Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Workshop

5538:

the ceremony the 'honouring of assassins' and said it conflicted with Israeli complaints of Palestinian terrorism." And in the body of the text, Hadawi quotes Winston Churchill saying in the House of Commons on 17 November 1944: "If our dreams for Zionism are to end in the smoke of assassins' pistols and our labours for its future are to produce a new set of gangsters worthy of Nazi Germany, many like myself will have to reconsider the position we have maintained so consistently and so long in the past. If there is to be any hope of a peaceful and successful future for Zionism, these wicked activities must cease; and those responsible for them must be destroyed, root and branch." PR's language seems quite restrained in comparison. --

1836:

seen resolved, but the arbitrators went only so far as they felt they needed to go. Sometimes that leaves what someone may think is a "cloud" over them or someone else, but that is just the way the system works. Right now, for example, there is an arb case pending that (at last count) has 62 proposed principles and 31 proposed remedies, and based on the discussion I have a strong feeling that a substantial number of the issues raised are not going to be answered by the committee one way or the other. I also have no doubt that to at least some people, "clouds" and "chilling effects" will remain when

1447:" - which happens to be a Forum now shut down, becuase it contained "links to nudity, sex, pornography, illegal activities, unauthorized use or distribution of copyrighted material(s) (including 'warez' boards), mail fraud and pyramid schemes, hatred and racism of any kind, guns or firearms, or any other material that may be deemed libelous or offensive to another individual or organization.". A little further snooping in internet archives will show you the kind of offensive material that Forum 145962 used to contain and got it shut down - screeds against "Jew york", 'Jewish theivs" etc.. 475:. It's quite reasonable that something that looks like it was drawing upon utterly unreliable (and downright nasty) sources raises eyebrows; and when poor attribution is provided, it's perhaps a little too easy to fail to assume good faith. What would you consider a satisfactory resolution of this arbitration? Nobody is going to be penalized; nobody is going to be chastised; it's already established that attribution to secondary sources needs to be explicit. You made an attribution error; someone got overly bothered by it; people talked; it got fixed. What more can be done? -- 276:

considering the growing consensus surrounding the idea that the latest block proposed by Jayjg was misplaced, the restrictions on PR shouldn't be that heavily enforced, particularly when all he did was post about his case. I should mention I feel partially responsible having gone ahead and posted evidence before clearing it with Mark Chovain. PR asked me to consider removing it and I told him I would wait for Mark Chovain's advice. Anyway, the point is that that statement of mine there is little "overzealous" in itself. My apologies (and rather lengthy explanation) :)

748:

parties could agree on an equitable solution (PR to admit error in miscitation, Jay to admit an erroneous accusation and withdraw it) so that this arbitration can be discontinued. However, discontinuing without an agreement would leave the issues outstanding and would do nothing to encourage either PR or Jay to work more constructively with each other in future. The likelihood of an arbitration finding fault on both sides should encourage them to find a mutually acceptable solution rather than finding themselves being censured for their actions. --

4107:

business, not that of Arbcom. Many editors begin by editing almost obsessively in a particular area, and then spiral outward from there. Maybe he will, maybe he won't, but it's beside the point. The only reason the SPA issue even came into the discussion is because several editors in the CS-discussion were under the erroneous impression that editing as an SPA was a bannable offense, whereas in fact it's specifically allowed. The SPA issue is relevant only insofar as it points to yet another way in which PR has been singled out.--

5064:, and that around 25 editors, including the two admins who actually blocked PR, then supported Jay without trying to verify his assertions. As an ex-arbitrator, Jay of all people should know the importance of basing administrative decisions on firm evidence. We should all know this. Too many of us failed in our responsibilities as admins in this incident. This isn't a matter of pillorying Jay; but we do need to acknowledge that this needless controversy is essentially the result of very poor judgment all round. -- 1479:, so your theory (or "hypothesis," or whatever the latest word you're dishonoring) that PR "quickly searched for alternate sources" is ridiculous. You are imagining that he darted to the library and raced to the Israel-Palestine section, and began yanking books off the shelf and looking for references to Lord Moyne. This is your "hypothesis" which hasn't been "disproved." Your sophistry has the sole purpose of keeping the ghost of a smear alive on life support; it is intellectually and ethically disgraceful.-- 1012:." Jay dismissed this at 20:28, insisting that "the charges were accompanied by evidence, and they appear to be as true as ever"; he posted again at 20:46 to reiterate his certainty. Zero0000 posted on the CN at 12:23 on 14 May that he had been able to establish PR's source definitively. However, Jay has not made any public comment on this matter since 14 May. While I don't think anyone here is defending PR's past record (I'm certainly not), getting rid of a bad editor using a baseless accusation is 1375:, which he provided almost immediately after he was informed of the controversy. The accuracy of his page citation has been independently verified; PR's source predates Jay's source by six years; it is not mentioned by Jay's source, and it is not available online (ruling out the "quickly-searched-for-alternate-sources" theory, which frankly smacks of desperation). In short, there is no link between the two. You may if you wish continue to imagine that in addition to finding his material in 3657:

provenance of my sources I'd have provided full detail, as I did very promptly when, without warning, I was faced with a perma-block for alleged citation to Holocaust Deniers. Only 2 of my "pieces of information" are currently in the article, but one of those pieces is the very one that I was challenged over. As I said, they're all well known and uncontentious. When all this is over, I look forwards to adding the rest of the material to the article, where I believe all of it belongs.

4641:, and if he'd posted on his user page that Knowledge (XXG) is dominated by Muslims; that Muslims have vast resources that they use to harass other editors, including calling their neighbors; and who was sending out e-mails to all and sundry claiming the Muslims are out to get him. And who, in addition, frequently added his own opinions to articles, to the point where almost everyone, friend and foe, was asking him to stop treating Knowledge (XXG) as his own blog; and who then, 1229:

material"?) The allegations haven't been withdrawn. If Jay stands by his charge we can't dismiss the case summarily. I've asked him to clarify his position, and I hope he takes this opportunity to withdraw the charge - I note that PR has already acknowledged his errors in the evidence page. If Jay does agree to withdraw, I'd be in favour of closing the case as well. Hopefully both parties will then reflect on this episode and learn the appropriate lessons. --

6169:(response to Ryan, for the avoidance of doubt) PR is pseudo-block/banned currently. (Ie, not in the software but in the community's expectations of his actions.) In some form or another that pseudo-block needs to be addressed. Whether FM is mentioned in that addressing is an open question, but it needs to be either lifted or made definitive for some time period. That is what I meant by "the block/ban needs to be addressed". 2449:

page to be deleted for BLP concerns), and link to it in the indefinite block summary or a contemporary note on the subjects talk page, so that the evidence will be available later for other admins to review or to reference in a request for checkuser. Admins leave Knowledge (XXG) for various reasons, and leaving the justification for their actions behind is worthwhile. However, I don't know if this is a needed finding.

2723:, a "Single Purpose Account" in order to make edits which may be partisan (or consistently unpopular for any reason). But I don't see that policy does (or ever could) allow anyone to be similarily partisan while setting policy, or while sitting in judgment. This may be the crux of the problem that the ArbCom needs to look at - when can members of the project act as if they're prejudiced and when can they not? 5423:) that he hadn't even seen; then (b) wrongly attributed the term "terrorist assassins" to the book he says he did use as a source, but which doesn't use either of the terms "terrorist" or "assassins"; and in addition (c) seems to have partially quoted the Holocaust denial site that he says he didn't look at, which is the only source that does use the term "assassins." 5548:

you yourself have seen. He didn't do any of that, so it's not surprising that people got confused. The reason the benefit of the doubt wasn't extended to him is that he'd engaged in previous poor editing, lots of personal attacks, and hasn't made many edits, so he wasn't an editor in good standing. I think he needs to accept some responsibility for what happened.

1453:- not too far a cry from what Jay was claiming. Does this prove Jay was correct? of course not. But It does put your false claim that PR's source 'is not available online (ruling out the "quickly-searched-for-alternate-sources" theory', and illustrates rather nicley why current paucity of evidence is not the same as proving the theory false. 2928:, and gives the definition of a community ban - which is when no administrator is willing to unblock - this gives it a similar meaning, but not the same one as quoted in policy. Community bans can be enacted before dispute resolution as well. In the case of abusive sockpuppets - they are still banned but we don't send them through an RfC. 3184:) because they may really believe that adding the content is useful or important to Knowledge (XXG), but don't have or are too lazy to find sources. For example they might be pushing a POV, say, or they insist on adding a true-but-unsourced negative comment to a BLP. There are many such cases where it's not vandalism but a breach of 1055:

diffs, they didn't really justify his harsh treatment. All the hazy allegations in the air should be either conclusively proven or summarily withdrawn. Otherwise, they will continue to color people's perceptions of him, will affect his ability to freely edit, and will probably be used as vague justification for yet another block.

990:

legit source. Jay would then likely have posted to that effect on AN/I and withdrawn his concerns, and that would have been the end of it. Instead, a bunch of people (including the usual suspects) jumped on the chance to kick Jay to the curb, and started the pompous footstomping about how outrageous it is to block an account

1379:, PR also found it on a Holocaust denial website. You may also imagine, if you like, that PR is this very moment wearing a green velvet tuxedo and is bouncing on a trampoline on the lawn in front of his parents' house. Both propositions are possible, and you have as much evidence for one as you do for the other.-- 6114:... whereas an RfC on your ally is called an "attack page." The second sentence of your generally hypocritical and posturing post is especially remarkable, given that you have alternately called for PR to be blocked, banned, Checkuser'ed, and now RfC'd – based on what? One speedily admitted violation of 6014:

Exactly. People like yourself are determined that an attack page on Jay should exist; whether you call it an RfC or an ArbCom case is irrelevant to you. All Jay did was ask for input on AN/I. If he made an error over the source, it was an understandable one given PR's misuse of the source material as

5551:

What puzzles me most is why he didn't simply start another account when he was blocked. With only 206 edits to articles, many of them troublesome, he wouldn't lose anything by simply ditching that account and starting afresh; in fact it would be to his benefit. Instead, we have this pointless circus.

5547:

Roland, my point was that PR didn't say where he took his material from, then didn't stick closely to the book he says he used as a source. If you want to call people "terrorist assassins," you have to say something like: "X condemned what he called the 'terrorist assassins," and then cite the source

4849:

and point to what I've posted - but they can no longer pretend to be an individual who just happened to realise it was me." Please take seriously how off the wall this is. Add to it that he's made only 200 edits to articles. This is a big fuss over an editor with a very low signal-to-noise ratio, who

3692:

4) In proposing a community ban of PalestineRemembered, Jayjg asserted that PalestineRemembered had obtained the disputed quotation from a Holocaust denial website. In his defence, PalestineRemembered asserted that he had obtained the quotation from a mainstream work of scholarship published in 1989.

2883:

the community's patience". Community bans should follow after other attempts to resolve the situation through dispute resolution, warning or short term blocks. These attempts should have been recent, and related to the current situation. Exceptions to this should be made only when it would be clearly

2825:

Thanks for linking to that, appreciate it. None the less, I'm having a hard time understanding that. What I'm interpreting is that "if most of the community agrees with it, it's ok, and that the dissenting parties have to go with it", which sounds to me like another way of saying "lets vote on it".

1816:

at the end of his CSN comment. He only apologized after a long long time. He hasn't even taken time to explain to us his long long blocks of PR though he edits the same articles as him. While PR was blocked from editing articles, Jay was doing just that, editing! And now he apologizes. These are good

1426:

Since you are apparently just begging for a quick intro to logic, as well as for a lesson about conflating "lack of evidence" with "proof", here's a little story: Contrary to what you wrote, the nearly exact text of what PR inserted into the article as a quote attributed to the Auckland paper, to wit

961:

a while back and you're right, I do "feel that contributed to a poor atmosphere" by doing so. The atmosphere on articles about Arab-Israeli issues isn't just poor, it's thoroughly venomous. This debacle is a direct result of that - essentially, it's Jay lashing out at an editor who annoyed him. From

912:

Kendrick, you want to "go forward" so you can use this case as a platform to attack Jay. I had little or nothing to do with PR, but my recollection is that he added his own opinions to articles, and constantly abused other editors. Even you told him he was out of order, Kendrick, and you've supported

703:

Admitidely, PR is still technically blocked (only able to edit ArbCom pages) - but this can be rectified, as soon as it closes he can be free to edit how he wants, and participate in his RfC if people really want to take it further. There's now no consensus to ban/block him, so let's get on with more

224:

Agreed. Tying his hands when the initial proposal for this latest block has been proven to have been based on false information and further, even if true, would have constituted only the violation of guideline is no reason to continue to prevent him from making edits. Further, the stigma of the block

5978:

Agree with Ryan. If a block is overruled, it's overruled. I see no evidence that FeloniousMonk has a history of jumping the gun and dishing out indefinite blocks. Such a ruling, made against an administrator who took a good faith administrative action based on information available at the time would

5946:

I'm sorry but I have to disagree, if Felonious Monk went around prematurely blocking users all the time, I could understand ArbCom ruling on it, but as far as I'm aware, this hasn't happened yet. I think all that's needed here is for someone to have a polite word with Felonious and tell him that the

5790:

effect on the community, but it's certainly not the communities fault; it's just human nature. It's not even Jayjg's fault for playing the pipes -- that's human nature too. But in the serious situation of soliciting the community to permanently ban an editor, the onus is on the piper to make sure he

5569:

You thought this because you still, at this late stage, haven't looked at PR's source and in fact only became aware of it a couple of hours ago, and over a week after he provided it. Now that Roland calls you on it, you say your point was only that "PR didn't say where he took his material from."

2976:

8) While the article content guidelines and policies are fundamental to Knowledge (XXG), blocks should not be placed for failing to meet the article content standards. Problems with an article should be corrected with consensus editing, using the dispute resolution process if required. Blocks should

2715:

I can see and accept the reasoning of the arbitrators in the Z/Z case - admins have to be trusted. An over-reliance on "process" is going to hamper good administration. But nobody can deny there were big problems in this PR case. There was rampant partisanship in the attempt to block me eg we've had

2606:

Indeed. There's no evidence of sockpuppetry that I'm aware of, and I've not seen any evidence that PR has been attempting to "confuse or deceive editors". Absent such abuse, the use of SPAs is entirely legitimate. I should emphasize that "single purpose account" is not synonymous with "sockpuppet".

2448:

Necessary for basic fair process. The default reaction to a proposal that doesn't include well-documented evidence should be to laugh it off the CSN page. Any anyone enacting a ban should be responsible to make sure there is a collection of such evidence somewhere (even if that somewhere is a temp

2402:

I suspect the casework for this is thin, if only because this business at WP:CN is such a new development. There's really no agreed policy for such a thing, whatever certain partisans have argued. Quickpolls, as I recall, never claimed to "ban" anybody. The whole idea behind a community ban was that

1887:

by more personal attack. I don't know how this case might have turned out (I might be declared temprementally unsuitable to be an editor). But the case stalled because of the nastiness of the debate - the very thing it was called to deal with. I don't think it's unreasonable to want exoneration from

1860:

I am deeply unhappy. I don't know the way forwards, but it cannot be satisfactory that this kind of thing can happen and the system not be able to cope with it. It's not as if lessons have been learnt - yesterday I noticed another case of blatant ethnic/religious bias ruining an article and imposing

1850:

This looks like a dead case to me. PR has been told he is fully unblocked, nobody else seems interested enough to say that there is still a dispute about the facts of this case. (There is of course, the never ending dispute between the pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian factions among Knowledge (XXG)

1324:

of course there is. A competing hypothesis is that PR got the quote exactly where jay claims he did, but once he became aware of the fuax pas, he quickly searched for alternate sources (or has some alternate sources conveniently provided to him by his supporters) and once he found a more respectable

1130:

No evidence has been submitted to the case file yet that he has in recent months been "disruptive." This is the kind of statement that either should not be made, or should be profusely backed up with evidence, and is exactly what I was referring to above. PR has said that this case is about clearing

194:

Proposed. firstly, there's serious doubts as to whether he should have been blocked in the first place, secondally, he's currently only able to edit ArbCom pages, thirdly, due to the current backlog, this is likely to take a while which isn't fair to PalestineRemembered as it's more than likely this

6178:

It's on AN/I now regarding it being lifted (I see you've commented on it), whether Felonious Monk lifts it or any other admin, it's just going to be a matter of going to PR's talk page and saying "PR, your block has been fully lifted, your free to adit anywhere you wish." - From what I can remember

5239:

to take your word for it, I suspect you might be guessing. As I keep on saying - he is not permitted to edit articles other than his RfArb and his talk page. Are you arguing semantics, or do you genuinely believe there are no restrictions on PR's right to edit? If you believe he is free to edit,

5174:

It is not trivial, it is a violation of WP guidelines, and this is evidenced by the fact that one of the proposed remedies is to admonish him for it. I am not arguing that this is a violation worthy of an indefinite block (in and of itself), I am arguing against your hyperbolic "no evidence against

4521:

I only post in on just one topic because I prefer to give away nothing about my real identity. As a precaution it's useless, the Zionists have vast resources available to track down and harrass people like me. They can again ring prominent people in my neighbourhood and point to what I've posted -

4106:

The SPA issue is a red herring. There are numerous SPAs on Israel-Palestine pages. Some have been at it for years and have even risen to the level of admins. PR has only been editing for a few months, and we really don't know what sort of range of interests he may or may not develop. That's his

3091:

when it says blocks are to protect the wiki, not punish transgression. Persistent creation of speedy deleted material is disruptive behaviour, not a content issue. Putting potentially libellous material in a living biography is a threat to the wiki. Neither of those are rooted in the content issue,

3028:

No, blocks can be issued as a protective measure if users are consistently failing to meet the article content guidlines, we block persistant creators of new pages against our guidlines, we block users for not citing cources in living biolgraphies - there's a lot of things users can get blocked for

2711:

My intention in proposing this was genuine. I lifted it from the Zero/Zeq proposals. However, what had been passing 4-0 was eventually defeated 4-4, with ().I would suggest that there is a problem that still needs to be recognized, but in a different way: In articles covering dispute X vs Y, where

1835:

Support closure. There is nothing remaining to arbitrate. As for leaving some "issues" unresolved, virtually all of the WP arbitration cases that I have read, have left something that someone thought was an issue, unresolved. In some cases there were issues that I myself would have liked to have

1346:

I think Zero showed that the wording of the edit made it more likely that it had come from the book than from the Holocaust denial site. The point is that PalestineRemembered has edited in such a way that his taking material from a Holocaust denial site is not beyond the bounds of real possibility,

1054:

If this case doesn't go forward, then I'm sure soon enough there'll be more "PR at it yet again" threads on the noticeboard, or else this'll end up here at arbcom again in some other form. It is strange to me that he's been blocked so many times before, and when I looked at the supposed justifying

5537:

describe Hakim and Beit-Zouri as "terrorists" and "assassins". The very footnote that Zero quotes continues overleaf, on page 60: "In London, the British government expressed its regret that Israel saw fit to honour a terrorist act in its public ceremonies. Two British members of Parliament called

4218:

Agreed. His past behavior is really of no bearing here, particularly since no evidence has been put forward by his accusors. Further, I don't understand why he is still being blocked, basically for no justifiable reason right now, and why unblocking is being used as a bargaining chip to get him to

3965:

I don't believe there is any subtext here. The proposed finding is only that his account is used for editing a narrow range of contentious articles; nothing more. If anyone wants to claim that PR is a sockpuppet, then that will need to be done separately, and would require a completely different

3286:

is an important part of the project. It is particularily important between editors when they are discussing accusations that have been made, evidence taken, decisions handed down and sanctions imposed. Participants will wish to be non-personal, and will wish to treat evidence in a constructive and

3139:

No, you misunderstand. Let me give an example. I monitor a certain slang list where it was decided to employ strict sourcing criteria for inclusion of new items. Certain editors were upset that they couldn't add their favorite neologism, so would they began to make up false citations to re-add the

2545:

Using sock puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors can't detect patterns in your contributions. While it may be legitimate to do this from time to time (for example, by creating a special account to make edits that might serve to identify you in real life or to

1700:

I'll support whatever PR wishes to do at this point. I well understand his wish to clear his name, as well as his fear that closing arbitration may land him right back where he started – to wit: an editor who may be slandered with neither initial evidence nor subsequent apology; an editor to whom

1569:

bulletin board quotes when in fact he already owns the Hadawi book that has the exact form of the quotations he used. If, however, you really believe this is possible, then you should add this as evidence. If it is not submitted as evidence, then it is irresponsible to continue this atmosphere of

1285:

I've read Zero's explanation of where PR's information could have come from, and in the interests of concluding this dispute, I'm happy to accept his evidence, and I apologize to PalestineRemembered for not asking him directly where he really got his material from before soliciting advice on AN/I.

803:

PR messed up with some citing, Jay messed up and thought he was adding false sources into an article and lost patience and took it to AN/I, it went to CN, PR got blocked, there's no consensus for the block to go ahead now, so lets close, move on and allow everyone to get on with their lives and PR

733:

I support this proposal. An admin posted a request for input on AN/I and that input was given. Halfway through the process, someone prematurely filed this RfAr. If there are still issues to be resolved, we should use the dispute resolution process, although I can't even see what those issues would

602:

as most everyone agrees you should be. I am sorry that this happened to you, and I am sorry that, based only upon the information that was presented to me, I recommended your ban before turning around and questioning it on WP:CSN. If anyone gives you trouble related to that mistaken charge, let me

4789:

and, you are correct, I didn't comment one way or the other. But Daniel was given a lot of chances, and an RfC, and didn't change, and there were recent edits to support this. PR has been banned, then banned for complaining about being banned, then banned again, then put up for banning for having

4247:

Disagree with the finding as written. I think the evidence shows progress towards reform, combined with continued imperfection. The diffs offered to support the third and the ban proposal are far less numerous than those offered to support the second, and the claim for the first was that nearly

3521:

I agree with this. By my count, there were 28 for a ban, 17 against, and three unclear. And this was a very dubious result, because the initial charge (of copying from a holocaust denial website) was totally unfounded and false. I don't see how this can be interpreted as community support for an

2232:

been a vote. The key point is that the user "has been indefinitely blocked by an administrator — and no one is willing to unblock them". In this particular case, no ban was in force - Jayjg was soliciting a ban, not implementing one. Strictly speaking, the discussion was a misuse of the community

1761:

to this motion, but not for the reasons stated by others. I think the ArbCom should take the opportunity to look at how CSN operates and consider whether to impose limitations on what it can do. This is nothing to do with PR or Jayjg except that those two were players in an opera that shows how

1238:

It looks like the constant back-and-forths between administrators in good standing, as well as the desire of one of the involved parties to continue, are further reinforcement of the reasons the arbitrators took on this case. I am disappointed that quarrels of this sort are occurring on the very

989:

I think if you and I are going to argue, we should take it elsewhere. But to reply, I believe in being responsible and using common sense. What a responsible admin would have done in this case is quietly e-mail Jay and point out to him that there was evidence that PR had taken the material from a

5464:

Understandable had it been presented as tentative speculation, yes. Presented as a positive conclusion, and unretracted for eight full days in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it's understandable only as either a) a gross but anomalous lapse in administrative judgment, or b) a

4420:"In London, the British Government expressed its regret that Israel saw fit to honor a terrorist act in its public ceremonies. ........ Labor MP David Watkins said "it was sad that 'cold-blooded murderers' should be represented as heroes." MP John Stokes said: "It makes the British people sick."" 1616:

The above is not a claim that both hypotheses are equivalent, but rather an illustration of why saying one hypotheses is more plausible than another is a far cry from proving the other hypotheses false. Do you understand the difference? You are not doing your client any favors by prolonging this

1390:

you are confusing "lack of supportive evidence" with "proven false". The two are not the same, as a basic introductory logic course will teach you. As I wrote, I don't know if the competing hypothesis is true, and I don't know if the other one is true, either. One may be more plausible than the

971:

Chris, I'm equally sick of your snide remarks and your certainty that you're the only neutral editor on these articles. You're far from neutral, and you contribute substantially to the poisonous atmosphere, and in fact often initiate it. If you want to avoid poison, you could make a start by not

5907:

No, the ban was enforced early on in the discussion, when there was little opposition for it so although Felonious may have been a little quick, it doesn't deserve him being admonished. Come on guys - ArbCom don't tend to rule on one balls up, there should be a continous pattern of behaviour if

5785:

The fact of the matter is, Jayjg is a very highly respected member of the wikipedia community, so when he says "jump" most wikipedians, e.g. FeloniousMonk, respond "how high?" Even I initially took his claim at face value, and was upset at myself for ever giving PalestineRemembered any friendly

5085:

repeating his claims as gospel. Rather than giving PR a chance to provide his referenced, he went in with all guns blazing to try and get an editor with whom he frequently disagrees with banned. This looks far too much like an attempt to silence a competing view-point to just let it go. It's

1705:

does not apply; an editor who is subject to personal attacks, either of the nastily direct or cattily indirect variety; and – apparently – an editor subject to Checkuser investigation without probable cause or indeed any cause at all. I am as eager as ChrisO and Proabivouac are to see this end

747:

Oppose. The RfAr was appropriate and correctly timed; the discussion had become a straightforward partisan brawl. There are clearly still issues to be resolved, in particular the strong evidence that the initial banning proposal was based on a mistaken assumption. It would be preferable if both

673:

Proposed. Seriously, this is a complete waste of time, we can handle this - someone file an RfC if they really want something doing here, but I fail to see the point of this carrying on. No-ones going to get banned, no-ones going to get admonished and it seems highly likely that the arbitration

175:

Needless to say, there are dozens of other edits I would have been making if it were not for this situation. I'm confident that many of these edits would turn out to be "good", acceptable and even valuable. I believe I need the ArbCom to clear my name before it can be claimed that I am "free to

30:

This is a page for working on arbitration decisions. The arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same

5993:

I agree that an RfC on PR is the best way forward. He's engaged in some very poor editing and lots of personal attacks, a combination that has attracted blocks. It's premature to ask the ArbCom to deal with it before either going forward with a community ban, which has been rejected, or trying

5511:

He doesn't wrongly attribute the "terrorist assassin" thing, rather uses the words "terrorist assassins" to characterise the assassins, he would be attributing it if he included it in quotation marks. He may well have got the words 'terrorist' or 'assassin' from the preceding sentence in the

4821:

Clearly, PR was rather upset by his first block, wherein Jay collects several of PR's diffs, posted them for the community, and within 18 minute got him banned for a whole month, with subsequent votes of support by a number of pro-Israel editors. I wouldn't describe that as "Zionists" ringing

2855:

No, weight of opinion is dependant on the arguments made. If there's a significant number of holdouts who are making competent arguments for their position, it's not consensus. On the other hand, if there's a number of people just 'voting' against or for something, those can be ignored as not

1325:

source, claimed that is the original source. I don't know if this is the case any more than i know if the former hypothesis is true - but let's not pretend that jaygj's original hypothesis has somehow been proven false by the emergence of an equally credible or even more credible hypothesis.

5708:

There are many diffs in the evidence proffered for the second block proposal relating to discussion of Zionists that are problematic, but not clearly and explicitly targeted at any specific contributors. As such they are more of a grey area, but PR has previously acknowledged that they were

5704:

Looking through the evidence proffered and linked to for the second block proposal (also available via the same section of the evidence page) there are some diffs that appear to be violations of that standard targeted at specific editors, and at least one was certainly considered such by its

4149:

I'd like to see this broken into two separate points. The claim of "a history of contentious editing" is subjective, should be quantified, and needs substantial evidence. The claim of three blocks is objective. While these are clearly related, the points are likely to be discussed in very

275:

I should correct my statements above. Phaedriel was within the letter of things to effect the block she did. I'm just quite shocked by the revelations around PR's block history. I hadn't been following his case before. I know admins cannot look into every detail before making a decision, but

171:

and the rubbishing of my (well known and basically non-contentious) addition. This is the same article as I was challenged over before, so we now have 3 fairly straightforward edits just in this one place which are being blocked on grounds that are either specious or cannot be discussed in a

5356:

of Auckland, New Zealand of July 2, 1975, 'the bodies of Eliahu Hakim and Eliahu Beit-Zouri, executed for the 1944 slaying of Lord Moyne,' were exchanged for "20 Arab prisoners." The bodies on being taken over, 'lay in Jerusalem's Hall of Heroism and were then given a military burial on Mt.

3656:

I was attempting to add 4 seperate pieces of information to this article, all relatively uncontentious and well accepted. My attempts to improve this article met a wall of resistance, none of it based on potential unreliability in my material. If I'd been challenged in any fashion as to the

2716:

an enormous amount of bluster and horrendous accusations against me and others - but still no scrap of evidence (or argument) that I was really acting in a disruptive fashion. I was striving to make unpopular edits - but they were all based on "information", and much of it was provably good.

612:

Precisely what probivouac stated there, but I might add that you are unblocked, you've got no restrictions on your edits and the only person who seems bothered about your ability to edit is yourself. Your continuing to make a big deal out of this when you should be getting on with something

1228:

The key question is this: does Jay still stand by his original charge that PR "copied his views and references from the Holocaust denial group the Institute for Historical Review"? (And since she's here, can I ask SlimVirgin if she still stands by her charge that PR made "fraudulent use of

1118:

no other involved editors; all that happened here is that an admin posted his suspicions and other admins responded. There's no question that PR has been disruptive — the suspicion he was lifting material from a Holocaust denial website was simply the last straw. The community judged him

3869:

Well, as has already been pointed out, there's the not-insignificant issue of the outstanding allegation against PR. Is he guilty of plagiarising a Holocaust denial website and passing this off or isn't he? Do you still stand by your support of this claim? More importantly, does Jay? --

4005:

That's exactly the point I'm working towards. The fact he is a single purpose account was used as an argument for banning in the CSN discussion by a number of editors. No evidence has ever been presented that he is making any attempt to deceive other editors. The point is that this

1643:

It's worth bearing in mind that, wherever PR took the material from, he added his usual spin to it. The Holocaust denial site calls the two subjects of the edit "assassins." The book PR says he used names but doesn't describe them. But PR calls them "terrorist assassins" in his edit.

4721:

No, it doesn't answer the question, because I wasn't asking about Isarig, but about a hypothetical pro-Israel editor who had gone around posting paranoid abuse about how Muslim editors controlled Knowledge (XXG) and were out to get him, including having telephoned his neighbors.

1553:

May I ask that you add this as a statement on the evidence page. Also, there should be a statement on the evidence page that includes all the refutations that have been given for why PR did not copy from the Holocaust denial site. They have not been collected into one place yet.

225:

is being compounded by overzealous admins who recently just fully blocked him again (even from participating in arbcomm) for an alleged violation of the conditions of this latest block which restrict him to discussing his case on a limited number of pages. This has got to stop.

2141:

1) Community bans are enacted where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she has been indefinitely blocked by an administrator—and no one is willing to unblock them. If there is not a strong consensus for a ban, then it should not be enforced.

1817:

news but where has he been all these days? People disagree w/ Jayjg when he's wrong and you don't need to tell those people what to do! Please ask Jayjg on my behalf to justify his long blocks. Keep in mind that i am for closing this ArbCom case but with all dignity to PR. --

770:

The claim was not "potentially libelous," so let's not up the ante. Imagine the chaos if we were to start an ArbCom case every time something factually incorrect was said about another person; Chris, you've said things about me that are false, so I could bring a case against

5141:

That's trivial - If I look through your edit history, will I find absolutely no instances where you forgot to cite? Since when is it a blockable offence? He supplied the reference a couple of hours after it was requested. He's being accused of much worse things here than

5017:

Proposed. Jay's inexplicable carelessness in initiating this controversy on the basis of an unverified assumption needs to be acknowledged. We need to make it clear as a matter of policy that bans must be imposed on the basis of hard evidence, not unverified assumptions. --

1151:

of the community (not including you) was that Jay had made an erroneous charge. It wasn't a matter of being "insufficiently disruptive", it was a matter of there literally being no basis to the charge. Really, it doesn't do you any credit to misrepresent things this way. --

1895:

PS - I am working on drafts for several new articles, one in particular (if I get there before someone else does). It won't be perfect by any means as it falls from my fingers. But it could become a good article - if the system is allowed to work as it was designed to do.

2686:

Outside comment: Agreed. Would be more likely to have less admin abuse, thus less RfC's, RfArb's, AN/I is less cluttered, less complaining, you get the idea. Brining in another admin may cause problems, but it's adding in a third party, which hopefully will be neutral.

2329:"...... heir absurd accusation is that I should have cited these quotes not to their original source but rather to the secondary source in which they erroneously claim I first came across them. No one but anti-Israel zealots takes these biased charges seriously ......" 5892:

A natural consequence of 4.1.1 Community bans and 4.2.1 The Community ban discussion failed to reach a consensus, and should only be adopted if those are both adopted. If they are not adopted, some other wording addressing this block/ban will be appropriate instead.

4425:

However, all this information is well known and completely uncontentious. There is no obvious reason for it to be resisted and reverted from articles in the encyclopaedia. (In fact, others have made sure it is in the article now, though I'd very much like to Wikify it

920:

There's no sense in misusing the dispute resolution in this way to discuss a lack of consensus to block an editor, just so that certain others can get their digs in about Jay. It's a waste of everyone's time, and it's actually making the attackers look bad, not Jay.

2645:

5) Administrators must relinquish their administrative roles when involved in editorial or personal disputes with good-faith editors. If administrative duties are called for, "involved" administrators are expected to seek assistance from uninvolved administrators.

368:

Based on the discussion here, I have asked on ANI whether there is or is not any opposition to unblocking PalestineRemembered for all purposes as of now, to see if this can be addressed by consensus at the admin level. Editors with a view on this issue can comment

4761:

mistakes early on but avoided personal attacks largely and revert-warring altogether, and having spent half of his wikilife in a cage still had a sense of humor – "Onionists" was funny, Slim – I'd defend him against the false charges of pro-Palestinian editors

3741:

5) Jayjg's initial proposal for a community ban presented no evidence that PalestineRemembered had used the Holocaust denial website as his source. No effort was made to verify this assertion and the possibility that other sources existed was not addressed.

4407:"footnote at the bottom of p59 of Sami Hadawi's Bitter Harvest, A modern history of Palestine. First published 1967, 3 impressions, Revised 1979 by Caravan books, 4 impressions. Revised and updated in 1990 Scorpion Publishing Ltd (with Olive Branch Press). 2856:

bringing 'rational arguments'. If instance consensus says 'The sky is blue', and someone says 'No! The sky is orange and purple polka-dots!' that doesn't break the consensus. But if someone says 'Sometimes, the sky is black', that does break consensus. --

1874:

You're absolutely right that the Palestine topic is polarised and the ArbCom has no chance of solving it. (Or even levelling the playing field). However, this ArbCom did have a chance to stop what we saw happening, which was content dispute resolution by

5261:

I suggest the following wording instead: "Jayjg is admonished for making grave negative allegations about PalestineRemembered without a sound basis in evidence, and is urged to take more care in future before making negative assertions about an editor."

2403:

no-one could forsee undoing the block, which was obviously not the case here. Complicated cases went to the Arbitration Committee, who had the time and patience to review the evidence. Even Arbcom doesn't "ban" longer than one year most of the time.

1506:

The line on that site (which is otherwise in Italian) is "His body was given a military hero burial and lay at Jerusalem Hall of Heroism on Mt. Herzl" which has no citation except to that shutdown website (last archived in Apr 2006). It is logically

917:), so PR must have been seriously abusive for you to say: "Geez PR, can you please take your foot out of your mouth and try better next time? Your edits to articles aren't terrible, but you have to do something about all the anti-Zionist rants ..." 1864:

There may be many other weaknesses in my edits, but my real crime is protesting against bigotry/racism in articles. Earlier, I was blocked for a month simply and solely for speaking out against divisive ethnic labelling of people in articles - see

1255:

I'm a bit confused; which of the involved parties wishes to continue? Also, I'm not quite sure how disputes on this page between various other administrators are relevant to this specific case, or would have any impact whatsoever on the merits of

774:

It seems to me that certain people are just using this as a platform to attack Jay, even though all he did was ask for input on AN/I, which is what admins are supposed to do when they have concerns. Let's face it, PR is not exactly a good editor.

148:

This proposal is badly worded, implying that the ArbCom is about me (PR), and that I still face sanctions. The latter may be true, but clearly not for the serious allegations made against me, which were proved utterly and completely false within

6138:

Not listening, not following, not paying attention, but ready to block, ban, and interrogate. This kind of abuse is the problem that got us here in the first place, Slim, and without looking at the problem critically we won't be able to move

1626:

It's not my choice to keep it open. That's PR's choice. Once again, you've proposed this idea of "Drop the argument against Jayjg, and the block against PR will be dropped". Why is PR currently blocked? (I'd really like an answer to that)

597:

of the sort you suggest, you'd not have been unblocked. The "red line" was the alleged unacknowledged use of a Holocaust denial website. As it became apparent that you didn't actually do that, the community changed its mind. You are free to

4248:

every edit was a problem. I don't see any bots as parties to this case, so it is safe to assume (without digging for individual diffs) that everyone in both the pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian factions is human, and hence makes mistakes.

3367:

Proposed. If there is only one lesson from this affair (and the subsequent behaviour associated with this ArbCom) then it should be that accusations of bigotry are poisonous to the workings of the project (almost as serious as a breach of

152:

Furthermore, I am not free to edit, and will not be until the accusations of "views from Holocaust Deniers" are retracted. My first attempt at editing (23rd May, 10 days after these allegations were made) was greeted with an authoritative

3188:

that could lead to a block if it becomes habitual. Indeed, if a person deliberately and consistently misrepresents sources, then they should and must be blocked, even though this doesn't neatly fit into any of the vandalism categories.

2712:

most of the editors are quite openly Pro-X or Pro-Y, that it is a problem for admins who edit Pro-X to take admin action (or make admin threats) against Pro-Y editors, and vv. Can't we get language that does without inviting trolling?

3287:

non-partisan fashion. This duty becomes progressively more important with experience. If participants feel they have posted hastily or made other mistakes, they may wish to withdraw comments and in exceptional cases express remorse."

3209:

I think it's dangerous to block people for what are essentially content disputes. Determining reliability of a source is a subjective process that people have strong disagreements over when it comes to contentious articles and issues.

3150:

warnings and they eventually stopped. But if they were to continue, I think that would be an example of a blockable offense. In general, when a person persistently abuses citations in bad-faith, then it's an easy reason to block.

962:

what I've seen of your contributions, you're fully participating in the poisonous backbiting that's going on. Please stop this. It's absolutely not appropriate conduct for any administrator, let alone one as experienced as you. --

3846: 1861:

very nasty smears on a man who (I'm pretty sure) is entirely honourable. My documenting of this is, yet again, not ignored - but greeted as if it was me trying to inject the nastiest kind of religious bigotry into the discussion.

39: 6122:

of him as somehow vexatious to you. And while you continue to throw around these slurs, smears, petty insults, and innuendos (a standout among which is your suggestion that anyone who uses the word "Zionist" pejoratively is

3531:

Right, but bans are not a vote, if upstanding editors that are not involved in the dispute object to the ban, it should not be done. (Also keep in mind that a ban is only an indef block that no other admin will undo) :) ——

5712:

No new evidence of this was presented in the explanation of the third block or the proposal for the ban. I haven't done a detailed review of the CSM discussion, but diffs are not a prominent feature of that discussion.

2830:

says we shouldn't vote. Personally, community bans are abuse potential for "weeding out" "unwanted" members. I think there should be some requirement to put someone up for a community ban, which I'll outline below.

1164:. The software block has been lifted to let him edit this page, but he will be blocked again if he edits anything else, as happened the other day. How would we all like being treated as a guilty party when there is 2616:

Does it mean nothing to you that he has done nothing wrong? Mind if I send some investigators around to go through your home? If you want to know if he's a sock-puppet, just ask him (don't forget to say "please").

5947:

block he made this time was not the best idea. So far there's nothing to rule on, and nothing to suggest the community can't handle this themselves. The only thing that might possiblty be required is an RfC for PR.

1851:

editors, but we aren't going to solve that in a single arbitration case.) Can one of the arbitrators hop over to proposed decisions and start the funeral for this case? (In other words, I agree now with this.)

2525:

Alternate accounts should not be used either to give the impression that there is more support for a position than actually exists, or to avoid the scrutiny of other editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail.

317:

I can see see no reason for this block. To prevent what? The proposed community ban, which was based upon a good faith but erroneous charge, failed. Thus, PR should be unblocked without predudice, and this case

1211:

So tell me - if Jayjg were incorrectly accused of something, without any evidence, would he be blocked for the duration of his defence, and told, "If you let this go quietly, we'll let the block go." Great...

32: 3922:

However, the concerted (and sometimes quite personal) attempts to make it seem otherwise have helped make it very, very difficult for an inexperienced editor to adjust to the ambience. I don't feel like a

3318:

Proposed. When the community is discussing admonishments or sanctioning of individuals, it is of the utmost importance that other editors feel they can contribute without suffering personal attack for it.

4035:

Who? PR? No-one in the case has asked him if he is a sock-puppet or not. Without any evidence of wrong-doing, why would it matter? If it's just for your own curiosity, then why not ask him yourself?

1527:, and if he didn't solely source it there, in what way is he supposed to have sourced it from that site, what evidence is there that he did, and why would he have bothered if he already had a source?. -- 4581:

There are potentially two good reasons for changing my name ... Perhaps "PalestineRemembered" could impact on people's impressions of WP. Mislead the passer-by into thinking that WP is not dominated by

1892:- but any dispute about the facts lasted at the most a few hours. The problem comes entirely from a different fact - my accuser/s make it clear I'll not get any retraction. That doesn't augur very well. 581:

As of this moment, the arbitrators apparently wish to accept this case by six votes in favour and one against. I would plead with them all to be stalwart and to recognise the issues at stake. Thankyou.

786:

It's exactly nebulous claims like people claiming "PR is not exactly a good editor" which are as good a reason as any to go forward. Just the way even his second and third block proposals were titled

1617:

case, because as this little exercise shows, it is easy to cast doubt on the strength of the (currently) more plausible theory, with the consequence that it will not be as easy to get him unblocked.

5060:

a ban ("I am proposing a permanent block at this point.") He didn't present his case and say "what do the rest of you think of this?" It does neither Jay nor the community any credit that Jay acted

2212:

Right this I assume means that community bans are not a vote correct? It is useless to speak about percentages, if uninvolved editors in good standing object to a ban, then its not time to ban. ——

5284:

and made no effort to corroborate his assumption. Are you sure that you want to endorse the principle that it's praiseworthy to make unevidenced allegations in order to get other users banned? --

4432:

I also plead for clemency on the grounds that I produced the full citation within 2 hours of being challenged to do so, and then followed it up with scans and a photograph of me holding the book.

4786: 4202:

Unless evidence can be put forward that PR has been disruptive in recent months, I suggest a finding that he has made a good-faith effort to reform and contribute productively to the project.

4745:

Your question was about whether we'd defend fairness and due process even if the person in the dock was an ideological opponent we consider routinely offensive. My answer was yes, I would.

4377:

I don't think this is necessary anymore; anyone reading this will have figured that out by now. There is no action to take at all now; this arbitration should be dropped without prejudice. --

3895:

7) PalestineRemembered is a self-acknowledged single-purpose account created for the purpose of editing articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, a particularly contentious topic area.

2957:

Edited to try and address this. Intent was to try and suppress use of unrelated distant history to say "we don't need to go through dispute resolution with this guy, he's obviously bad!". --

263:

I believe Tiamut is referring to the current defacto block (as originally implemented during the CSN). I don't think anyone is questioning the actions of the blocking admin from yesterday.

674:

committee will either find nothing at all, or find something minor for the sake of doing so. As I said on the talk page, let's kick this into touch at the moment - it's way too premature.

2263:

I've written up a slightly better wording of the two general requirements for a community ban bellow. (Must be consensus supported, must have followed the exhaustion of other options.) --

1471:, 1989, p.59) "is not available online (ruling out the "quickly-searched-for-alternate-sources" theory, which frankly smacks of desperation)." The point being that you cannot track down 21: 4429:

I plead for clemency on the grounds that it's not always easy to judge how much detail is necessary in an article especially in relation to an incident that is as undisputed as this one.

3499:

I agree here, though there was an attempt to close this as a "speedy ban" (my term) something less then 2 hours after it was opened. Thats not nearly enough time to dig for evidence. ——

2546:

avoid harassment), it is a violation of this policy to create multiple accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in tracking your contributions.

2486:

I can confirm that I have never used this account (by itself or in conjunction with others) in a deceitful or abusive fashion. I'm not aware of anything that would suggest abusive use.

355:

If the case isn't going any further, and if FeloniousMonk doesn't publicly say that he is withdrawing his indefinite block, this is necessary. If the case goes further, this can wait.

1347:

given his obsession with "Zionists." If anything good can come of this, it'll be that PR changes his editing style so that the benefit of the doubt is extended more readily in future.

1308:

I'll let PR know that you "accept the evidence" "in the interests of concluding this dispute". You use interesting wording though. "... Zero's explanation of where PR's information

6015:

outlined above, and he has apologized for it. Other than that, Jay had no further involvement in the situation that I'm aware of. Yet the predictable attack hounds are out in force.

5701:

Looking through the evidence Jayjg proffered and linked to when proposing the first block (linked to in my offering on the evidence page here), I don't see anything that violates it.

4620:

PR has also been sending out e-mails to various people with talk of wild conspiracy theories including how lots of money is at stake and the Zionists want to shut up people like him.

2248: 4662:

My guess is that, if this was a pro-Israel editor who'd been behaving this badly, there wouldn't be a single peep out of any of the people who are trying to keep this case going.

1463:

Isarig, do not talk to me about elementary logic. You are eight days into this and still fumbling around with the pieces of child's jigsaw puzzle, ages 3 & up. I wrote that

529:

here, but aren't these little sectional walls are supposed to stop what could quickly become a rambling free for all? I believe PR misusing the term "content dispute" anyway. --

339:

I have not seen any party say that PR should continue to be blocked during this case. Unless someone disputes this proposed measure, I see no reason not to unblock immediately.

3436: 944:'d perhaps longer than most, but I did stop editing with him, and ultimately ignored his cries for my help well before the community properly banned him as a sock. As for PR, 38:

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the

5293:

With all due respect, I disagree with your characterization. It was a mistake to take on this arbitration in the first place (as I said in this probably accidentally removed

945: 2561:

If PR did this, then he's in violation of the policy, which means the account should be indefblocked, and the main account blocked at the discretion of the blocking admin.

1299:

I believe that addresses the outstanding issue (hopefully to PR's satisfaction). Assuming all parties are happy I support Ryan's motion that this arbitration be closed. --

446:

2) This arbitration case is closed with immediate effect. All sides are advised to seek additional methods of dispute resolution before bringing this back to arbitration.

1029:, who went around insulting Arab or Muslim editors, and who'd made only 200 edits to articles, you wouldn't have batted an eyelid if he was banned, no matter the reason. 757:(Added) If Jay was careless enough to make a potentially libelous public accusation without a shred of hard evidence, in a bid to ban an editor with an opposing POV, why 5339:

Eliahu Hakim and Eliahu Beit-Zouri for 20 Arab prisoners. The bodies 'lay in Jerusalem's Hall of Heroism and were given a military burial on Mt Herzl' (emphasis added)."

893:

I have no problem admitting any mistakes I've made, retracting any false information I've provided and apologising to anyone who has been damaged or hurt by my actions.

1536:(This is a silly argument but...) this version is factually incorrect. The Jerusalem Hall of Heroism is not on Mt. Herzl, it's in the Russian Compound. The version in 1771:

That's not a job for arbitation, that's a job for the community to decide - if there's a problem with CSN, then you can take it to the talk page or start another MfD.

73: 4010:

a non-point. It's a little like a finding of "I woke up this morning". It doesn't mean anything, but other editors seem to want to bring it up over and over again.

1147:

No, Jay made a specific, unconditional assertion of fact (not "suspicions") against PR. Nor did the community "judge him insufficiently disruptive" - the judgment of

1098:

involved editors should be blocked, or none should be. Why has Jayjg been given the benefit of the doubt beyond all evidence, yet PR still blocked in the absence of

234:

The block that he just received was a good block considering the restrictions that are currently in place on his editing - this is what I am trying to remove though.

4498:

As everyone is focused on attacking Jay or FeloniousMonk, it's worth remembering that PalestineRemembered is an editor who has made 206 edits to articles, and whose

2677:

Proposed. The quality of this discussion is poisoned by the number of editors commenting here who have been blocked or threatened with blocks by other editors here.

4354:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

5188:

Ok - so you object to the way I asked the question. Let's get back to my original question: Why is PR blocked. Alternatively, why isn't Jayjg currently blocked?

1090:

Disagree - There are still too many issues here. PR is not willing to have Jayjg apologise for the sake of closing this case. Why is PR still blocked? He's done

6221:

You beat me to it .... I was going to say I couldn't support this proposal. Felonious Monk is entitled to rely on the information he's provided, just as we are.

2505: 2436: 957:

SlimVirgin, frankly I'm getting very tired of this habit of yours of making unprovoked attacks against other editors. You did exactly the same against G-Dett on

570:

I would like ArbCom to look at the issues raised. The chill regarding this topic makes editing very difficult and could give the impression there are red-lines.

875:

That was intended more to convey that if Jay withdrew the accusation, and since PR has admitted misattributing his citation, that'd pretty much be it closed. --

503:

The evidence suggests that this apparent content dispute was actually manufactured in order to stop uncontestable 59 year old history being added to articles.

5768:

for same reason as Jpgordon and Ryan Postlethwaite. If Jayjg had been trying to sneak in an abusive block, he wouldn't have brought it for community review.

2466:

4) The use of a single-purpose account for a given class of edits is permitted. However, it does not give an editor free rein to use that account abusively.

837:

It'd be nice if Jay withdrew the accusation that PR "copied his views and references from the Holocaust denial group the Institute for Historical Review". --

5838: 1570:

unproven, damaging insinuations about PR's actions. Moreover, the burden of proof is on PR's accusers, and they should not use words such as "logically, he

794:

as if he were some endlessly problematic editor have been prejudicial, when, still, no one have presented any diffs as evidence to support such an idea. --

4979:

2) Jayjg is admonished for proposing a community ban without a sound basis in evidence, and is urged to take more care in future when taking such actions.

6127:

in Holocaust denial), you rather blithely admit that you haven't been following the facts of this case, that you hadn't even bothered to take note of the

2233:

sanctions noticeboard (though it's not Jay's fault, since he originally posted his ban request to WP:AN/I and it got moved to the CN by someone else). --

994:

to the encyclopedia, who's been ranting about Zionists almost the whole time he's been here. It hasn't reflected well on you, speaking of accountability.

2243: 3790:

6) Jayjg and PalestineRemembered did not discuss the disputed quotation prior to the community ban proposal, and dispute resolution was not undertaken.

5858:

4) Felonious Monk is admonished not to impose indefinite blocks when other administrators, acting in good faith, believe that one is not appropriate.

5280:

jpgordon, with all due respect, I'm afraid you've missed the point. Nobody is complaining that Jay acted unilaterally. The complaint is that he acted

5219:

PR has been unblocked on the condition that he not edit any pages whatsoever besides the arbcom pages, his own talkpage, and Mark Chovain's talkpage.

67: 5102:

And I'd like to remind everyone again, that while we have evidence of Jayjg bypassing the dispute resoltion processes, and no evidence against PR of

980:

You appear to be mistaking "holding administrators accountable for poor judgment" with "attacks on admins". I believe in accountability. Do you? --

467:-- yes, editing is difficult on articles about difficult subjects. No reason it shouldn't be; there are indeed red lines, and those have to do with 4063: 3915:

I always believed my use of this account was sensible and reasonable. I trusted it would be to policy. As we now know, that proved to be the case (

1574:

have done it." We would not allow these kind of statements in biographies of living people, so why allow them in reference to fellow wikipedians?

5453:

of Auckland, and found the Holocaust denial site. It's an understandable error, if that's what it was, given PR's misuse of the source material.

5110:. Why would anyone see 'praising' Jayjg when he clearly made a mistake as a higher priority than getting rid of this unfair limitation on PR? 4988:

Let's see. Rather than acting unilaterally, Jayjg asked for opinions, and provided his reasoning. That's cause for praise, not admonishment. --

2748:

of community support for the block". A plurality or numerical majority of admin choosing to place an indefinite block is not a community ban.

17: 2372:

seems to make it. Having an ArbCom ruling would be a start, but somehow this should get into an official policy page. With the status of

972:

trying to turn ArbCom cases into attacks on admins because you disagree with them politically. Be the change you want to see in the world.

5374:

call them "assassins." It says: "Years later, on July 2, 1975, The Evening Star of Auckland revealed that the bodies of the two executed

1269:

At present, it is PR wishing to continue. He's concerned that he'll be right back where he started if this gets swept under the carpet.

4128:

8) PalestineRemembered has a history of contentious editing and has been blocked on three previous occasions in the past seven months.

2513: 5656:? That's mentioned in his block log, but I don't believe any evidence of this was ever brought to the attention of the community. -- 3171:

would have been disruptive vandalism, and the block would have been to protect from vandalism not because of a incorrect citation. --

4850:

could easily ditch the PalestineRemembered account (to his own benefit) and start again. Instead, some people here prefer a circus.

4411: 3238:

Yes, but I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about people who just invent the sources, not about reliability in the sense of

2312:- it seems this guideline (though in my IMHO valuable) is disputed. There is no consensus to call the practise of which I'm accused 91: 5786:

advice, and doubly so as I knew SlimVirgin would now never let me hear the end of it. It's really not Jayjg's fault that he has a

5611:

As for why PR "didn't simply start another account when he was blocked," I doubt he even knew this was permitted. I sure didn't.--

5352:

The book he says he used as a source does not call these men "terrorist assassins." It just names them. It says: "According to the

2278:

2) It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source.

6225: 6216: 6203: 6173: 6152: 6143: 6071: 6021: 6009: 6000: 5986: 5971: 5941: 5932: 5901: 5845: 5795: 5775: 5758: 5717: 5660: 5615: 5558: 5542: 5524: 5520:

Executive condemned the act and declared a series of measures against what they called "terrorist organizations" in Palestine". --

5506: 5469: 5459: 5301: 5288: 5273: 5250: 5230: 5214: 5195: 5183: 5169: 5136: 5117: 5097: 5068: 5051: 5022: 4992: 4960: 4928:

But this is just rehashing again, why he got his second block. I seem to have been the one who gave him the idea about Onionists (

4901: 4856: 4794: 4778: 4735: 4696: 4668: 4481: 4452: 4436: 4381: 4256: 4242: 4213: 4197: 4177: 4166: 4111: 4091: 4082: 4070: 4058: 4043: 4030: 4017: 4000: 3973: 3960: 3949: 3931: 3874: 3864: 3853: 3836: 3825: 3777: 3728: 3679: 3661: 3615: 3563: 3543: 3526: 3510: 3494: 3376: 3323: 3253: 3233: 3200: 3175: 3162: 3134: 3125: 3096: 3082: 3053: 3023: 3001: 2961: 2952: 2919: 2860: 2850: 2820: 2807: 2783: 2727: 2706: 2681: 2624: 2611: 2599: 2590: 2579: 2567: 2520: 2490: 2453: 2443: 2410: 2380: 2355: 2335: 2303: 2267: 2250: 2237: 2223: 2207: 2158: 1900: 1855: 1844: 1830: 1795: 1766: 1748: 1744:

My suggestion was not that we use arbitration to procure an apology, but rather that a proper apology might obviate arbitration.--

1739: 1710: 1685: 1653: 1634: 1621: 1609: 1585: 1544: 1531: 1483: 1457: 1404: 1395: 1383: 1362: 1353: 1329: 1319: 1303: 1290: 1276: 1264: 1250: 1233: 1219: 1206: 1175: 1156: 1142: 1125: 1109: 1075: 1066: 1035: 1020: 1000: 984: 966: 952: 927: 897: 888: 879: 870: 841: 832: 798: 781: 765: 752: 740: 728: 698: 657: 637: 607: 586: 574: 542: 533: 520: 509: 492: 479: 459: 431: 409: 377: 359: 350: 334: 322: 299: 270: 258: 229: 219: 180: 126: 5653: 3830:

Dispute resolution wasn't undertaken before the RfAr was filed either, which is one of the reasons this case is inappropriate.

1435:

when you insert that quoted sentence into Google. The first link is a WP link related to our discussion here, which means that

1358:

showing that one hypothesis is more likely than another is not the same as proving one hypothesis correct and the other false.

79: 6985:"New Challenge to Columbia and to Chomsky, Finkelstein, and Cockburn," FrontPagemag.com July 13, 2005, accessed 13th June 2007 5806:

3) PalestineRemembered and Jayjg are advised to engage in calm discussion and the use of dispute resolution when in conflict.

2844: 2801: 2700: 2319:

And accusations of breach have even been associated with absurd bias amounting to zealotry. Seen at and quoted in the WP at

1888:

the specific allegation laid against me, and I can't believe anyone else thinks it's unreasonable. You're quite right to say

1840:

case is concluded. The same may be true here, except that this case is the proverbial "picnic" compared to the other one.

1674:

Suggestion: All individuals who continue to stand by the allegation should add themselves as involved parties to this case.

1367:

There was never anything to recommend or support the Holocaust-denial hypothesis, except that it was the only source of the

2595:

Doesn't there need to be probable cause or evidence of some sort to do this? Or is idle curiosity considered sufficient?--

61: 5179:

wrong-doing,". If you want to do a credible job as an advocate, you should avoid that kind of provably wrong assertion.

4637:

Those who are defending him should ask themselves whether they'd defend an editor in a similar position if his name was

1016:

the way that it's done in these parts. I'd like to think that we as a community have a bit more integrity than that. --

1762:

necessary such a review is. If nothing is done, CSN behavior is going to look more and more like like mob violence. --

2972:

Blocks are used for project protection and to halt disruptive behaviour, not to enforce content guidelines and policy.

1005:

G-Dett did precisely this at 19:51, 13 May, on the community noticeboard: "PalestineRemembered gives his source here:

5937:

Well, I am convinced that the block/ban needs to be addressed in some format. Please propose a better alternative.

5566:

for his phrasing and hence "seems to have partially quoted the Holocaust denial site that he says he didn't look at."

2997:

It goes without saying that blocks are about protecting the project from disrupton, not enforcing content standards.

31:

format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the

5983: 5772: 5449:

I suspect that Jay did a Google search for the key words, including the men's names, the word "assassins," and the

3636:

as coming from the original source, but failed to note that he had obtained the quotation from a secondary source.

3629: 2788:

Comment: What defines "consensus", is it a majority? That may lead to problems down the road if it isn't defined.

5154:

he is currently not allowed to edit! Is it because he forgot to add a citation? If that's the reason, we better

176:

edit". That is clearly not the case now, and I'm being treated as if there is a thick cloud of suspicion over me.

5378:

had been exchanged for twenty Arab prisoners for burial at the "Heroes' Monument" in Jerusalem (emphasis added)."

6222: 4845:

No, you're right; a block is not "Zionists ... track down and harrass people like me." It's also not " hey can

4433: 4395: 3928: 3858:

The ones who gave a reason seemed to think PR was going to be banned. But he isn't, so what's left to be done?

3658: 3373: 3320: 2998: 2724: 2487: 2332: 2300: 1897: 894: 583: 571: 506: 464: 177: 159:. (Though to be fair, the result of that exchange was good and the edit stuck). Clearly, I am not free to edit. 56: 4785:

I recall Daniel575; I was in the middle of a conversation with Daniel around the time of the block. I noticed

4688:. When an AN/I came up for "Incivility, disruptive editing, and stalking-like behavior from Isarig," here is 2572:

If, if, if. Where's the evidence that a) he is a sockpuppet, and b) that he has attempted to deceive anyone?

3058:

Oh, and consistant poor citations is clearly grounds for a block - it's effectively adding illigal material.

2368:

the intermediate source. I wonder how this can become an enforceable policy rather than just a guideline as

6180: 5948: 5909: 5028: 4673:

Please note that both Kendrick and I both admonished PR for the two comments you quoted. Here's Kendrick's

4458: 3471: 3102: 3059: 3030: 2929: 2184: 1772: 1716: 1183: 847: 809: 705: 675: 614: 386: 235: 196: 103: 3994:

If he's not a sockpuppet, what's the point of this finding, and what's the meaning of "self-acknowledged"?

3144: 1451: 884:

That would be a reasonable outcome. Let both acknowledge making mistakes and let them go on their way. --

5745:- Proposing is meaningless, its not like he unilaterally abused admin powers or even thought of doing so. 4638: 2813: 1026: 5980: 5769: 5752: 1400:

I'm sorry, which "hypothesis" are we talking about now? Holocaust denial or tuxedos and trampolines?--

4601:

When he was asked to change his user page, he edited it to refer to "Onionists," instead of Zionists.

4457:

Possibly, but this would be better sorted in an RfC, is there a pattern of bad citing of sources? No.

3966:

set of evidence. I don't think anyone has anything to gain by mincing words or overloading meanings.

6069: 6019: 5998: 5556: 5457: 5212: 4854: 4733: 4666: 4056: 4028: 3998: 3958: 3862: 3834: 2588: 2565: 1808:. Could you please start listening to what people think about Jayjg and stop repeating your infamous 1651: 1351: 1123: 1033: 998: 976: 925: 779: 738: 429: 5081:

hasn't retracted, even in the face of the strongest possible evidence otherwise. Other editors are

4750: 4685: 4075:

Ah yes, sorry. And further to ChrisO's link, I can confirm that PR still stands by that statement.

2242:

I altogether dislike the idea of the community sanction noticeboard for the same reason as above. —

1448: 5897:

17:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC) (withdrawn, see the end of the conversation between Rayn and myself below

5521: 5027:

No way, Jay brought it for community review - he didn't just jump in and block - no need for this.

4822:"prominent people in my neighbourhood and point to what I've posted" but I'm not much of a poet ... 2407: 2155: 1528: 876: 838: 6148:

G-Dett, you don't need anyone's permission here at RfArb to file an RfC re Jayjg, or anybody else.

5391:

PR then added his own "terrorist" flourish, a term not used by any of the three potential sources.

3181: 5842: 5285: 5180: 5133: 5065: 5019: 4449: 4194: 4088: 4067: 3946: 3871: 3850: 3822: 3774: 3725: 3676: 3612: 3560: 2838: 2795: 2694: 2608: 2517: 2440: 2352: 2234: 1827: 1618: 1454: 1392: 1359: 1326: 1300: 1230: 1153: 1017: 981: 963: 885: 762: 749: 155:

You're going to get yourself into the same trouble as before if you don't learn to cite properly.

3088: 1869: 6026:

I can't agree with the premise that an RfC on an editor you hate should be called an "RfC," ...

1602:

And claims that both hypotheses are equivilent are exactly why PR wants this case to continue.

5247: 5192: 5166: 5114: 5094: 4408: 4163: 4154: 4079: 4040: 4014: 3970: 3336:

10) Bigotry has no place in Knowledge (XXG) - but neither do reckless accusations of bigotry.

2621: 2576: 1631: 1606: 1316: 1273: 1216: 1172: 1106: 331: 267: 6115: 5575: 5129: 4894: 4758: 4365: 3924: 3185: 3016: 2527: 2435:

Proposed. A very basic principle, though surprisingly enough it doesn't seem to be listed in

2373: 2369: 2361: 2348: 1706:

bloodlessly, but I'm afraid I agree with Mark that the apology on offer is rather weaselly.--

501:

But that the evidence suggests this particular incident is a straightforward content dispute.

472: 6149: 5747: 5268: 5225: 4208: 4052:

single-purpose account ..." (emphasis added). My question is: where has he acknowledged it?

3248: 3195: 3157: 2439:. Maybe an arbitrator can provide guidance on whether this has already been established? -- 1680: 1580: 1560: 1440: 1245: 1137: 1061: 604: 374: 345: 319: 5499: 5241: 4754: 3916: 3724:

Proposed. This reflects the arguments and counter-arguments that have been put forward. --

3369: 3283: 2925: 2720: 1702: 941: 468: 370: 327:

How long can someone remain blocked without a reason? Can we please push this one through?

6066: 6016: 5995: 5553: 5454: 5209: 4851: 4730: 4663: 4522:

but they can no longer pretend to be an individual who just happened to realise it was me.

4053: 4025: 3995: 3955: 3859: 3831: 2585: 2562: 2324: 1648: 1565:

04:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC) It is an unrealistic suggestion that PR took his quotes from the

1348: 1120: 1030: 995: 973: 932:(edit conflict)I'm not certain I have any real problem with Jay. If you are talking about 922: 776: 735: 653: 426: 3239: 805: 645: 162:

I waited a further 10 days (5th June) before attempting to make a second substantive edit

4545:

ring prominent people in my neighbourhood ..." Does he think this has been done already?

2827: 538:

Feel free to refactor by moving PR's comments down to the appropriate places. Thanks. --

5979:

make other administrators nervous about issuing blocks when they really are necessary.

5792: 5657: 5503: 4957: 4898: 4791: 4723: 3534: 3501: 2404: 2214: 2152: 1182:

If it closes now, PR can edit as he wishes - there really isn't anything to arbitrate.

958: 949: 937: 914: 795: 530: 6005:

If that were coupled with an RfC on Jayjg, it might find some support. If not, not.--

5335:

of Auckland, which he hadn't seen): " ... in 1975, Israel exchanged the bodies of the

4729:

for exactly that kind of behavior. I don't recall you, Kendrick, or ChrisO objecting.

2506:

Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration policy/Past decisions#Sockpuppets (and related principles)

2393:

3) Proposed and enacted bans must be based on well-documented evidence of misconduct.

5517: 5495:

edit was removed an hour later with the summary "rv irrelevant time zones or WP:WTA"

5298: 4989: 4378: 3551: 3172: 3131: 3093: 3020: 3019:' is reason for a block. What's next, blocking for 'persistent spelling mistakes'? -- 2958: 2916: 2857: 2832: 2817: 2789: 2780: 2688: 2377: 2264: 1890:"nobody else seems interested enough to say there is still a dispute about the facts" 1818: 1763: 1541: 933: 539: 517: 489: 476: 456: 1524: 1427:, "lay in Jerusalem's Hall of Heroism and were given a military burial on Mt Herzl" 6213: 6170: 5938: 5898: 5894: 5714: 5539: 5244: 5189: 5163: 5111: 5091: 4253: 4249: 4160: 4151: 4076: 4037: 4011: 3967: 3523: 2618: 2573: 2450: 1852: 1628: 1603: 1313: 1270: 1213: 1169: 1103: 356: 328: 264: 102:'s block is lifted for the duration of the case and he is free to edit as desired. 6065:

Stop following me around misinterpreting everything I say. I don't "hate" anyone.

4897:

someone with so few edit would have gotten us much further down the road here. --

4414:- According to the Evening Star of Auckland, New Zealand of July 2, 1975 etc etc" 6140: 6006: 5612: 5466: 5263: 5220: 4886: 4775: 4693: 4220: 4203: 4174: 4108: 3243: 3211: 3190: 3152: 2678: 2596: 1745: 1707: 1675: 1575: 1555: 1480: 1401: 1380: 1240: 1132: 1072: 1056: 1025:

Come on, Chris, you know as well as I do that if this involved an editor called

486:

evidence suggests this particular incident is a straightforward content dispute.

340: 277: 226: 5787: 5513: 1287: 1261: 649: 4087:

And further still to my link, an SPA is not synonymous with a sockpuppet. --

3845:

appropriate. It's their opinion that counts here. You might want to look at

1841: 1450:

as well as, surprise surprise, support for Holocuast denial and revisionism

5150:

of the accusations being presented. No-one has even been able to tell him

4252:

17:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC) (Corrected upon further review of the evidence.

4770:

This is the first I've heard of Daniel575. Seems like a charming fellow.

3576:

2) The locus of this dispute is the sourcing of a quote from the Auckland

5570:

This chronic pattern of grave-insinuation-followed-by-shrug-of-denial is

5498:, though a better choice would have been to only remove "terrorist" as a 4064:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Single-purpose account#PalestineRemembered is an SPA

3550:

Agree. No need for counting as there was no evidence for the charges. --

1391:

other, but let's not pretend that this is "proof", one way or the other.

382:

Per consensus here and AN/I, I've lifted all restrictions on PR's editing

5436:

It's no wonder that it's difficult to be sure what he based his edit on.

5132:, acknowledged by PR, and subject to a proposed admonishment by ChrisO. 5077:

In response to jgordon's comment above. He made false claims, which he

2151:

Absolutely. A community ban is a block that no administrator will undo.

1715:

This isn't about getting an appology - arbitration isn't here for that.

1444: 5574:

core issue here; it is far more serious than the innocent violation of

4885:

You may turn out to be right. It's hard to judge at this point. Was it

4448:

Proposed. This appears to be proportionate to the admitted offence. --

526: 497:

In the interests of precision, the statement in my evidence now reads:

3278:

AGF is particularily important when community decisions are being made

1862: 1371:

quote that Jay knew of. PR, however, knew of another, from Hadawi's

5419:

So what we have here is a sitution where PR (a) cited a source (the

3632:

PalestineRemembered erroneously cited a quotation from the Auckland

2977:

be placed only when a user's actions are disruptive or threatening.

1519:

he kept the details of it after the site shutdown. But it is still

5128:

wrong-doing on PR's part? We have clear evidence of a violation of

4956:, I wouldn't be bringing it up five months later at every turn. -- 5158:

be very careful about any edits we make - any one of could get an

2875:

Community bans require rational attempts to resolve the situation.

2320: 913:

other disruptive editors because they were anti-Zionist (e.g. the

6179:

when I last checked it out, there was support for the 'unblock'.

3092:

but the user behaviour and it's impact on the wiki as a whole. --

6668:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

5491:, he wasn't making a direct quote, just providing context. (The 4368:, and is urged to take more care in future when citing sources. 3130:

By that reckoning, we should be blocking most casual editors! --

846:

We don't use arbitration to make people give forced appologies.

1523:

for him to have solely sourced the quote where Jay alleged, as

1119:

insufficiently disruptive to block indefinitely. End of story.

3945:

Proposed. Should be uncontroversial, nobody disputes this. --

2744:

6) Community bans are enforced when it is assured "there is a

1812:

rhetoric? Your comments usually follow Jayjg's ones. Jay said

4692:. Second paragraph on. I hope this answers your question.-- 3015:

Proposed. There are some people who seem to think 'violating

1437:

at the time of jay's report, that link was actually the first

936:, he was my first run-in with any of the incarnations of the 761:

he be admonished? It's a very serious error of judgment. --

3841:

Let's not forget that six arbitrators agreed that the case

5709:

undesirable and stated an intent to cease performing them.

3821:

Proposed, based on the established sequence of events. --

3101:

Continuously poor citing sources could result in a block.

2884:

and unarguably purposeless to attempt dispute resolution.

5146:. He's currently blocked without a shred of evidence of 2508:. The key principle here is that SPAs should not be used 3431:

The Community ban discussion failed to reach a consensus

6136: 6124: 6119: 5567: 5564: 5496: 5489: 5405: 5294: 4929: 4771: 4727: 4689: 4678: 4674: 4602: 4499: 4400:"Evening Star of Auckland, New Zealand of July 2, 1975" 4364:

1) PalestineRemembered is admonished for breaching the

1866: 1645: 1010: 918: 425:

I hope PR will accept Jay's apology so we can move on.

423: 383: 169: 163: 157: 97: 85: 3675:

Proposed. PR has already admitted this, I believe. --

5552:

It's starting to look like trouble for its own sake.

4891:

Are you really paranoid if they are really after you?

4766:, instead of having to hold my nose while doing it. 2924:

Sorry I oppose this. Principal 1 comes straight from

1131:

his name of all such allegations (or proving them).

5404:

The above is based on Zero's analysis of the texts.

3954:

Does this mean he's a sockpuppet of another editor?

5512:wikipedia article "After the 1944 assassination of 3773:Proposed. See my comments on the Evidence page. -- 2299:I apologise for breaching this valuable guideline. 195:is going to end up with parole or an admonishment. 165:. It was reverted and authoritatively greeted with 42:page, which only arbitrators may edit, for voting. 1071:Nadav1 articulates the key point here, and well.-- 5316:did not accurately quote the book he says he used 2879:7) Community bans are enforced "where a user has 2437:Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration policy/Past decisions 6131:fact of this case – namely, PR's source for the 5837:Proposed, based on a nearly identical remedy in 5488:If you look at PR's first edit to that article, 4931:); I happened to to find that last diff amusing. 4048:Chris O's proposal is "PalestineRemembered is a 1810:people using this or that platform to attack Jay 644:Agree with Jpgordon. Close the case, and follow 5839:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Kosovo 5090:behaviour that got us here in the first place. 4847:again ring prominent people in my neighbourhood 4579: 4519: 4418:It might or might not have helped if I'd added 2543: 804:and be properly unblocked. If people need it - 4952:If a pro-Israeli editor had been acting badly 1814:I am proposing a permanent block at this point 5314:As I wrote above, but someone removed it, PR 4753:, had greater metaphorical gifts, made silly 4172:I second that very well articulated proposal. 2347:Proposed. The wording is taken directly from 1007:Bitter Harvest: a Modern History of Palestine 8: 5297:) and this entire action needs to vanish. -- 4726:was blocked several times then indefinitely 3180:It's not exactly vandalism (in the sense of 5563:No, your point was that PR "had no source" 2740:Community bans require community consensus. 2719:Policy specifically allows me to act as an 2376:still up in the air, where should it go? -- 5318:, which is where the confusion comes from. 3372:), and must only be made with great care. 1511:that PR sourced his quote from this site 948:and gave him some constructive advice. -- 35:and for general discussion of the case. 2584:Perhaps we should ask for a check user. 18:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration 6978: 4645:, was suspected of mis-citing material. 4311:10) {text of proposed finding of fact} 4270:9) {text of proposed finding of fact} 3029:regarding article content guidelines. 2514:Knowledge (XXG):Single-purpose account 2504:Proposed, based closely on wording in 648:with an RfC. Let's move on, shall we? 484:OK, now PR says on the evidence page, 51:PalestineRemembered block fully lifted 4749:Believe me, if Isarig called himself 2360:This could be a little stronger. As 1445:http://www.network54.com/Forum/145962 1312:". Is there a competing hypothesis? 1239:page that is meant to resolve them. 7: 5062:without any hard evidence whatsoever 5465:symptom of some larger problem. -- 3332:Bigotry has no place in the project 46:Motions and requests by the parties 6627:5) {text of proposed enforcement} 6586:4) {text of proposed enforcement} 6545:3) {text of proposed enforcement} 6504:2) {text of proposed enforcement} 6460:1) {text of proposed enforcement} 5240:perhaps you might like to explain 4024:And where does he acknowledge it? 3927:but like a thoroughly chewed one. 516:I guarantee you that won't fly. -- 28: 3786:Dispute resolution not undertaken 3389:11) {text of proposed principle} 3089:the blocking guidelines are wrong 1431:available on line, an is in fact 788:The return of PalestineRemembered 6212:, and I withdraw the proposal. 5994:alternative dispute resolution. 5791:is playing the correct tune. -- 4500:user page used to look like this 3435:1) Despite initial support, the 1515:it has a more accurate version, 1168:no evidence supporting a block? 5908:people are proposing remedies. 5108:PR is still not allowed to edit 4893:Somehow, I get the feeling not 5652:Has PR ever actually violated 4790:been banned so many times. -- 4360:PalestineRemembered admonished 3140:word. I went up the ladder of 2462:Use of single purpose accounts 1953:Proposed temporary injunctions 806:heres the link they might need 488:Indeed. So why are we here? -- 1: 6414:9) {text of proposed remedy} 6373:8) {text of proposed remedy} 6332:7) {text of proposed remedy} 6291:6) {text of proposed remedy} 6250:5) {text of proposed remedy} 5705:recipient (from those diffs). 5331:PR wrote (wrongly citing the 3439:failed to reach a consensus. 2389:Evidentiary basis for banning 946:I supported PR's second block 2362:WP:CITE#Say where you got it 2349:WP:CITE#Say where you got it 1525:Zero's evidence demonstrates 1473:this particular citation to 1114:He isn't blocked, and there 4219:end this arbcomm procedure. 3849:to refresh your memory. -- 1647:He had no source for that. 915:Disruptive Apartheid editor 422:I had already lifted them. 167:"Sigh. Same old, same old." 7002: 5802:Dispute resolution advised 5370:The Holocaust denial site 3630:Zionist political violence 2364:says, one should actually 1433:the 2nd link that comes up 1102:eviedence of wrong-doing. 5854:Felonious Monk admonished 4398:pleads guilty to posting 3426:Proposed findings of fact 3377:18:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC) 3002:21:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC) 2814:Knowledge (XXG):Consensus 2336:15:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC) 1901:17:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC) 1856:13:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC) 792:PalestineRemembered again 181:18:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC) 6226:23:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 6217:21:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 6210:this is no longer needed 6204:19:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 6174:19:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 6153:01:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 6144:19:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 6072:21:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 6022:19:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 6010:18:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 6001:18:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 5987:12:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC) 5972:17:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 5942:17:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 5933:17:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 5902:21:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 5846:07:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC) 5796:16:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC) 5776:00:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC) 5759:16:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC) 5718:22:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 5661:21:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 5616:21:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 5578:that formed the pretext. 5559:21:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 5543:20:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 5525:19:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 5507:19:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 5470:19:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 5460:18:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 5302:16:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 5289:01:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 5274:01:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 5251:01:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 5231:01:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 5215:00:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 5196:04:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 5184:04:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 5170:02:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 5137:02:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 5118:00:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 5098:00:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 5069:22:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 5052:22:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 5023:07:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC) 4993:00:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 4961:22:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 4902:23:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 4857:23:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 4795:23:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 4779:23:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 4736:23:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 4697:22:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 4669:22:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 4482:22:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 4453:07:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC) 4437:23:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC) 4405:When I should have said 4382:15:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC) 4257:01:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 4243:14:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 4214:23:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 4198:08:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC) 4178:10:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC) 4167:22:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 4157:10:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC) 4112:13:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 4092:22:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 4083:22:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 4071:22:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 4059:22:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 4044:22:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 4031:20:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 4018:21:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 4001:19:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 3974:04:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 3961:04:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 3950:08:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC) 3932:19:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC) 3875:01:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 3865:00:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 3854:22:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 3837:20:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 3826:07:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC) 3778:23:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC) 3729:07:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC) 3680:23:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC) 3662:22:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC) 3616:07:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC) 3564:01:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC) 3544:01:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC) 3527:00:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC) 3511:23:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 3495:21:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 3437:community ban discussion 3324:21:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC) 3254:15:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC) 3234:13:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC) 3201:21:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC) 3176:20:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC) 3163:17:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC) 3135:17:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC) 3126:15:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC) 3097:13:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC) 3083:10:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC) 3054:10:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC) 3024:10:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC) 2962:15:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC) 2953:10:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC) 2920:18:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC) 2861:15:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC) 2851:18:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC) 2821:17:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC) 2808:20:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC) 2784:18:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC) 2728:18:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC) 2707:20:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC) 2682:04:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC) 2625:22:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 2612:22:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 2600:22:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 2591:22:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 2580:22:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 2568:20:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 2521:08:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC) 2491:18:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC) 2454:17:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 2444:23:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC) 2411:15:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC) 2381:12:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC) 2356:23:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC) 2327:says of his detractors: 2304:17:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC) 2268:18:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC) 2251:04:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC) 2238:23:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC) 2224:23:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 2208:21:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 2159:15:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC) 2122:Questions to the parties 1845:18:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC) 1831:21:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 1796:15:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 1767:13:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 1749:19:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 1740:10:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 1711:03:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 1686:04:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 1654:04:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 1635:05:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 1622:04:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 1610:04:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 1586:05:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 1545:12:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 1532:09:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 1484:14:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 1458:04:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 1405:03:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 1396:03:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 1384:03:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 1363:03:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 1354:03:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 1330:03:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 1320:02:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 1304:02:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 1291:02:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 1277:02:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 1265:02:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 1251:01:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 1234:22:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 1220:22:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 1207:22:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 1176:22:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 1157:22:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 1143:22:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 1126:21:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 1110:21:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 1076:21:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 1067:21:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 1036:02:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 1021:01:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 1001:01:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 985:01:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 967:22:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 953:21:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 928:20:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 898:19:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC) 889:22:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 880:20:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 871:20:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 842:20:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 833:20:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 799:20:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 782:19:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 766:19:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 753:18:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 741:18:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 729:18:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 699:18:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 658:14:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC) 638:12:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC) 608:09:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC) 587:18:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC) 575:07:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC) 543:17:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC) 534:06:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC) 521:04:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC) 510:18:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC) 493:14:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC) 480:15:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC) 460:19:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 432:20:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 410:19:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 378:17:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 360:17:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 351:09:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 335:22:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 323:11:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 300:01:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 271:01:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 259:14:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC) 230:11:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC) 220:11:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC) 127:11:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC) 6944:Comment by Arbitrators: 6906:Comment by Arbitrators: 6868:Comment by Arbitrators: 6830:Comment by Arbitrators: 6792:Comment by Arbitrators: 6754:Comment by Arbitrators: 6716:Comment by Arbitrators: 6678:Comment by Arbitrators: 6632:Comment by Arbitrators: 6591:Comment by Arbitrators: 6550:Comment by Arbitrators: 6509:Comment by Arbitrators: 6465:Comment by Arbitrators: 6419:Comment by Arbitrators: 6378:Comment by Arbitrators: 6337:Comment by Arbitrators: 6296:Comment by Arbitrators: 6255:Comment by Arbitrators: 5863:Comment by Arbitrators: 5811:Comment by Arbitrators: 5124:Please. No evidence of 4984:Comment by Arbitrators: 4684:To your question about 4373:Comment by Arbitrators: 4316:Comment by Arbitrators: 4275:Comment by Arbitrators: 4133:Comment by Arbitrators: 3900:Comment by Arbitrators: 3795:Comment by Arbitrators: 3747:Comment by Arbitrators: 3698:Comment by Arbitrators: 3688:Controversy over source 3641:Comment by Arbitrators: 3585:Comment by Arbitrators: 3444:Comment by Arbitrators: 3394:Comment by Arbitrators: 3341:Comment by Arbitrators: 3292:Comment by Arbitrators: 3087:If that's so, then the 2982:Comment by Arbitrators: 2889:Comment by Arbitrators: 2753:Comment by Arbitrators: 2651:Comment by Arbitrators: 2471:Comment by Arbitrators: 2398:Comment by Arbitrators: 2283:Comment by Arbitrators: 2147:Comment by Arbitrators: 2127:Proposed final decision 2090:Comment by Arbitrators: 2049:Comment by Arbitrators: 2008:Comment by Arbitrators: 1967:Comment by Arbitrators: 1918:Comment by Arbitrators: 1009:, by Sami Hadawi, p.59 451:Comment by Arbitrators: 133:Comment by Arbitrators: 5654:WP:No Personal Attacks 4584: 4524: 3891:Single-purpose account 2548: 1883:by blockings and then 1521:not logically possible 172:collegiate atmosphere. 6125:likely to be dabbling 3624:Miscitation of source 3282:9) "The principle of 1443:gives as its source " 992:with all of 200 edits 442:Arbitration is closed 6664:Analysis of evidence 6451:Proposed enforcement 6208:And with that done, 6118:, coupled with your 5282:without any evidence 5235:While I'm sure he'd 3737:Evidentiary problems 2245:Nearly Headless Nick 2228:Community bans have 1310:could have come from 6955:Comment by parties: 6917:Comment by parties: 6879:Comment by parties: 6841:Comment by parties: 6803:Comment by parties: 6765:Comment by parties: 6727:Comment by parties: 6689:Comment by parties: 6643:Comment by parties: 6602:Comment by parties: 6561:Comment by parties: 6520:Comment by parties: 6476:Comment by parties: 6430:Comment by parties: 6389:Comment by parties: 6348:Comment by parties: 6307:Comment by parties: 6266:Comment by parties: 6223:PalestineRemembered 5874:Comment by parties: 5822:Comment by parties: 5337:terrorist assassins 5208:PR is not blocked. 5002:Comment by parties: 4639:User:ZionismForever 4434:PalestineRemembered 4396:PalestineRemembered 4391:Comment by parties: 4366:citation guidelines 4327:Comment by parties: 4286:Comment by parties: 4144:Comment by parties: 4124:Contentious editing 3929:PalestineRemembered 3911:Comment by parties: 3806:Comment by parties: 3758:Comment by parties: 3709:Comment by parties: 3659:PalestineRemembered 3652:Comment by parties: 3596:Comment by parties: 3455:Comment by parties: 3405:Comment by parties: 3374:PalestineRemembered 3352:Comment by parties: 3321:PalestineRemembered 3303:Comment by parties: 2999:PalestineRemembered 2993:Comment by parties: 2900:Comment by parties: 2764:Comment by parties: 2725:PalestineRemembered 2662:Comment by parties: 2488:PalestineRemembered 2482:Comment by parties: 2420:Comment by parties: 2333:PalestineRemembered 2301:PalestineRemembered 2294:Comment by parties: 2168:Comment by parties: 2132:Proposed principles 2101:Comment by parties: 2060:Comment by parties: 2019:Comment by parties: 1978:Comment by parties: 1929:Comment by parties: 1898:PalestineRemembered 1162:He is still blocked 1027:User:ZionismForever 895:PalestineRemembered 584:PalestineRemembered 572:PalestineRemembered 566:Comment by parties: 525:Um, I hate to play 507:PalestineRemembered 178:PalestineRemembered 144:Comment by parties: 57:PalestineRemembered 22:PalestineRemembered 6966:Comment by others: 6938:General discussion 6928:Comment by others: 6890:Comment by others: 6852:Comment by others: 6814:Comment by others: 6776:Comment by others: 6738:Comment by others: 6700:Comment by others: 6654:Comment by others: 6613:Comment by others: 6572:Comment by others: 6531:Comment by others: 6487:Comment by others: 6441:Comment by others: 6400:Comment by others: 6359:Comment by others: 6318:Comment by others: 6277:Comment by others: 5885:Comment by others: 5833:Comment by others: 5144:forgetting to cite 5013:Comment by others: 4787:the ban discussion 4444:Comment by others: 4338:Comment by others: 4297:Comment by others: 4189:Comment by others: 3941:Comment by others: 3817:Comment by others: 3769:Comment by others: 3720:Comment by others: 3671:Comment by others: 3607:Comment by others: 3466:Comment by others: 3416:Comment by others: 3363:Comment by others: 3314:Comment by others: 3011:Comment by others: 2911:Comment by others: 2775:Comment by others: 2673:Comment by others: 2500:Comment by others: 2431:Comment by others: 2343:Comment by others: 2179:Comment by others: 2112:Comment by others: 2071:Comment by others: 2030:Comment by others: 1989:Comment by others: 1940:Comment by others: 808:- no arbitration. 704:important things. 669:Comment by others: 190:Comment by others: 40:/Proposed decision 5529:But PR's source, 5272: 5229: 4356: 4348:Proposed remedies 4212: 4050:self-acknowledged 3562: 3284:Accept Good Faith 3252: 3199: 3161: 2828:m:Polling is evil 2641:One hat at a time 1829: 1684: 1584: 1564: 1249: 1141: 1065: 656: 349: 6993: 6986: 6983: 6200: 6198: 6196: 6194: 6192: 5968: 5966: 5964: 5962: 5960: 5929: 5927: 5925: 5923: 5921: 5755: 5750: 5266: 5223: 5160:indefinite block 5056:Not quite - Jay 5048: 5046: 5044: 5042: 5040: 4975:Jayjg admonished 4643:as a final straw 4478: 4476: 4474: 4472: 4470: 4352: 4239: 4236: 4233: 4230: 4227: 4224: 4206: 4150:different ways. 3572:Locus of dispute 3559: 3556: 3555: 3540: 3537: 3522:indefinite ban. 3507: 3504: 3491: 3489: 3487: 3485: 3483: 3246: 3230: 3227: 3224: 3221: 3218: 3215: 3193: 3155: 3149: 3143: 3122: 3120: 3118: 3116: 3114: 3079: 3077: 3075: 3073: 3071: 3050: 3048: 3046: 3044: 3042: 2949: 2947: 2945: 2943: 2941: 2246: 2220: 2217: 2204: 2202: 2200: 2198: 2196: 1879:personal attack 1826: 1823: 1822: 1792: 1790: 1788: 1786: 1784: 1736: 1734: 1732: 1730: 1728: 1678: 1578: 1558: 1243: 1203: 1201: 1199: 1197: 1195: 1135: 1059: 867: 865: 863: 861: 859: 829: 827: 825: 823: 821: 725: 723: 721: 719: 717: 695: 693: 691: 689: 687: 652: 634: 632: 630: 628: 626: 406: 404: 402: 400: 398: 343: 296: 293: 290: 287: 284: 281: 255: 253: 251: 249: 247: 216: 214: 212: 210: 208: 123: 121: 119: 117: 115: 101: 74:deleted contribs 7001: 7000: 6996: 6995: 6994: 6992: 6991: 6990: 6989: 6984: 6980: 6940: 6902: 6864: 6826: 6788: 6750: 6712: 6674: 6666: 6625: 6584: 6543: 6502: 6458: 6453: 6412: 6371: 6330: 6289: 6248: 6190: 6188: 6186: 6184: 6182: 5958: 5956: 5954: 5952: 5950: 5919: 5917: 5915: 5913: 5911: 5856: 5804: 5753: 5748: 5038: 5036: 5034: 5032: 5030: 4977: 4541:Note: "hey can 4468: 4466: 4464: 4462: 4460: 4362: 4350: 4309: 4268: 4237: 4234: 4231: 4228: 4225: 4222: 4126: 3925:bitten newcomer 3893: 3788: 3739: 3690: 3626: 3574: 3553: 3552: 3538: 3535: 3505: 3502: 3481: 3479: 3477: 3475: 3473: 3433: 3428: 3387: 3334: 3280: 3228: 3225: 3222: 3219: 3216: 3213: 3147: 3141: 3112: 3110: 3108: 3106: 3104: 3069: 3067: 3065: 3063: 3061: 3040: 3038: 3036: 3034: 3032: 2974: 2939: 2937: 2935: 2933: 2931: 2877: 2742: 2643: 2464: 2391: 2325:Alan Dershowitz 2276: 2244: 2218: 2215: 2194: 2192: 2190: 2188: 2186: 2139: 2134: 2129: 2124: 2083: 2042: 2001: 1960: 1955: 1911: 1820: 1819: 1782: 1780: 1778: 1776: 1774: 1726: 1724: 1722: 1720: 1718: 1540:is correct. -- 1193: 1191: 1189: 1187: 1185: 857: 855: 853: 851: 849: 819: 817: 815: 813: 811: 715: 713: 711: 709: 707: 685: 683: 681: 679: 677: 624: 622: 620: 618: 616: 613:constructiive. 593:If there was a 444: 396: 394: 392: 390: 388: 294: 291: 288: 285: 282: 279: 245: 243: 241: 239: 237: 206: 204: 202: 200: 198: 113: 111: 109: 107: 105: 59: 53: 48: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 6999: 6997: 6988: 6987: 6977: 6975: 6973: 6972: 6971: 6970: 6962: 6961: 6960: 6959: 6951: 6950: 6949: 6948: 6939: 6936: 6935: 6934: 6933: 6932: 6924: 6923: 6922: 6921: 6913: 6912: 6911: 6910: 6901: 6898: 6897: 6896: 6895: 6894: 6886: 6885: 6884: 6883: 6875: 6874: 6873: 6872: 6863: 6860: 6859: 6858: 6857: 6856: 6848: 6847: 6846: 6845: 6837: 6836: 6835: 6834: 6825: 6822: 6821: 6820: 6819: 6818: 6810: 6809: 6808: 6807: 6799: 6798: 6797: 6796: 6787: 6784: 6783: 6782: 6781: 6780: 6772: 6771: 6770: 6769: 6761: 6760: 6759: 6758: 6749: 6746: 6745: 6744: 6743: 6742: 6734: 6733: 6732: 6731: 6723: 6722: 6721: 6720: 6711: 6708: 6707: 6706: 6705: 6704: 6696: 6695: 6694: 6693: 6685: 6684: 6683: 6682: 6673: 6670: 6665: 6662: 6661: 6660: 6659: 6658: 6650: 6649: 6648: 6647: 6639: 6638: 6637: 6636: 6624: 6621: 6620: 6619: 6618: 6617: 6609: 6608: 6607: 6606: 6598: 6597: 6596: 6595: 6583: 6580: 6579: 6578: 6577: 6576: 6568: 6567: 6566: 6565: 6557: 6556: 6555: 6554: 6542: 6539: 6538: 6537: 6536: 6535: 6527: 6526: 6525: 6524: 6516: 6515: 6514: 6513: 6501: 6498: 6496: 6494: 6493: 6492: 6491: 6483: 6482: 6481: 6480: 6472: 6471: 6470: 6469: 6457: 6454: 6452: 6449: 6448: 6447: 6446: 6445: 6437: 6436: 6435: 6434: 6426: 6425: 6424: 6423: 6411: 6408: 6407: 6406: 6405: 6404: 6396: 6395: 6394: 6393: 6385: 6384: 6383: 6382: 6370: 6367: 6366: 6365: 6364: 6363: 6355: 6354: 6353: 6352: 6344: 6343: 6342: 6341: 6329: 6326: 6325: 6324: 6323: 6322: 6314: 6313: 6312: 6311: 6303: 6302: 6301: 6300: 6288: 6285: 6284: 6283: 6282: 6281: 6273: 6272: 6271: 6270: 6262: 6261: 6260: 6259: 6247: 6244: 6243: 6242: 6241: 6240: 6239: 6238: 6237: 6236: 6235: 6234: 6233: 6232: 6231: 6230: 6229: 6228: 6167: 6166: 6165: 6164: 6163: 6162: 6161: 6160: 6159: 6158: 6157: 6156: 6155: 6120:"recollection" 6093: 6092: 6091: 6090: 6089: 6088: 6087: 6086: 6085: 6084: 6083: 6082: 6081: 6080: 6079: 6078: 6077: 6076: 6075: 6074: 6044: 6043: 6042: 6041: 6040: 6039: 6038: 6037: 6036: 6035: 6034: 6033: 6032: 6031: 6030: 6029: 6028: 6027: 5991: 5990: 5989: 5881: 5880: 5879: 5878: 5870: 5869: 5868: 5867: 5855: 5852: 5851: 5850: 5849: 5848: 5829: 5828: 5827: 5826: 5818: 5817: 5816: 5815: 5803: 5800: 5799: 5798: 5779: 5778: 5762: 5761: 5739: 5738: 5737: 5736: 5735: 5734: 5733: 5732: 5731: 5730: 5729: 5728: 5727: 5726: 5725: 5724: 5723: 5722: 5721: 5720: 5710: 5706: 5702: 5680: 5679: 5678: 5677: 5676: 5675: 5674: 5673: 5672: 5671: 5670: 5669: 5668: 5667: 5666: 5665: 5664: 5663: 5633: 5632: 5631: 5630: 5629: 5628: 5627: 5626: 5625: 5624: 5623: 5622: 5621: 5620: 5619: 5618: 5594: 5593: 5592: 5591: 5590: 5589: 5588: 5587: 5586: 5585: 5584: 5583: 5582: 5581: 5580: 5579: 5549: 5531:Bitter Harvest 5479: 5478: 5477: 5476: 5475: 5474: 5473: 5472: 5442: 5441: 5440: 5439: 5438: 5437: 5429: 5428: 5427: 5426: 5425: 5424: 5412: 5411: 5410: 5409: 5408: 5407: 5397: 5396: 5395: 5394: 5393: 5392: 5384: 5383: 5382: 5381: 5380: 5379: 5363: 5362: 5361: 5360: 5359: 5358: 5345: 5344: 5343: 5342: 5341: 5340: 5324: 5323: 5322: 5321: 5320: 5319: 5307: 5306: 5305: 5304: 5278: 5277: 5276: 5259: 5258: 5257: 5256: 5255: 5254: 5253: 5233: 5206: 5205: 5204: 5203: 5202: 5201: 5200: 5199: 5198: 5075: 5074: 5073: 5072: 5071: 5009: 5008: 5007: 5006: 4998: 4997: 4996: 4995: 4976: 4973: 4972: 4971: 4970: 4969: 4968: 4967: 4966: 4965: 4964: 4963: 4941: 4940: 4939: 4938: 4937: 4936: 4935: 4934: 4933: 4932: 4917: 4916: 4915: 4914: 4913: 4912: 4911: 4910: 4909: 4908: 4907: 4906: 4905: 4904: 4870: 4869: 4868: 4867: 4866: 4865: 4864: 4863: 4862: 4861: 4860: 4859: 4832: 4831: 4830: 4829: 4828: 4827: 4826: 4825: 4824: 4823: 4810: 4809: 4808: 4807: 4806: 4805: 4804: 4803: 4802: 4801: 4800: 4799: 4798: 4797: 4783: 4782: 4781: 4751:ZionismForever 4724:User:Daniel575 4708: 4707: 4706: 4705: 4704: 4703: 4702: 4701: 4700: 4699: 4686:ZionismForever 4682: 4653: 4652: 4651: 4650: 4649: 4648: 4647: 4646: 4628: 4627: 4626: 4625: 4624: 4623: 4622: 4621: 4611: 4610: 4609: 4608: 4607: 4606: 4605: 4604: 4592: 4591: 4590: 4589: 4588: 4587: 4586: 4585: 4570: 4569: 4568: 4567: 4566: 4565: 4564: 4563: 4553: 4552: 4551: 4550: 4549: 4548: 4547: 4546: 4532: 4531: 4530: 4529: 4528: 4527: 4526: 4525: 4510: 4509: 4508: 4507: 4506: 4505: 4504: 4503: 4489: 4488: 4487: 4486: 4485: 4484: 4441: 4440: 4439: 4430: 4427: 4423: 4416: 4403: 4387: 4386: 4385: 4384: 4361: 4358: 4349: 4346: 4345: 4344: 4343: 4342: 4334: 4333: 4332: 4331: 4323: 4322: 4321: 4320: 4308: 4305: 4304: 4303: 4302: 4301: 4293: 4292: 4291: 4290: 4282: 4281: 4280: 4279: 4267: 4264: 4263: 4262: 4261: 4260: 4245: 4216: 4200: 4193:Proposed. -- 4185: 4184: 4183: 4182: 4181: 4180: 4140: 4139: 4138: 4137: 4125: 4122: 4121: 4120: 4119: 4118: 4117: 4116: 4115: 4114: 4104: 4103: 4102: 4101: 4100: 4099: 4098: 4097: 4096: 4095: 4094: 4073: 4022: 4021: 4020: 3983: 3982: 3981: 3980: 3979: 3978: 3977: 3976: 3937: 3936: 3935: 3934: 3920: 3907: 3906: 3905: 3904: 3892: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3885: 3884: 3883: 3882: 3881: 3880: 3879: 3878: 3877: 3813: 3812: 3811: 3810: 3802: 3801: 3800: 3799: 3787: 3784: 3783: 3782: 3781: 3780: 3765: 3764: 3763: 3762: 3754: 3753: 3752: 3751: 3738: 3735: 3734: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3716: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3705: 3704: 3703: 3702: 3689: 3686: 3685: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3648: 3647: 3646: 3645: 3628:3) In editing 3625: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3619: 3618: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3592: 3591: 3590: 3589: 3573: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3566: 3548: 3547: 3546: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3497: 3462: 3461: 3460: 3459: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3448: 3432: 3429: 3427: 3424: 3423: 3422: 3421: 3420: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3398: 3386: 3383: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3359: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3333: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3310: 3309: 3308: 3307: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3279: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3236: 3099: 3056: 3026: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3004: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2973: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2966: 2965: 2964: 2922: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2876: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2786: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2757: 2741: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2717: 2684: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2642: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2463: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2446: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2390: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2358: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2317: 2307: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2275: 2274:Citing sources 2272: 2271: 2270: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2138: 2137:Community bans 2135: 2133: 2130: 2128: 2125: 2123: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2082: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2041: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2000: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1959: 1956: 1954: 1951: 1949: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1910: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1893: 1872: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1538:Bitter Harvest 1475:Bitter Harvest 1469:Bitter Harvest 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1377:Bitter Harvest 1373:Bitter Harvest 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1306: 1294: 1293: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1236: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1159: 1145: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 959:Talk:Pallywood 955: 910: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 903: 902: 901: 900: 772: 745: 744: 743: 701: 665: 664: 663: 662: 661: 660: 641: 640: 610: 591: 590: 589: 562: 561: 560: 559: 558: 557: 556: 555: 554: 553: 552: 551: 550: 549: 548: 547: 546: 545: 443: 440: 439: 438: 437: 436: 435: 434: 415: 414: 413: 412: 365: 364: 363: 362: 353: 325: 312: 311: 310: 309: 308: 307: 306: 305: 304: 303: 302: 186: 185: 184: 183: 173: 160: 150: 140: 139: 138: 137: 52: 49: 47: 44: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 6998: 6982: 6979: 6976: 6969: 6968: 6967: 6964: 6963: 6958: 6957: 6956: 6953: 6952: 6947: 6946: 6945: 6942: 6941: 6937: 6931: 6930: 6929: 6926: 6925: 6920: 6919: 6918: 6915: 6914: 6909: 6908: 6907: 6904: 6903: 6899: 6893: 6892: 6891: 6888: 6887: 6882: 6881: 6880: 6877: 6876: 6871: 6870: 6869: 6866: 6865: 6861: 6855: 6854: 6853: 6850: 6849: 6844: 6843: 6842: 6839: 6838: 6833: 6832: 6831: 6828: 6827: 6823: 6817: 6816: 6815: 6812: 6811: 6806: 6805: 6804: 6801: 6800: 6795: 6794: 6793: 6790: 6789: 6785: 6779: 6778: 6777: 6774: 6773: 6768: 6767: 6766: 6763: 6762: 6757: 6756: 6755: 6752: 6751: 6747: 6741: 6740: 6739: 6736: 6735: 6730: 6729: 6728: 6725: 6724: 6719: 6718: 6717: 6714: 6713: 6709: 6703: 6702: 6701: 6698: 6697: 6692: 6691: 6690: 6687: 6686: 6681: 6680: 6679: 6676: 6675: 6671: 6669: 6663: 6657: 6656: 6655: 6652: 6651: 6646: 6645: 6644: 6641: 6640: 6635: 6634: 6633: 6630: 6629: 6628: 6622: 6616: 6615: 6614: 6611: 6610: 6605: 6604: 6603: 6600: 6599: 6594: 6593: 6592: 6589: 6588: 6587: 6581: 6575: 6574: 6573: 6570: 6569: 6564: 6563: 6562: 6559: 6558: 6553: 6552: 6551: 6548: 6547: 6546: 6540: 6534: 6533: 6532: 6529: 6528: 6523: 6522: 6521: 6518: 6517: 6512: 6511: 6510: 6507: 6506: 6505: 6499: 6497: 6490: 6489: 6488: 6485: 6484: 6479: 6478: 6477: 6474: 6473: 6468: 6467: 6466: 6463: 6462: 6461: 6455: 6450: 6444: 6443: 6442: 6439: 6438: 6433: 6432: 6431: 6428: 6427: 6422: 6421: 6420: 6417: 6416: 6415: 6409: 6403: 6402: 6401: 6398: 6397: 6392: 6391: 6390: 6387: 6386: 6381: 6380: 6379: 6376: 6375: 6374: 6368: 6362: 6361: 6360: 6357: 6356: 6351: 6350: 6349: 6346: 6345: 6340: 6339: 6338: 6335: 6334: 6333: 6327: 6321: 6320: 6319: 6316: 6315: 6310: 6309: 6308: 6305: 6304: 6299: 6298: 6297: 6294: 6293: 6292: 6286: 6280: 6279: 6278: 6275: 6274: 6269: 6268: 6267: 6264: 6263: 6258: 6257: 6256: 6253: 6252: 6251: 6245: 6227: 6224: 6220: 6219: 6218: 6215: 6211: 6207: 6206: 6205: 6202: 6201: 6177: 6176: 6175: 6172: 6168: 6154: 6151: 6147: 6146: 6145: 6142: 6137: 6134: 6130: 6126: 6121: 6117: 6113: 6112: 6111: 6110: 6109: 6108: 6107: 6106: 6105: 6104: 6103: 6102: 6101: 6100: 6099: 6098: 6097: 6096: 6095: 6094: 6073: 6070: 6068: 6064: 6063: 6062: 6061: 6060: 6059: 6058: 6057: 6056: 6055: 6054: 6053: 6052: 6051: 6050: 6049: 6048: 6047: 6046: 6045: 6025: 6024: 6023: 6020: 6018: 6013: 6012: 6011: 6008: 6004: 6003: 6002: 5999: 5997: 5992: 5988: 5985: 5982: 5977: 5976: 5975: 5974: 5973: 5970: 5969: 5945: 5944: 5943: 5940: 5936: 5935: 5934: 5931: 5930: 5906: 5905: 5903: 5900: 5896: 5891: 5888: 5887: 5886: 5883: 5882: 5877: 5876: 5875: 5872: 5871: 5866: 5865: 5864: 5861: 5860: 5859: 5853: 5847: 5844: 5840: 5836: 5835: 5834: 5831: 5830: 5825: 5824: 5823: 5820: 5819: 5814: 5813: 5812: 5809: 5808: 5807: 5801: 5797: 5794: 5789: 5784: 5781: 5780: 5777: 5774: 5771: 5767: 5764: 5763: 5760: 5757: 5756: 5751: 5744: 5741: 5740: 5719: 5716: 5711: 5707: 5703: 5700: 5699: 5698: 5697: 5696: 5695: 5694: 5693: 5692: 5691: 5690: 5689: 5688: 5687: 5686: 5685: 5684: 5683: 5682: 5681: 5662: 5659: 5655: 5651: 5650: 5649: 5648: 5647: 5646: 5645: 5644: 5643: 5642: 5641: 5640: 5639: 5638: 5637: 5636: 5635: 5634: 5617: 5614: 5610: 5609: 5608: 5607: 5606: 5605: 5604: 5603: 5602: 5601: 5600: 5599: 5598: 5597: 5596: 5595: 5577: 5573: 5568: 5565: 5562: 5561: 5560: 5557: 5555: 5550: 5546: 5545: 5544: 5541: 5536: 5532: 5528: 5527: 5526: 5523: 5519: 5518:Jewish Agency 5515: 5510: 5509: 5508: 5505: 5501: 5497: 5494: 5490: 5487: 5486: 5485: 5484: 5483: 5482: 5481: 5480: 5471: 5468: 5463: 5462: 5461: 5458: 5456: 5452: 5448: 5447: 5446: 5445: 5444: 5443: 5435: 5434: 5433: 5432: 5431: 5430: 5422: 5418: 5417: 5416: 5415: 5414: 5413: 5406: 5403: 5402: 5401: 5400: 5399: 5398: 5390: 5389: 5388: 5387: 5386: 5385: 5377: 5373: 5369: 5368: 5367: 5366: 5365: 5364: 5355: 5351: 5350: 5349: 5348: 5347: 5346: 5338: 5334: 5330: 5329: 5328: 5327: 5326: 5325: 5317: 5313: 5312: 5311: 5310: 5309: 5308: 5303: 5300: 5296: 5292: 5291: 5290: 5287: 5283: 5279: 5275: 5270: 5265: 5260: 5252: 5249: 5246: 5243: 5238: 5234: 5232: 5227: 5222: 5218: 5217: 5216: 5213: 5211: 5207: 5197: 5194: 5191: 5187: 5186: 5185: 5182: 5178: 5173: 5172: 5171: 5168: 5165: 5161: 5157: 5153: 5149: 5145: 5140: 5139: 5138: 5135: 5131: 5127: 5123: 5122: 5121: 5120: 5119: 5116: 5113: 5109: 5106:wrong-doing, 5105: 5101: 5100: 5099: 5096: 5093: 5089: 5084: 5080: 5076: 5070: 5067: 5063: 5059: 5055: 5054: 5053: 5050: 5049: 5026: 5025: 5024: 5021: 5016: 5015: 5014: 5011: 5010: 5005: 5004: 5003: 5000: 4999: 4994: 4991: 4987: 4986: 4985: 4982: 4981: 4980: 4974: 4962: 4959: 4955: 4951: 4950: 4949: 4948: 4947: 4946: 4945: 4944: 4943: 4942: 4930: 4927: 4926: 4925: 4924: 4923: 4922: 4921: 4920: 4919: 4918: 4903: 4900: 4896: 4892: 4888: 4884: 4883: 4882: 4881: 4880: 4879: 4878: 4877: 4876: 4875: 4874: 4873: 4872: 4871: 4858: 4855: 4853: 4848: 4844: 4843: 4842: 4841: 4840: 4839: 4838: 4837: 4836: 4835: 4834: 4833: 4820: 4819: 4818: 4817: 4816: 4815: 4814: 4813: 4812: 4811: 4796: 4793: 4788: 4784: 4780: 4777: 4773: 4772: 4769: 4765: 4764:with pleasure 4760: 4756: 4752: 4748: 4744: 4741: 4740: 4739: 4738: 4737: 4734: 4732: 4728: 4725: 4720: 4719: 4718: 4717: 4716: 4715: 4714: 4713: 4712: 4711: 4710: 4709: 4698: 4695: 4691: 4690:what I posted 4687: 4683: 4680: 4676: 4672: 4671: 4670: 4667: 4665: 4661: 4660: 4659: 4658: 4657: 4656: 4655: 4654: 4644: 4640: 4636: 4635: 4634: 4633: 4632: 4631: 4630: 4629: 4619: 4618: 4617: 4616: 4615: 4614: 4613: 4612: 4603: 4600: 4599: 4598: 4597: 4596: 4595: 4594: 4593: 4583: 4578: 4577: 4576: 4575: 4574: 4573: 4572: 4571: 4561: 4560: 4559: 4558: 4557: 4556: 4555: 4554: 4544: 4540: 4539: 4538: 4537: 4536: 4535: 4534: 4533: 4523: 4518: 4517: 4516: 4515: 4514: 4513: 4512: 4511: 4501: 4497: 4496: 4495: 4494: 4493: 4492: 4491: 4490: 4483: 4480: 4479: 4456: 4455: 4454: 4451: 4447: 4446: 4445: 4442: 4438: 4435: 4431: 4428: 4424: 4421: 4417: 4415: 4413: 4412:0-905906-85-3 4410: 4404: 4401: 4397: 4394: 4393: 4392: 4389: 4388: 4383: 4380: 4376: 4375: 4374: 4371: 4370: 4369: 4367: 4359: 4357: 4355: 4347: 4341: 4340: 4339: 4336: 4335: 4330: 4329: 4328: 4325: 4324: 4319: 4318: 4317: 4314: 4313: 4312: 4306: 4300: 4299: 4298: 4295: 4294: 4289: 4288: 4287: 4284: 4283: 4278: 4277: 4276: 4273: 4272: 4271: 4265: 4258: 4255: 4251: 4246: 4244: 4241: 4240: 4217: 4215: 4210: 4205: 4201: 4199: 4196: 4192: 4191: 4190: 4187: 4186: 4179: 4176: 4173: 4170: 4169: 4168: 4165: 4162: 4158: 4156: 4153: 4147: 4146: 4145: 4142: 4141: 4136: 4135: 4134: 4131: 4130: 4129: 4123: 4113: 4110: 4105: 4093: 4090: 4086: 4085: 4084: 4081: 4078: 4074: 4072: 4069: 4065: 4062: 4061: 4060: 4057: 4055: 4051: 4047: 4046: 4045: 4042: 4039: 4034: 4033: 4032: 4029: 4027: 4023: 4019: 4016: 4013: 4009: 4004: 4003: 4002: 3999: 3997: 3993: 3992: 3991: 3990: 3989: 3988: 3987: 3986: 3985: 3984: 3975: 3972: 3969: 3964: 3963: 3962: 3959: 3957: 3953: 3952: 3951: 3948: 3944: 3943: 3942: 3939: 3938: 3933: 3930: 3926: 3921: 3918: 3914: 3913: 3912: 3909: 3908: 3903: 3902: 3901: 3898: 3897: 3896: 3890: 3876: 3873: 3868: 3867: 3866: 3863: 3861: 3857: 3856: 3855: 3852: 3848: 3847:their reasons 3844: 3840: 3839: 3838: 3835: 3833: 3829: 3828: 3827: 3824: 3820: 3819: 3818: 3815: 3814: 3809: 3808: 3807: 3804: 3803: 3798: 3797: 3796: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3785: 3779: 3776: 3772: 3771: 3770: 3767: 3766: 3761: 3760: 3759: 3756: 3755: 3750: 3749: 3748: 3745: 3744: 3743: 3736: 3730: 3727: 3723: 3722: 3721: 3718: 3717: 3712: 3711: 3710: 3707: 3706: 3701: 3700: 3699: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3687: 3681: 3678: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3669: 3668: 3663: 3660: 3655: 3654: 3653: 3650: 3649: 3644: 3643: 3642: 3639: 3638: 3637: 3635: 3631: 3623: 3617: 3614: 3611:Proposed. -- 3610: 3609: 3608: 3605: 3604: 3599: 3598: 3597: 3594: 3593: 3588: 3587: 3586: 3583: 3582: 3581: 3579: 3571: 3565: 3561: 3557: 3549: 3545: 3542: 3541: 3530: 3529: 3528: 3525: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3512: 3509: 3508: 3498: 3496: 3493: 3492: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3464: 3463: 3458: 3457: 3456: 3453: 3452: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3442: 3441: 3440: 3438: 3430: 3425: 3419: 3418: 3417: 3414: 3413: 3408: 3407: 3406: 3403: 3402: 3397: 3396: 3395: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3384: 3378: 3375: 3371: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3361: 3360: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3350: 3349: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3339: 3338: 3337: 3331: 3325: 3322: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3312: 3311: 3306: 3305: 3304: 3301: 3300: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3285: 3277: 3255: 3250: 3245: 3241: 3237: 3235: 3232: 3231: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3197: 3192: 3187: 3183: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3174: 3170: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3159: 3154: 3146: 3145:uw-unsourced1 3138: 3137: 3136: 3133: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3124: 3123: 3100: 3098: 3095: 3090: 3086: 3085: 3084: 3081: 3080: 3057: 3055: 3052: 3051: 3027: 3025: 3022: 3018: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3009: 3008: 3003: 3000: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2991: 2990: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2971: 2963: 2960: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2951: 2950: 2927: 2923: 2921: 2918: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2909: 2908: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2898: 2897: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2882: 2874: 2862: 2859: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2849: 2847: 2843: 2841: 2837: 2835: 2829: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2819: 2815: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2806: 2804: 2800: 2798: 2794: 2792: 2787: 2785: 2782: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2773: 2772: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2762: 2761: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2747: 2739: 2729: 2726: 2722: 2718: 2714: 2713: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2705: 2703: 2699: 2697: 2693: 2691: 2685: 2683: 2680: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2671: 2670: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2660: 2659: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2640: 2626: 2623: 2620: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2610: 2605: 2601: 2598: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2589: 2587: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2578: 2575: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2566: 2564: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2547: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2529: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2519: 2515: 2511: 2507: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2498: 2497: 2492: 2489: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2480: 2479: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2461: 2455: 2452: 2447: 2445: 2442: 2438: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2429: 2428: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2418: 2417: 2412: 2409: 2406: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2388: 2382: 2379: 2375: 2371: 2367: 2363: 2359: 2357: 2354: 2350: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2341: 2337: 2334: 2330: 2326: 2322: 2318: 2315: 2311: 2308: 2306: 2305: 2302: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2292: 2291: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2273: 2269: 2266: 2262: 2252: 2249: 2247: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2236: 2231: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2222: 2221: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2206: 2205: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2177: 2176: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2166: 2165: 2160: 2157: 2154: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2136: 2131: 2126: 2121: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2110: 2109: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2099: 2098: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2080: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2069: 2068: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2058: 2057: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2039: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2028: 2027: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2017: 2016: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2006: 2005: 2004: 1998: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1987: 1986: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1976: 1975: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1957: 1952: 1950: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1938: 1937: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1927: 1926: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1908: 1902: 1899: 1894: 1891: 1886: 1882: 1878: 1873: 1870: 1867: 1863: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1854: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1843: 1839: 1833: 1832: 1828: 1824: 1815: 1811: 1807: 1806:To SlimVirgin 1797: 1794: 1793: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1765: 1760: 1756: 1750: 1747: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1738: 1737: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1709: 1704: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1687: 1682: 1677: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1655: 1652: 1650: 1646: 1642: 1636: 1633: 1630: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1620: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1608: 1605: 1601: 1587: 1582: 1577: 1573: 1568: 1567:non-identical 1562: 1557: 1552: 1546: 1543: 1539: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1510: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1482: 1478: 1476: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1456: 1452: 1449: 1446: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1430: 1406: 1403: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1394: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1361: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1352: 1350: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1331: 1328: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1318: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1305: 1302: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1292: 1289: 1284: 1278: 1275: 1272: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1263: 1259: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1247: 1242: 1237: 1235: 1232: 1227: 1221: 1218: 1215: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1205: 1204: 1181: 1177: 1174: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1160: 1158: 1155: 1150: 1146: 1144: 1139: 1134: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1124: 1122: 1117: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1108: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1077: 1074: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1063: 1058: 1053: 1037: 1034: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1008: 1004: 1003: 1002: 999: 997: 993: 988: 987: 986: 983: 979: 978: 977: 975: 970: 969: 968: 965: 960: 956: 954: 951: 947: 943: 939: 935: 934:User:Kiyosaki 931: 930: 929: 926: 924: 919: 916: 911: 899: 896: 892: 891: 890: 887: 883: 882: 881: 878: 874: 873: 872: 869: 868: 845: 844: 843: 840: 836: 835: 834: 831: 830: 807: 802: 801: 800: 797: 793: 789: 785: 784: 783: 780: 778: 773: 769: 768: 767: 764: 760: 756: 755: 754: 751: 746: 742: 739: 737: 732: 731: 730: 727: 726: 702: 700: 697: 696: 672: 671: 670: 667: 666: 659: 655: 651: 647: 643: 642: 639: 636: 635: 611: 609: 606: 601: 596: 592: 588: 585: 580: 579: 578: 577: 576: 573: 569: 568: 567: 564: 563: 544: 541: 537: 536: 535: 532: 528: 524: 523: 522: 519: 515: 514: 513: 512: 511: 508: 504: 502: 496: 495: 494: 491: 487: 483: 482: 481: 478: 474: 470: 466: 463: 462: 461: 458: 454: 453: 452: 449: 448: 447: 441: 433: 430: 428: 424: 421: 420: 419: 418: 417: 416: 411: 408: 407: 384: 381: 380: 379: 376: 372: 367: 366: 361: 358: 354: 352: 347: 342: 338: 337: 336: 333: 330: 326: 324: 321: 316: 313: 301: 298: 297: 274: 273: 272: 269: 266: 262: 261: 260: 257: 256: 233: 232: 231: 228: 223: 222: 221: 218: 217: 193: 192: 191: 188: 187: 182: 179: 174: 170: 168: 164: 161: 158: 156: 151: 147: 146: 145: 142: 141: 136: 135: 134: 131: 130: 129: 128: 125: 124: 99: 96: 93: 90: 87: 84: 81: 78: 75: 72: 69: 66: 63: 58: 50: 45: 43: 41: 36: 34: 23: 19: 6981: 6974: 6965: 6954: 6943: 6927: 6916: 6905: 6889: 6878: 6867: 6851: 6840: 6829: 6813: 6802: 6791: 6775: 6764: 6753: 6737: 6726: 6715: 6699: 6688: 6677: 6667: 6653: 6642: 6631: 6626: 6612: 6601: 6590: 6585: 6571: 6560: 6549: 6544: 6530: 6519: 6508: 6503: 6495: 6486: 6475: 6464: 6459: 6440: 6429: 6418: 6413: 6399: 6388: 6377: 6372: 6358: 6347: 6336: 6331: 6317: 6306: 6295: 6290: 6276: 6265: 6254: 6249: 6209: 6181: 6133:Evening Star 6132: 6128: 5949: 5910: 5889: 5884: 5873: 5862: 5857: 5832: 5821: 5810: 5805: 5782: 5765: 5746: 5742: 5571: 5534: 5530: 5502:, IMHO). -- 5492: 5451:Evening Star 5450: 5421:Evening Star 5420: 5375: 5371: 5354:Evening Star 5353: 5336: 5333:Evening Star 5332: 5315: 5281: 5236: 5176: 5159: 5155: 5151: 5147: 5143: 5125: 5107: 5103: 5087: 5082: 5078: 5061: 5057: 5029: 5012: 5001: 4983: 4978: 4953: 4890: 4846: 4767: 4763: 4746: 4742: 4642: 4580: 4542: 4520: 4459: 4443: 4419: 4406: 4399: 4390: 4372: 4363: 4353: 4351: 4337: 4326: 4315: 4310: 4296: 4285: 4274: 4269: 4221: 4188: 4171: 4148: 4143: 4132: 4127: 4049: 4007: 3940: 3910: 3899: 3894: 3842: 3816: 3805: 3794: 3789: 3768: 3757: 3746: 3740: 3719: 3708: 3697: 3691: 3670: 3651: 3640: 3634:Evening Star 3633: 3627: 3606: 3595: 3584: 3578:Evening Star 3577: 3575: 3533: 3500: 3472: 3465: 3454: 3443: 3434: 3415: 3404: 3393: 3388: 3362: 3351: 3340: 3335: 3313: 3302: 3291: 3281: 3212: 3168: 3103: 3060: 3031: 3010: 2992: 2981: 2975: 2930: 2915:Proposed. -- 2910: 2899: 2888: 2880: 2878: 2845: 2839: 2833: 2802: 2796: 2790: 2779:Proposed. -- 2774: 2763: 2752: 2745: 2743: 2701: 2695: 2689: 2672: 2661: 2650: 2644: 2544: 2509: 2499: 2481: 2470: 2465: 2430: 2419: 2397: 2392: 2365: 2342: 2328: 2313: 2309: 2298: 2293: 2282: 2277: 2229: 2213: 2185: 2178: 2167: 2146: 2140: 2111: 2100: 2089: 2084: 2070: 2059: 2048: 2043: 2029: 2018: 2007: 2002: 1988: 1977: 1966: 1961: 1948: 1939: 1928: 1917: 1912: 1889: 1884: 1880: 1876: 1837: 1834: 1813: 1809: 1805: 1804: 1773: 1758: 1717: 1571: 1566: 1537: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1508: 1474: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1425: 1376: 1372: 1369:Evening Star 1368: 1309: 1257: 1184: 1165: 1161: 1148: 1115: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1013: 1006: 991: 848: 810: 791: 787: 758: 706: 676: 668: 615: 599: 594: 565: 500: 498: 485: 450: 445: 387: 314: 278: 236: 197: 189: 166: 154: 143: 132: 104: 94: 88: 82: 76: 70: 64: 54: 37: 29: 6150:Proabivouac 6135:material. 4887:Larry Niven 4159:Retracted. 3580:newspaper. 2512:. See also 1465:PR's source 605:Proabivouac 375:Newyorkbrad 320:Proabivouac 6139:forward.-- 6067:SlimVirgin 6017:SlimVirgin 5996:SlimVirgin 5788:pied piper 5554:SlimVirgin 5514:Lord Moyne 5455:SlimVirgin 5210:SlimVirgin 4889:who wrote 4852:SlimVirgin 4731:SlimVirgin 4675:admonition 4664:SlimVirgin 4426:properly). 4054:SlimVirgin 4026:SlimVirgin 3996:SlimVirgin 3956:SlimVirgin 3860:SlimVirgin 3832:SlimVirgin 3470:Proposed. 2586:SlimVirgin 2563:SlimVirgin 2314:"improper" 2183:Proposed. 1649:SlimVirgin 1349:SlimVirgin 1121:SlimVirgin 1031:SlimVirgin 996:SlimVirgin 974:SlimVirgin 923:SlimVirgin 777:SlimVirgin 736:SlimVirgin 473:neutrality 469:attibution 427:SlimVirgin 318:dismissed. 92:block user 86:filter log 5981:Musical L 5890:Proposed. 5793:Kendrick7 5770:Musical L 5658:Kendrick7 5504:Kendrick7 5376:assassins 5058:solicited 4958:Kendrick7 4954:last year 4899:Kendrick7 4895:WP:BITing 4792:Kendrick7 4677:; here's 4582:Zionists? 3182:WP:VANDAL 3167:Yes, and 2881:exhausted 2746:consensus 2510:abusively 2405:Mackensen 2153:Mackensen 1094:wrong. 950:Kendrick7 796:Kendrick7 759:shouldn't 650:≈ jossi ≈ 531:Kendrick7 455:Agree. -- 98:block log 33:/Evidence 6900:Template 6862:Template 6824:Template 6786:Template 6748:Template 6710:Template 6672:Template 6623:Template 6582:Template 6541:Template 6500:Template 6456:Template 6410:Template 6369:Template 6328:Template 6287:Template 6246:Template 5522:Coroebus 5357:Herzl'." 5299:jpgordon 4990:jpgordon 4379:jpgordon 4307:Template 4266:Template 3554:FayssalF 3385:Template 3173:Barberio 3132:Barberio 3094:Barberio 3021:Barberio 2959:Barberio 2917:Barberio 2858:Barberio 2818:Barberio 2781:Barberio 2265:Barberio 2081:Template 2040:Template 1999:Template 1958:Template 1909:Template 1821:FayssalF 1529:Coroebus 1509:possible 940:, and I 877:Coroebus 839:Coroebus 540:jpgordon 518:jpgordon 490:jpgordon 477:jpgordon 457:jpgordon 68:contribs 20:‎ | 6214:GRBerry 6171:GRBerry 6129:central 6116:WP:CITE 5984:inguist 5939:GRBerry 5899:GRBerry 5895:GRBerry 5783:Support 5773:inguist 5715:GRBerry 5576:WP:CITE 5540:RolandR 5295:comment 5248:Chovain 5193:Chovain 5167:Chovain 5130:WP:CITE 5115:Chovain 5095:Chovain 4759:WP:NPOV 4254:GRBerry 4250:GRBerry 4164:Chovain 4155:Chovain 4080:Chovain 4041:Chovain 4015:Chovain 3971:Chovain 3524:RolandR 3186:WP:CITE 3017:WP:CITE 2622:Chovain 2577:Chovain 2528:WP:SOCK 2451:GRBerry 2374:WP:ATTR 2370:WP:CITE 1853:GRBerry 1759:opposed 1632:Chovain 1607:Chovain 1439:. That 1317:Chovain 1274:Chovain 1217:Chovain 1173:Chovain 1107:Chovain 1092:nothing 600:move on 527:bailiff 357:GRBerry 332:Chovain 315:Support 268:Chovain 6141:G-Dett 6007:G-Dett 5843:ChrisO 5766:Oppose 5743:Oppose 5613:G-Dett 5516:, the 5500:WP:WTA 5493:entire 5467:G-Dett 5286:ChrisO 5181:Isarig 5175:PR of 5134:Isarig 5066:ChrisO 5020:ChrisO 4776:G-Dett 4755:WP:NOR 4694:G-Dett 4450:ChrisO 4195:ChrisO 4175:Tiamut 4109:G-Dett 4089:ChrisO 4068:ChrisO 3947:ChrisO 3917:WP:SPA 3872:ChrisO 3851:ChrisO 3823:ChrisO 3775:ChrisO 3726:ChrisO 3677:ChrisO 3613:ChrisO 3370:WP:AGF 2926:WP:BAN 2679:Jd2718 2609:ChrisO 2597:G-Dett 2518:ChrisO 2441:ChrisO 2408:(talk) 2353:ChrisO 2310:Oppose 2235:ChrisO 2156:(talk) 1746:G-Dett 1708:G-Dett 1703:WP:AGF 1619:Isarig 1481:G-Dett 1477:online 1455:Isarig 1402:G-Dett 1393:Isarig 1381:G-Dett 1360:Isarig 1327:Isarig 1301:ChrisO 1288:Jayjg 1262:Jayjg 1260:case. 1231:ChrisO 1154:ChrisO 1073:G-Dett 1018:ChrisO 982:ChrisO 964:ChrisO 942:WP:AGF 886:ChrisO 763:ChrisO 750:ChrisO 654:(talk) 227:Tiamut 149:hours. 5841:. -- 5264:nadav 5221:nadav 5083:still 5079:still 4543:again 4204:nadav 4066:. -- 3536:Eagle 3503:Eagle 3244:nadav 3240:WP:RS 3191:nadav 3153:nadav 2530:says: 2516:. -- 2351:. -- 2321:No.38 2230:never 2216:Eagle 1757:I am 1676:nadav 1576:nadav 1572:could 1556:nadav 1241:nadav 1166:still 1133:nadav 1057:nadav 646:WP:DR 603:know. 595:chill 341:nadav 16:< 5749:Baka 5535:does 5372:does 5269:talk 5245:Mark 5242:this 5237:love 5226:talk 5190:Mark 5164:Mark 5112:Mark 5092:Mark 5088:that 4757:and 4679:mine 4562:And: 4409:ISBN 4209:talk 4161:Mark 4152:Mark 4077:Mark 4038:Mark 4012:Mark 3968:Mark 3249:talk 3196:talk 3169:that 3158:talk 2816:. -- 2812:See 2619:Mark 2574:Mark 2378:Zero 2366:cite 2085:4) 2044:3) 2003:2) 1962:1) 1913:3) 1868:and 1842:6SJ7 1838:that 1764:Zero 1681:talk 1629:Mark 1604:Mark 1581:talk 1561:talk 1542:Zero 1441:link 1314:Mark 1271:Mark 1258:this 1246:talk 1214:Mark 1170:Mark 1149:some 1138:talk 1104:Mark 1062:talk 790:and 771:you. 734:be. 471:and 371:here 346:talk 329:Mark 265:Mark 80:logs 62:talk 5754:man 5572:the 5177:any 5156:all 5152:why 5148:any 5126:any 5104:any 4774:]-- 3843:was 3539:101 3506:101 2721:SPA 2607:-- 2219:101 1517:and 1116:are 1100:any 1096:All 1014:not 938:DAE 55:1) 6199:te 6197:ai 6195:hw 6193:et 6191:tl 6189:os 6185:an 6183:Ry 5967:te 5965:ai 5963:hw 5961:et 5959:tl 5957:os 5953:an 5951:Ry 5928:te 5926:ai 5924:hw 5922:et 5920:tl 5918:os 5914:an 5912:Ry 5904:) 5533:, 5162:. 5047:te 5045:ai 5043:hw 5041:et 5039:tl 5037:os 5033:an 5031:Ry 4768:3) 4747:2) 4743:1) 4477:te 4475:ai 4473:hw 4471:et 4469:tl 4467:os 4463:an 4461:Ry 4008:is 3919:). 3558:- 3490:te 3488:ai 3486:hw 3484:et 3482:tl 3480:os 3476:an 3474:Ry 3242:. 3148:}} 3142:{{ 3121:te 3119:ai 3117:hw 3115:et 3113:tl 3111:os 3107:an 3105:Ry 3078:te 3076:ai 3074:hw 3072:et 3070:tl 3068:os 3064:an 3062:Ry 3049:te 3047:ai 3045:hw 3043:et 3041:tl 3039:os 3035:an 3033:Ry 2948:te 2946:ai 2944:hw 2942:et 2940:tl 2938:os 2934:an 2932:Ry 2842:tc 2836:hs 2799:tc 2793:hs 2698:tc 2692:hs 2331:. 2323:. 2203:te 2201:ai 2199:hw 2197:et 2195:tl 2193:os 2189:an 2187:Ry 1885:3) 1881:2) 1877:1) 1825:- 1791:te 1789:ai 1787:hw 1785:et 1783:tl 1781:os 1777:an 1775:Ry 1735:te 1733:ai 1731:hw 1729:et 1727:tl 1725:os 1721:an 1719:Ry 1513:if 1429:is 1202:te 1200:ai 1198:hw 1196:et 1194:tl 1192:os 1188:an 1186:Ry 866:te 864:ai 862:hw 860:et 858:tl 856:os 852:an 850:Ry 828:te 826:ai 824:hw 822:et 820:tl 818:os 814:an 812:Ry 724:te 722:ai 720:hw 718:et 716:tl 714:os 710:an 708:Ry 694:te 692:ai 690:hw 688:et 686:tl 684:os 680:an 678:Ry 633:te 631:ai 629:hw 627:et 625:tl 623:os 619:an 617:Ry 505:" 465:PR 405:te 403:ai 401:hw 399:et 397:tl 395:os 391:an 389:Ry 385:. 373:. 254:te 252:ai 250:hw 248:et 246:tl 244:os 240:an 238:Ry 215:te 213:ai 211:hw 209:et 207:tl 205:os 201:an 199:Ry 122:te 120:ai 118:hw 116:et 114:tl 112:os 108:an 106:Ry 6187:P 5955:P 5916:P 5271:) 5267:( 5228:) 5224:( 5035:P 4681:. 4502:: 4465:P 4422:. 4402:. 4259:) 4238:t 4235:u 4232:m 4229:a 4226:i 4223:T 4211:) 4207:( 3478:P 3251:) 3247:( 3229:t 3226:u 3223:m 3220:a 3217:i 3214:T 3198:) 3194:( 3160:) 3156:( 3109:P 3066:P 3037:P 2936:P 2848:y 2846:h 2840:i 2834:W 2805:y 2803:h 2797:i 2791:W 2704:y 2702:h 2696:i 2690:W 2316:. 2191:P 1871:. 1779:P 1723:P 1683:) 1679:( 1583:) 1579:( 1563:) 1559:( 1467:( 1248:) 1244:( 1190:P 1140:) 1136:( 1064:) 1060:( 854:P 816:P 712:P 682:P 621:P 499:" 393:P 348:) 344:( 295:t 292:u 289:m 286:a 283:i 280:T 242:P 203:P 110:P 100:) 95:· 89:· 83:· 77:· 71:· 65:· 60:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Workshop - Knowledge (XXG)

Index