User talk:PalestineRemembered

Archive1, Archive2, Archive3, Oct 2007, Nov 2007, Dec 2007

Re: mentorship

I've responded at WP:AN. east.718 at 15:20, 11/5/2007

Ad hominem

This wasn't very nice.[1] Durova^Charge! 03:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) Please PR, try to be WP:CIVIL. An open ArbCom case is just about the worst place for you to vent like this. You really need to be on your best behavior. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to see this still coming up.[2] Would you please withdraw it, and please refrain from that type of insinuation regarding me? I assure you, this mentorship was undertaken in good faith on both sides. I would like to collaborate with you in good faith also. Durova^Charge! 21:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Words for groups of people

Dear PalestineRemembered, re this discussion, where someone asked you to avoid using the word "immigrants" in this context and you indicated difficulty in finding acceptable words to use and you said "I will often refer to supporters of Israel as "the immigrants" ". Here I would like to try to help everyone compromise and get along with each other, so I'd like to try to help find a word or phrase people can agree on, although perhaps it's not likely I can come up with anything that hasn't already been suggested and rejected for one reason or another. I understand your frustration -- you've got to be able to use a word to be able to express what you want to say. Now, maybe I ought to know this already, but I'd appreciate it if you'd gently explain to me why you wouldn't use the term "Israelis" in that context. (As a reminder, there are now also the phrases suggested by Sm8900 (Steve): ("i would ask whether you could perhaps use a term such as "Israel supporters," "Israelis and their allies", or simply, "Members of Israeli society." it might even be fine to say "Israelis of a Zionist viewpoint," as using Zionist as an adjective is not really that bad.") --Coppertwig (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence in the arbitration case

You write "I can either prove, or provide conclusive circumstantial evidence, that User:Jaakobou has been operating one or more sock-puppets in order to edit-war. He has had 4 days to tell us how many there are, and name them."

If you have reasonable good faith grounds for believing Jaakobou has been misusing multiple accounts then please send it to the arbitration committee mailing list (where it will be treated confidentially), at [email protected]. Setting a deadline for Jaakobou to reveal them is not relevant, because that might be taken to imply that such use was acceptable if subsequently declared. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, PR, you should follow this course of action. Your evidence section attempting to tell Jaak what to do looks at worst like a paranoid screed and at best an attempt to create needless WP:DRAMA. Just forward the evidence you have to ArbCom. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Will you just provide the evidence about Jaakobou so that it is out in the open. I don't understand why you are holding it back if it is so convincing. If you can't provide the evidence, then remove the section. After all, it is an Evidence page, not an accusations one. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have now agreed to provide the proof, subject only that it not be deleted. We've had dedicated, abusive sock-puppetry from partisans on this topic before, they weren't forced to confess and the evidence was deleted. Today I discover even the sock-masters account in that case has been deleted (very prematurely, since it was active not long ago). The evidence in this case mustn't be treated the same way. PR^talk 18:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If the evidence is not provided either on-wiki or privately to ArbCom by the end of today, all the allegations of sockpuppetry on the evidence page will be blanked. The evidence page is for evidence, not argument or allegation. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you should remove the allegations. This is your project and you must do as you see fit. But I put the proof up here anyway. Please don't delete the accounts User:MouseWarrior and User:Paul_T._Evans, because people will still want to check the evidence for themselves. PR^talk 23:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom comments

Hi. i replied to your comments about my ideas in my section under "Proposed remedies." would like to hear your response, when you have a chance. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks very much! I appreciate your positive comments. By the way, that wasn't the one which i was refeing to here(not sure whether you thought it was). this is the ciomment i meant: located here. thanks very much. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

PR, thank you for your comments about my editing at the Arbcomm proceedings. I literally blushed. Tiamut 16:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please withdraw this phrase

(as Jaakobou's mentor Durova would tell us) - it's inappropriate to put words in my mouth. You never contacted me with any of these details and I've only just now started skimming your claims for the first time, now that you've made them available. You don't speak for me; please withdraw the attempt to. Durova^Charge! 00:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)