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)

Wikipedia is openly racist against Palestinians

As a Palestinian editor I have had to put up with constant abuse, incivility and personal attacks from Israeli editors who wish to eliminate any criticism of their nation from Wikipedia by harassing Palestinians until they leave.

The ringleader of this abuse has been Mbz1. She started attacking me after I complained about her friend Gilabrand inserting anti-Arab hate material from the Masada 2000 website into Wikipedia.

The ANI thread shows how little the Wikipedia community cares about anti-Palestinian racism. For having the temerity to complain about being treated like a subhuman I was "trout slapped" by an administrator.

Since then I have been repeatedly, constantly attacked and Wikihounded by Israeli editors and treated with utter incivility. When I complain about the personal attacks to administrators they treat me with contempt and refuse to do anything about it, despite the policies that firmly state that nobody in Wikipedia has to put up with personal attacks.

And now I have been blocked from Wikipedia for honestly telling another editor that I can't understand him.

I am told that "Get over yourself" isn't a personal attack, but "Sorry I can't understand you" is. This is despite the fact that other people have had trouble understanding Gilisa.

Yet another lie. Yet more double standards. Yet more anti-Palestinian hate.

Here is just some of the incivility and abuse I have had to put up with:

Breen1007

• [9] - "Get out of my talk page and stay out"

• [10] - "Get over yourslf"

Gilisa

• [11] - "You discuss it with yourself"

• [12] - "I do not accept your editing anyway"

• [13] - "Oh, and don't falsify what others write"

JzG

• [14] - Unsupported accusation of canvassing

Mbz1

• "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

• [15] - Reverts my signature for no reason

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

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

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

• [19]. Called me "lies on the ground".

Nothing happens to any of these people who abuse me constantly. But when I treat them like they treat me I am blocked!

Wikipedia is like some kind of caste-based system where the chosen people get to treat the rest of us like shit, and are protected by the hypocritical admins at every turn.

• 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 [20].

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 - [21]

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 ([22], [23], [24], [25])

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 - [26], [27]." 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)

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)