I am using socks, and even after SPI came out as unrelated you did not let me to collapse absolutely ungrounded PA. Even after an admin warned you about that you did not stop trying. When I crossed out trolling message at the article deletion page you posted it right back. Okay, I was uncivil towards you, I would not mind to get blocked for that. What you've done to me was a different story.In purpose you've done everything in your power to discredit me personally in order to have the article you hated so much deleted. I hope you see the difference. I will repeat one more time please: I was uncivil toward you, and deserve to be blocked. You were more than dishonest in your trying to delete the article. You deserve a topic ban. BTW I would really appreciate, if you are to take accusation in me being racist towards Palestinians off your talk page. I explained myself here, and I would like to tell you, that if all Palestinians were as "racist" toward Israelis as I am towards Palestinians , right now there would have been two states living in peace and prosperity side by side.Once again, if my comment was not helpful, please feel free to remove it.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I did not say you should be topic banned.Cptnono (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

True. You said you wanted me off the project. Factsontheground (talk) 07:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't like you and am starting to expect a topic ban sooner or later. I made it clear that I thought another chance would be fine and that bans are meant to be preventative not punitive. This section and your comments in it are exactly what people are concerned about.Cptnono (talk) 07:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't like me? That explains a lot. Well, thanks for your honesty. I appreciate it. And what exactly about this section is so concerning? I thought inviting my critics to speak to me directly would be a good thing, particularly considering how many have been using WP:ANI to complain about me. Factsontheground (talk) 07:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

(Although I really want to, I am not going to respond to Mbz1's comment above because of the interaction ban. I'm actually surprised that she ignored the ban and posted on my talk page anyway. I know that if I reply to her one of these editors demanding that I get banned will probably use it to start another ANI thread about me. It sucks being under scrutiny for everything I do but that's life.) Factsontheground (talk) 07:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice try to have me blocked for violating of interaction ban. Guess what interaction ban is not in effect just yet, so you may safely respond to my comment, and as I said earlier you may delete it too.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

(Sure, sure you won't try to block me. Breein1007 once tried to get me blocked for thanking him for his contributions. The cynicism of some is just unbelievable. Factsontheground (talk) 05:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC))

Factsontheground, Do not be afraid, You see The Lobby has dominated Arab-Israeli article for a long time, and you are one of the few who challenges their Israeli pov pushing, so this is why they are trying to collectively get rid of you. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Support for Factsontheground - having being the recent target of the disingenuous Zionist Lobby on Wikipedia, particularly by the attention seeking MBz1 and her little sidekick Stellarkid, I just wanted to voice my support. These editors who attack you have a real transparent political agenda. Don't let them get you down, just keep editing to make Wikipedia as free from political bias as you can. Vexorg (talk) 03:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment lol "disingenuous Zionist Lobby on Wikipedia" . --according to Supreme Deliciousness-- "The Lobby has dominated Arab-Israel article...." - If you are looking for political agenda, look no further than your respective mirrors. Stellarkid (talk) 04:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Support for Factsontheground - There certainly is a disingenuous Zionist Lobby on Wikipedia. If you don't believe me, take any article regarding a contentious Israel-Palestine issue than look at how many of the people contributing to the article/talk page actually are Isreali. It's a little scary. For contentious China related articles, you don't get ethnic Chinese editors trying to control the article. Same goes for pretty much every other nation but Israel. P.S. I thought Mbz was Stellarkid's sidekick? NickCT (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I mentioned you here.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban

This is to inform you that the community has made you subject to an interaction ban as described at WP:RESTRICT#Placed by the Wikipedia community, first line, as a result of this discussion.  Sandstein  13:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Well, that's a relief. Now, to get on with actually writing articles... Factsontheground (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Palestinian freedom of movement

I see you have created this article. I am doing some minor work on POV issues there, and certainly would not be taking it to AfD (I saw your edit summary), but i do not think B'Tselem would be regarded as a reliable or independent source in this context, which removes the referencing for most of the facts in the article. I'll give you an opportunity to discuss on the talk page, or find indepdnent sources for the claims made that are currently attributed to B'Tselem, before i look at trimming that material out. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't you simply alter the article so that the claims are made in B'Tselem's voice rather than simply removing them altogether?

There is no doubt that B'Tselem is an interested source, but there has been no question of B'Tselem's facts by the opposition that I'm aware. A quick search of WP:RSN has not revealed any discussions about B'Tselem.

Before you make major changes to the article. why not allow a discussion of B'Tselem on WP:RSN? I have started a discussion here.

I understand why you would be skeptical of B'Tselem but you must understand that there is a formidable opposition to its work. If there were any serious neutrality problems with its data it would be ripped apart instantly by one of the many pro-Israel "watchdog" organizations. If you read the criticism it is immediately striking how insubstantial it all is. As B'Tselem says, the organization is transparent and relies on independent field work. Factomancer (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Old account

Hi Factomancer. I'm not sure, but I don't think there's any way to combine the edit histories of two accounts. The best place to get an answer, I think, would be WP:AN (not WP:ANI). If you only want to "take credit" for the other account's accomplishments, you can simply mention the other User name on your User page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the quick reply! Factomancer (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating your community-imposed interaction ban (Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community) with Mbz1 (talk · contribs) by partially reverting content added by Mbz1 to Maimonides Synagogue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on 11:09, 29 March 2010. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.  Sandstein  05:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

See the report on my talk page. While you may in principle edit the same articles, I consider this edit to constitute a revert in particular because it was made to an article started two days earlier and mainly edited by Mbz1, it occurred shortly after the material was added by her, you had not edited the artilce prior to your interaction ban and the material had not been substantially edited by others in the interim. This does not conform to the community restriction's proviso that "This restriction by itself does not prohibit mutual participation on articles, as long as the editors stay away from each other", emphasis mine.  Sandstein  05:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Factomancer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I don't get it. I thought a revert was when you immediately undid an edit of another author, not when you removed anything from an article they created. Which exact edit by Mbz1 did I revert? So I take it that this means that Mbz1 and Gilisa cannot remove anything from articles that I have created and cannot remove any material that I contribute to an article. And honestly, I just saw Avenue editing the article on my watchlist, I didn't realize Mbz1 had created the entire article. I edited straight after Avenue, not after Mbz1. Mbz1 has also been inserting inappropriate material into an article I just created and edit warring about it, Palestinian freedom of movement:[17],[18],[19]. It seems inconsistent to block me for correctly removing unsourced material whilst not blocking Mbz1 for adding inappropriate material. If you see here, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maimonides_Synagogue&action=historysubmit&diff=352708318&oldid=352649782 you can see that the section I altered ("Restoration") was last edited by Avenue, who made extensive edits to the article: [20] If I reverted anyone, it was Avenue and not Mbz1. Anyway it seems highly inconsistent that removing unsourced data from Mbz1's article is blockable but Mbz1 adding inappropriate material to my article is not. Adding and deleting are both alterations. You could argue that adding is form of deletion since it is deleting empty space in the article.

Decline reason:

Since ArbCom has decided that they will summarily desysop anyone who undoes a block based on arbitration enforcement it's impossible for any of us normal admins to unblock you now. I suggest you email this request to WP:BASCBeeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Sorry, my mistake. Now I'm all turned around. Since the block is brief and you have stated below that maybe you need a short break anyway I'm going to leave this declined, but that in now way precludes you from posting a new unblock request. Sorry for the waffling. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

For the purpose of revert restrictions, a revert is defined as "any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part", see WP:3RR. The revert need not take place immediately after the reverted edit. Your removal of content recently added by Mbz1, therefore, constitutes a revert as prohibited by your restriction. (I would not consider an interaction ban violation, however, any removal that takes place long after the addition of the material and where the material has been significantly edited by others in the meantime.) As to the edits by Mbz1 that you refer to, I do not examine them here because your interaction ban expressly limits you to making complaints about perceived interaction ban violations by Mbz1 on the talk page of an uninvolved administrator, not elsewhere, including in unblock requests (see also WP:NOTTHEM). I leave it up to the administrator reviewing your unblock request what action, if any, they wish to take against you and/or Mbz1 with respect to that matter.  Sandstein  11:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm blocked, so I can't complain to an uninvolved admin, can I?Factomancer (talk) 11:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You could have during the about 8 hours between the perceived infringement and this block. That you can't complain now does not allow you to violate the ban's restriction with respect to complaints. At any rate I do not quite see how inserting new material (whatever its merits), as opposed to reverting you, can be considered a violation of an interaction ban.  Sandstein  11:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, you say that the Maimonides article had not been significantly edited between my input and Mbz1's but this is false - Avenue made extensive changes: [21]. I thought I was reverting Avenue, not Mbz1. Factomancer (talk) 11:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the material that you removed. That material had not been significantly edited since its insertion by Mbz1.  Sandstein  11:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That is a fairly difficult burden to put on an editor though, that would mean they would have to run wikiblame before editing any section to ensure that they weren't overlapping with edits made by the other editors, weeks or days earlier. Unomi (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The actual words may not have been altered by Avenue, but the section that the words were in was completely altered by renaming the title and splitting the section in two. This altered the context and hence meaning of those words. And Avenue did in fact add an "'s" to the material in question. Factomancer (talk) 11:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Either both me and Mbz1 should be blocked for interaction or neither of us should be.Factomancer (talk) 11:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

A random admin should pop by at some point, don't sweat it, meanwhile you can still research for your next article :) Unomi (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I will say though that I think you acted in good faith, and it is somewhat unfortunate that it is harder to get sanctioned for adding information, however coatracky it may be, than removing what one feels is unsupported.

That said, the content that you removed was in fact sourced, but the source was placed further down than you expected, it was at the end of the paragraph, the source you checked was of the particular action, further down was a source that linked them. I do believe it was a reasonable and honest mistake to make. Unomi (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Unomi, it's probably time for me to have a wikibreak anyway :). Factomancer (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Umomi above. Surely you don't mean to suggest that, before Factomancer makes any edit, she must check back through the histroy to ensure that the material she is editing was not previously edited by Mbz or Gilisa? This would be an impossible burden to place on any editor, and I really do not believe that it is what was intended by the interaction restriction. In this case, Factomancer's edit, which removed a piece of unsourced synthesis, appears entirely reasonable, and should not attract any sanction. RolandR (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Roland, I really appreciate it :). Factomancer (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

As the person who wrote the edit restriction - I understand where Sandstein is coming from, we don't want editors under such restrictions going back into edit histories and disruptively removing older contributions by editors they're not supposed to be interacting with. But I didn't intend to establish a standard that you have to identify the source of any particular text you want to edit and ensure it's not the editor you're prohibited from interacting with. It's extremely hard to meet the latter level of certainty that you're not touching that other person's edits at all.

However, in this case, the edits were less than 24 hrs old at the time of reversion, and a quick history check would have shown that.

Even if we AGF and unblock here and now, I think that you need to exercise more caution here. I do AGF - I'll leave it up to another admin to review the unblock, though. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for assuming good faith George, I appreciate it and I assure you I was acting in good faith; I saw Avenue's 4 edits in my watch list but didn't bother to check the history before editing. At the end of the day I made a single edit that lead to material in the article being correctly sourced by Avenue; I didn't edit war or talk to Mbz1 and I discussed the reasons for my changes on the talk page.

I've never been interaction banned before so this is a learning experience for me. I guess I'll have to check the history log of every article I edit to make sure Mbz1 or Gilisa have not recently added material to the article.

I don't care about being blocked for 24 hours, I'm more worried about my ever-lengthening block log and the fact that this incident will no doubt be used when certain individuals next make their attempt to ban me. Oh well, I feel pretty fatalistic about the whole thing, with the numbers against me I'm probably going to be banned eventually regardless of what I do. Best to make hay while the sun shines...Factomancer (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, although you technically did revert Mbz1 (not me), I believe your edit was made in good faith. I wish the declining admin had addressed the reasoning in your unblock request. -- Avenue (talk) 06:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how did an article Mbz created two days earlier find its way into your watchlist? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't know, but I see that the article was created a few hours after Mbz1 posted a message on Factomancer's talk page, and almost a day before the interaction ban took effect. -- Avenue (talk) 11:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

What would you say the odds are that she found it in Mbz's contribs? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ban sandbox

• Haaretz illegal checkpoints - "Israeli rights group B'Tselem said Tuesday most of the dozens of manned checkpoints and hundreds more physical roadblocks set up in the West Bank are "illegal" and constitute collective punishment."
• Haaretz illegal checkpoints -"But since then, their purpose has also become to facilitate the safe passage of settlers on roads restricted to Palestinians, B'Tselem said, calling this an "ulterior interest" that made many of the roadblocks illegal under international law."
• Haaretz illegal checkpoints -"On a total of some 312 kilometres of main roads in the West Bank, cars with Palestinian license plates are forbidden or restricted, the organization said. "
• Haaretz illegal checkpoints -"The Justice Ministry said in a reaction that the roadblocks were erected to protect Israeli citizens and that they were put in place after a 'long range of' of suicide and shooting attacks by Palestinian militants since the beginning of the Intifada in September 2000. The roadblocks have in the past years prevented hundreds of attacks 'aimed at Israel's civilian population,' said the ministry. "

• Britannica - "The extensive documentation compiled by both local and intemational human rights and humanitarian organizations over the six years of the al-Aqsa intifada depicts a general picture of the restrictive impact of checkpoints on Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT)."
• Britannica - "Checkpoints impede the travel of Palestinians from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to East Jerusalem, from Gaza to the West Bank and vice versa, and from the West Bank and Gaza to the outside world. They make it extremely difficult for Palestinians even to move from one city to another and from one village to another within the same area or region. "
• Britannica - "They make it extremely difficult for Palestinians even to move from one city to another and from one village to another within the same area or region."

• UN News Centre -

• Carter Center -

• Haaretz re Humiliation -

• BBC babies

• Hebron book -

• Economist article -

• Office for the Coordinatio of Humanitarian affairs May 2009 report - "Approximately 28% of the West Bank is designated as either closed military zones or as nature reserves." -

Palestinian freedom of movement

File:BorderPolicePalestinianWomen.jpg

Border police officers prevent Palestinian women from crossing the road in a-Ram, Ramallah District. Source: B'Tselem.

Regulation of the movement of Palestinians in the occupied territories by Israel is a major issue in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. These restrictions affect the social and economic life of Palestinians. Israel argues that the regime of restrictions is a temporary measure necessary to protect Israelis living in Israel proper and the Israeli settlements.

Israel enforces restrictions on Palestinians’ freedom of movement in the West Bank by employing a system of permanent, temporary and random manned checkpoints, unmanned physical obstructions, the West Bank Barrier and by forbidding the usage of roads by Palestinians. A 2007 World Bank report concluded that the West Bank "is experiencing severe and expanding restrictions on movement and access, high levels of unpredictability and a struggling economy."

History

Subsequent to the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel's military proclaimed the West Bank and Gaza Strip to be closed military areas. In 1972, orders were issued allowing residents of the occupied territories to leave, to enter Israel and East Jerusalem, and travel between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. However, inhabitants of the occupied territories were not permitted to be in Israel or East Jerusalem between 1.00 and 5.00 a.m.

In September 2000 the Second Intifada began in response to Ariel Sharon visiting the Al-Aqsa Mosque. This intifada triggered further Israeli closures and restrictions on Palestinian movement. In 2005, Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip were evacuated as part of Israel's unilateral disengagement plan. The Gaza Strip has been blockaded since 2007, preventing the movement of inhabitants to other parts of the Palestinian territories.

Israel's current restrictions on Palestinian movement, implemented since the beginning of the Second Intifada, are the strictest so far implemented by the state. Both the 1994 Oslo Accords and the 2003 Road Map for Peace were based on the principle that Palestinian economic and social life would be unimpeded by movement restrictions.

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs released a report in which it argues that the driving force beind the restrictions has been the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

In the 2008-2009 period Israel eased the permit requirements for Palestinians traveling to Nablus, opened two junctions to Hebron, removed a checkpoint from Tulkarm opened another road in to Ramallah which eased Palestinian traffic flow.

Legality of restrictions

The right to freedom of movement within states is recognized in article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948.

The consequences of the restrictions on the economic status Palestinian population have been so severe that Israeli peace organization B'Tselem has argued that the restrictions breach the rights guaranteed by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights -- in particular, the right to a livelihood, the right to an acceptable standard of living, the right to satisfactory nutrition, clothing, and housing, and the right to attain the best standard of physical and mental health. B'tselem has also argued that the restrictions amount to collective punishment. B'Tselem also said: "Even if all the restrictions are intended to achieve legitimate security interests, many of them would violate the principle of proportionality and therefore are illegal."

B'Tselem also argues that the restrictions on ill, wounded and pregnant Palestinians seeking acute medical care is in contravention of international law that states that medical professionals and the sick must be granted open passage.

Checkpoints

Main article: Israeli checkpoint

Checkpoints inside Palestinian territory

West Bank checkpoint tower

Most of the checkpoints are inside Palestinian territory and are used by Israel to control the internal movements of Palestinians. When checkpoints are expanded Israel often seizes nearby Palestinian land to build on.

As of 31 August 2009, the Israeli army had 60 permanent checkpoints inside the West Bank, 18 of them in the city of Hebron. 28 are regularly staffed - some around the clock, some only during the day, and some only a few hours a day. Permanent checkpoints form the most severe restriction on movement of Palestinians, who are subjected to checks that often cause prolonged delays. At some checkpoints, soldiers ban every Palestinian from going through except those who carry special permits.

The army announced in 2007 that it would lift the restrictions on Palestinians entering the Jordan Valley. However in practice, by August 2009 there were still checkpoints restricting entry into the valley and requiring special permits.

Many checkpoints only allow the passage of Palestinians who meet certain gender and age-based criteria. Figures from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), state that there has been an average of 65 random checkpoints in the West Bank each week between September 2008 and the end of March 2009.

Checkpoints between Israeli and Palestinian territory

The checkpoints between Israeli and Palestinian territory are the last control points between the West Bank and Israel. Although the Green Line is generally accepted as the border of sovereign Israeli territory, most of these checkpoints are positioned within the West Bank, often kilometers from the Green Line.

There are 39 of these checkpoints that are permanent, manned and operate 24 hours a day.

There are 63 gates in the West Bank barrier, of which half are available for Palestinian use, however Palestinians are required to have a permit to cross. The gates for Palestinians are open for a few hours each day.

IDF Misconduct

The Israel Defense Forces' Judge Advocate General, Maj. Gen. Dr. Menachem Finkelstein made a statement to the Israeli parliament (Knesset) in which he confirmed that there were in his opinion too many complaints that soldiers manning checkpoints abuse and humiliate Palestinian. THee large number of complaints "lit a red light" for the JAG.

Forbidden roads

Main article: Route 443 (Israel)

According to B'Tselem there are 312 km of road in the West Bank that is barred from use by Palestinians.

Physical obstructions

Unmanned roadblock in the West Bank

Israel has shut off access roads to main roads with a number of physical obstructions, such as dirt piles, earth walls, road blocks, concrete blocks, large stones, barriers, ditches, and metal gates. The physical obstructions are altered often, on the basis of political and security circumstances; in 2007, there were 459 obstacles placed a month. These physical obstructions are not as flexible as manned checkpoints because they cannot be removed in times of emergency. As well as preventing vehicles from travelling they also prevent pedestrians who cannot travel over or around them such as old, young, ill, wounded or pregnant civilians.

In the period from September 2008 to March 2009 – United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs field teams documented 634 physical obstacles placed by the Israelis.

Splitting of the West Bank

The Palestinian West Bank has been split into six distinct localities by Israel's restrictions - North, Center, South, the Jordan Valley, the northern Dead Sea, the enclaves created by the West Bank Barrier and East Jerusalem. Travelling between these regions is difficult and an exceptional occurrence, requiring a justification for officials, a great deal of time and sometimes substantial expense. According to a 2007 World Bank report entitled Movement and Access Restriction in the West Bank, "In the West Bank, closure is implemented through an agglomeration of policies, practices and physical impediments which have fragmented the territory into ever smaller and more disconnected cantons."

An assessment by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in 2007 found that approximately 40% of the West Bank was taken up by Israeli infrastructure. The infrastructure, consisting of settlements, the barrier, military bases and closed military areas, Israeli declared nature reserves and the roads that accompany them is off-limits or tightly controlled to Palestinians.

Closures of the West Bank

Main article: West Bank closures

File:PalestiniansSarraCheckpoint.jpg

Palestinians stuck at the Sarra checkpoint after the IDF declares a full closure. Most of those trying to cross the checkpoint are students from A-Najah University in Nablus who are trying to return home to villages in the area. Source: B'Tselem.

During closures, all travels permits issued to residents of the occupied territories are made invalid, whether they are for purposes of work, trade or medical treatment. In 2006 there were 78 closure days. In 2005 there were 132.

In 2010 Israel announced plans to close the West Bank over Passover for security reasons. The closure started on March 29 and will take place for the duration of Passover. This closure will prevent thousands of Palestinian workers from travelling to their places of work. A number of religious workers will be permitted to enter East Jerusalem over this period.

Protests have occurred at a checkpoint on the route from the Christian holy site of Bethlehem to Jerusalem. Christian Palestinians have complained that they wanted to attend church in Jerusalem to celebrate the Christian holy day of Palm Sunday but they have been prevented by the Israeli security regime. Christian protesters have been joined by Muslims and atheist Palestinians.

Such closures of the West Bank are common during Jewish religious holidays.

The West Bank Barrier

Main article: West Bank Barrier

The West Bank barrier is the single largest obstacle to Palestinian movement. The zone between the barrier and the Green Line is known as the "seam zone" which is largely closed to Palestinians. There are many olive groves in the seam zone and even though Israel opened "seasonal gates" in the barrier and issued permits to farmers, olive production has been hindered by the lack of access granted to Palestinian farmers throughout the year.

Impact on medical care

Ill and wounded Palestinians who require acute medical care are placed at risk by Israeli restrictions on movement. The residents of villages and outlying regions require permits to travel to hospitals located in central regions. Obtaining the permits is difficult, requiring medical documents testifying to the illness as well as confirmation that the hospital is the only facility where the treatment is available and the time and date of the appointment.

Even if they have a valid permit, sick Palestinians must travel on long, winding, unmaintained roads and are often delayed for long periods at checkpoints. If they require medical care at night they must wait until checkpoints open during the day. Some Palestinian communities are prevented from using their cars or ambulances so that the sick must travel to the hospitals by foot. In 2007, B'Tselem documented five cases in which ill or wounded Palestinians died after being delayed at a checkpoint.

Palestinian hospitals in the West Bank have difficulty functioning due to the delays on the arrival of doctors and staff as a result of the movement restrictions. This has prevented the development of medical expertise in the Palestinian health system as staff are prevented from acquiring in-service training and students are preventing from going to university.

Treatment of pregnant women

Obtaining medical treatment is particularly difficult for pregnant Palestinian women about to give birth, since the delivery date is largely unpredictable yet the permits given are only valid for one or two days. The women must therefore constantly renew their permits, and as a consequence mothers have often entered labor and given birth at checkpoints because they did not have up-to-date permits. In 2007, 5 such births occurred at Israeli checkpoints.

Economic Effects of Restrictions

The restrictions on movement put in place by Israel since the Second Intifada are generally accepted as a major reason for the worsening of the Palestinian economy and as a reason for the increasing unemployment and poverty among Palestinians in the West Bank.

Tens of thousands of Palestinians lost employment in Israel as a direct result of the closure of the West Bank that Israel initiated at the start of the Second Intifada. Before the closure 110,000 Palestinians were employed in Israel and the settlements, which has been much reduced depending on the number of permits that Israel decides to issue to Palestinians.

The checkpoints and restrictions with the West Bank make it difficult for Palestinians to commute to their places of employment and for goods to be transported to where they are needed. This has increased the costs of transportations and has thus led to lower profits for companies operating in the territories. The restrictions have made trade between different sections of the West Bank inefficient, costly and erratic. This has split the West Bank economy into smaller localized markets. Agriculture and tourism are two sectors that have been greatly damaged by the movement restrictions.

Palestinian importers and exporters have been particularly hard hit by the Israeli restrictions on commercial trade. Palestinian manufacturers that require the importation of raw materials have also faced hardship, and the Palestinian economy is highly dependent on foreign trade.

Gaza Blockade

Main article: Gaza Blockade

The blockade of Gaza has harmed the Gaza economy and significantly impaired Palestinian trade between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Freedom of Movement of Israeli citizens

Israeli citizens including settlers, are allowed unrestricted freedom of movement in the West Bank and along all main West Bank roads which connect Israeli settlements to each other and to Israel proper. Israeli citizens are only restricted from travelling through regions controlled by the Palestinian Authority. These regions amount to only 18% of the West Bank.

Opinions on the Israeli restriction of Palestinian movement

Criticism

Professor David Kretzmer, who teaches constitutional law and international law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and at the Ramat Gan Law School heavily criticized the closure of Route 443 to Palestinians in Haaretz.

See also

• Freedom of Movement
• Israeli settlements
• Israel-Palestinian conflict

References

[[Category:Israeli-occupied territories]] [[Category:Israeli settlements]] [[Category:Human rights in Israel]] [[Category:Territorial disputes of Israel]] [[Category:Israeli–Palestinian conflict]]

File copyright problem with File:Dsp boulders blocking Palestinian road.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Dsp boulders blocking Palestinian road.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 04:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:BorderPolicePalestinianWomen.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:BorderPolicePalestinianWomen.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 04:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)