User talk:Ceedjee~enwiki/Archive december 2008

JIDF
updated JIDF ceedjee outed as a strongly biased anti-Israeli editor by the JIDF..........Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sometimes Ceedjee, a comic touch makes one's day. Next Olmert will be on their list!Best wishes as always.Nishidani (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not after the admiration of the Jews. I don't need their love. I have to study and write, and I intend to ensure that my writings will live as well. With or without the blessing of Kahane and the other religious leaders from Jerusalem. I will destroy anyone who will raise a hand against wp:rs sources, I will destroy him and his pov, with or without our famous neutrality of point of view. I don't care if he is Christian, Muslim, Jewish or pagan. History teaches us that he who won't kill will be killed by others. That is an iron law.(*)
 * After this typical jewish humour where the subject makes fun of himself, I just want to underline that if JIDF wanted to intimidate me, they have succeeded. I am not in a position to risk anything for... nothing. Assuming people can be that far to the right of me on the political scale is frightening when one knows where I am myself...
 * Ceedjee (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (*) "(...). I am not after the admiration of the gentiles. I don't need their love. (...). I have to live, and I intend to ensure that my children will live as well. With or without the blessing of the Pope and the other religious leaders from the New York Times. I will destroy anyone who will raise a hand against my children, I will destroy him and his children, with or without our famous purity of arms. I don't care if he is Christian, Muslim, Jewish or pagan. History teaches us that he who won't kill will be killed by others. That is an iron law" (Interview performed by Amos Oz in 1982).
 * (*) "(...). I am not after the admiration of the gentiles. I don't need their love. (...). I have to live, and I intend to ensure that my children will live as well. With or without the blessing of the Pope and the other religious leaders from the New York Times. I will destroy anyone who will raise a hand against my children, I will destroy him and his children, with or without our famous purity of arms. I don't care if he is Christian, Muslim, Jewish or pagan. History teaches us that he who won't kill will be killed by others. That is an iron law" (Interview performed by Amos Oz in 1982).
 * (*) "(...). I am not after the admiration of the gentiles. I don't need their love. (...). I have to live, and I intend to ensure that my children will live as well. With or without the blessing of the Pope and the other religious leaders from the New York Times. I will destroy anyone who will raise a hand against my children, I will destroy him and his children, with or without our famous purity of arms. I don't care if he is Christian, Muslim, Jewish or pagan. History teaches us that he who won't kill will be killed by others. That is an iron law" (Interview performed by Amos Oz in 1982).

Notification of I-P ArbCom sanctions
As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.


 * Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
 * The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
 * Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
 * Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.

PhilKnight (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Editing advice
Hi Ceedjee, I haven't gone into that much detail, but from what I can see the discussion about the Zionist terrorism category for the Irgun article seems to be overheating? Could I suggest you consider disengaging for a short while? Also, if discussion isn't resolving the disagreement, you could look at dispute resolution - possibly a content request for comment, or mediation. PhilKnight (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ok. Ceedjee (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

AN/I thread - block
There's a discussion here which I think you should respond to. PhilKnight (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Too late. RolandR had a good timing.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Block
You have been in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for attempting to harass other users. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.
 * You forgot to leave me time to give my point of view on that page. :-)
 * Ceedjee (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You can leave it here, and I will post it across to ANI. In particular, I would be interested to know your reasons why you thought posting personal information of another user would be a good idea. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No. You unblock me and I post there. And you apologize for this.
 * Then I go to there. I explain what has happened. Admins discuss and decide a sanction to me, to him, to both or to none.
 * But never mind. No time to fight with you in such a dissymetrical situation. Ceedjee (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you would like to file an unblock request for an impartial admin to review, the details on how to do so are above. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * an admin : "I wasn't blocking under that decision, but I will log it there anyway"
 * I can only feel "pity" for this :-) Ceedjee (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Advices
Ceedjee, you were blocked for allegedly "outing" RolandR. I can't check what you posted since those posts appear to have been oversighted, but you cannot post personal information about other users on Wikipedia without their permission. If you think you have been unjustly blocked, explain why on your talk page, but please do not post any more personal info about RolandR. Gatoclass (talk) 13:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll second Gatoclass' point. I haven't edited or even read the article that's at the heart of your dispute, but posting personal information on another user without his explicit permission is forbidden, and with good reason. There is no excuse for such behavior. I understand that the subject is contentious, but what you did merited a long block. Mr. Darcy talk 15:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I agree with you both. Ceedjee (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What exactly are you agreeing with? That you did something that you now recognize was a mistake? Or are you merely agreeing with the principle, and denying that you were actually in breach of it? As I've said, I am in no position to know what you posted since the edits in question have been oversighted, I'm just trying to get your side of the story because right now I only have the other guy's side. Gatoclass (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I will give my side of the story when I will be unblocked.
 * I refuse to discuss in such an assymetric situation. Being blocked before I can write anything.(*) see next section.
 * By the way, I agree with the principle that it would be a bad idea to give somebody name and email adress against his wish.
 * The main issue is that both the name and email adress of RolandR (and more) can be got in 2 minutes on google
 * Another one is that in the way I see a civilised world, if making a mistake deserves a sentence, it doens't permit others to abuse their power on him. (*) see next section Ceedjee (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It may be the case that you can find his identity in two minutes on google, but it would still be a breach of etiquette to "out" the user in question here. So I think it would be helpful if you made a commitment not to do that again, because you are not likely to be unblocked until people get some sort of confirmation that you realize you made a mistake and that you won't be doing it again. Gatoclass (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I realize I made a mistake but I don't mind being blocked.
 * That is a normal and fair consequence of what I did. (even if we could discuss some details but why ?)
 * Now, it is up to you (all) to see if you did everything you had to do concerning all parties (andplease, to stop harashing me on this talk page)
 * Thank you for your support. Ceedjee (talk) 11:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * On WP:AN/I, RolandR writes :
 * "I have received a further long hostile email from Ceedjee, in which he describes me inter alia as "pathetic", "psychotic", suffering from "mental disease" "a terrorist, a manipulator and a liar",
 * That is a lie. He adds :
 * "and [he] also states that he has been in contact with User:Einsteindonut about my identity."
 * That is a second lie.
 * I am prepared to forward the entire email to any administrator or check user who requests this, in order to show that I am not lying. RolandR (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * He concludes :
 * "''This may not in itself be an offence against Wikipedia regulations; but it is unarguably uncalled for and unacceptable behaviour. And it would certainly undermine any argument of his that the Irgun shouls not be called terrorist."
 * I think this gentleman still doesn't understand how content is managed on wikipedia. He means that the fact he accused me of being unpolite "undermine my arguments" ?
 * But what does it mean ??? There is not a single room on wikipedia about an argument of a contributor. We are just here to report with wp:due weight and wp:npov wp:rs analyses or wp:rs facts. So our mind (and my mind or arguments) have absolutely no value.
 * But he adds : "I'm not responding to any of his increasingly hysterical screeds; but I'm concerned about possible disruptive behaviour on his rreturn after the block ends. RolandR (talk) 13:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)"
 * isn't "increasingly hysterical screeds" a personnal attack for which, this gentleman should be blocked exactly as I was ? Two weights two measures ? Why ?
 * Ceedjee (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noticed that rather strange argument from Roland. But you were not blocked for a breach of civility, you were blocked for revealing someone's identity, which is generally regarded as a much more severe transgression. If you can acknowledge that, we may be able to move on. Gatoclass (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW, it's pretty late here and I am about to log off, so I may not be able to reply further tonight. You sound pretty upset at the moment, so I would ask you to please try not to allow yourself to be provoked into making any inflammatory statements tonight. Probably you could use the break today, we can revisit this tomorrow when I have more time. Gatoclass (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your support :-)
 * I agree once again with your comments.
 * It is indeed late. But I am not upset.
 * Have a good night.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Harrashment and provocation
After I have been blocked for something RolandR advertises for on the web (just use google) and while I prepare my answer to the content issues, he comes and provocates me. But nobody cares :
 * 
 * 


 * How on earth can this be construed as harassment or provocation? I was adding constructively to your preparation; and in one case, using my knowledge of Hebrew to help you find a reference you would otherwise have missed. RolandR (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Take a break
Reverting RolandR's legitimate edits to this page and calling them vandalism is, at best, inappropriate, but given the fact that you're blocked for your actions against said user, is more serious, and if you try to use your talk page to harass or insult him again, I'll protect it. Mr. Darcy talk 18:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't use my page to harass or insult him !
 * But he wrote on wp:an/i : "I'm not responding to any of his [ceedjee] increasingly hysterical screeds (...)"
 * Why didn't you warn him for that ? Why don't you warn him for that ?
 * Ceedjee (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't play coy. Calling a legitimate comment "vandalism" and reverting it is an insult. Mr. Darcy talk 20:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No. That is not true.
 * The prisoner is in his cage and the community legitimately put him there. So he is guilty.
 * That affords the policeman not to answer his questions and humiliates or harrashes him.
 * He (the policeman) has the law with him. So he is right.
 * He (the prisonner) has to submit himself ! That is the rule, that is the way it works. Else he will be punished (extended block ?)
 * Both know that, that is the well-known only way out. The only solution excepts when the prisonner refuses the "roleplaying" game.
 * Because this is not real life. I am not a prisonner and you are not a policeman.
 * I am blocked from editing a wiki. Point. And blocking me is all you can do and all you will get.
 * You know, MrDarcy... Even in real life, even when a guy who is sentenced to death because if -eg- would have raped little girls and killed them, he deserves humanity and respect. And nobody comes and harashes him in his jail.
 * That is a basis of our civilised culture.
 * And here, I think I am far of having done such things.
 * So, please, go on developing articles and wikipedia. I am in jail. Everybody is happy. And leave me alone, as well as RolandR.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 10:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm shocked to see you behave in this fashion - and further shocked to see you deleting warnings. We probably disagreed more often than we agreed, but I really thought you were working to texts and were on the side of the angels as regards accuracy and improving the project. PRtalk 11:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * PR : "as regards accuracy and improving the project."
 * I wrote 6 FA. One translated from wp:fr to wp:en.
 * Another currently under translation.
 * All about the topic of the zionism and the I-P conflict between 1921 and 1953...
 * How many among those who edited this talk page did the same... half of it... a tenth of it... ? :-)))))
 * Ceedjee (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * All about the topic of the zionism and the I-P conflict between 1921 and 1953...
 * How many among those who edited this talk page did the same... half of it... a tenth of it... ? :-)))))
 * Ceedjee (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

For admin education
I think any contributor who wants to become admin should be asked to read this and asked to explain why he was asked to read this : Stanford prison experiment Ceedjee (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record
My apologies for not getting back to this page earlier Ceedjee. I did originally intend to ask you to make a clear statement of intent not to post personal information again about anyone, as a first step in getting your ban lifted. However, on reflection I concluded that perhaps you could use the break in any case. I think when a user gets to the stage of posting personal info about another user, he is really losing his sense of perspective and needs to take a step back for a while.
 * I should not have post it the email of RolandR.
 * But I think, in fact, as proven by Citizendium, that is the contrary. It should be forbiden to edit wp without our real name.
 * Particularly if we are notorious in real life (or infamous...) Ceedjee (talk) 09:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I should also mention that I personally regard any attempt to "out" other users as a very serious matter, and I can't help but express disappointment that you chose to engage in such an action. Nor do I want to be seen endorsing or in any way enabling such. But while I'm not going to try to extract some sort of pledge from you, I hope you have enough common sense to not try this again Ceedjee, because it can only damage to your own reputation. Bearing in mind that some users have been community banned for outing, it's obviously very much in your own interests not to be tempted into this again, no matter how obvious it might seem to you that the information is harmless or already well known.
 * I didn't engage any "out" action.
 * But, in fact, RolandR is trying to out ceedjee... and he seems to succeed :-)

So I hope that when you return to editing, you will do so with a renewed commitment to play by the rules. I know it can be very exasperating trying to work with people who have very different views or who don't appear to be editing in good faith, but when you find yourself getting hot under the collar, it's much better to step away from the fray for a while rather than lashing out. Remember that if you feel someone is behaving unreasonably, you can always ask for assistance from others or initiate one of the dispute resolution processes. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 05:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mind working with people of different views.
 * I did so very often.
 * But nobody can work with people who came here to write their opinions and not to give a fair and as good synthesis as possible of the different wp:rs pov on these difficult matters.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 09:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Irgun
Who : Daniel Bertrand Monk - Proof of scholarship : - Reference : An Aesthetic Occupation, - quotes :
 * p.74 : "The history of Britain's Mandate over Palestine was marked by periodic mobilisation of masse violence. These upheavals were identified by comtemporary observers as decisive movements of historical changes. The significance accorded to each riot, strike or revolt, was in part due to the perceived influence exerted by popular outbreaks on British policy regarding both the project of Zionism and the independant national aspirations of Palestinians. Consequently, most of the Mandate's era acts of violence were interpreted in contemporary documents as attempts to influence a reticent colonial administration (...)'''.
 * Most often glossed over is the fact that the struggle to assign a name to that violence has also been a significant part of the history of the same violence. (...) All sides embraced a common way of speaking about the historical enigma of violence (...) that simultaneously allowed opposing political interpreters to speak as if they were invoking history's own name.
 * [here some exemples of this related to the 1920 riots/pogrom/conflagration]
 * "Constrainted by the same "assimilative" perspective (...) historiography of Israel and Palestine repeats this conflict over the name of violence. As critics, scholars and present observers of the conflict unselfconciously privilege instance of mass violence as pivotal moment of historical change, they perpetuate the figuration of that violence (...)."

Who : Walter Laqueur - Proof of scholarship : Prof, more than 50 publications on the topic of Zionism, recognized world leader on the topic (see wp:article that gives all references) - Reference : A History of Zionism, 1972 - Quotes : CCL : in this chapter, the word "terror", "terrorism" is not used a single time (about Irgun) actions. These are described most of time as a "struggle" or "attacks" even if there are reference to indiscriminate attacks against civilians.
 * p.627 (index) : referred to IZL as a "National Military Organisation"
 * p.627 (index) : described actions as "attacks on Arabs"
 * pp 374-378, in the chapter titled "armed struggle" :
 * (p.374) : "After the outbreak of the 1936 riots, Hagana advised against acts of retaliation. In Irgun, counsels were divided. [Some] were also opposed to counter-terror, but [some others] engaged in such actions (...)".
 * (p.375) : [Referring to Hagana and Irgun] "(...) there was no room for two separate jewish defence organisations (...)"
 * (p.375) : "Individual Irgun units, to the response of the killing of Jews, began to attack Arabs passing through Jewish quarters. There was also indiscriminate bomb throwing in Arab markets and at bus stations. They did not harm to those who had been responsible for taking Jewish lives, and they failed to stop Arab terror."
 * (p.375) : "After the execution of Ben Yosef, a young Irgun fighter who had been sentenced to death by a British military court, the number of attacks on Arab civilians rose."
 * (p.375) : "Many Hagana members were srongly against any form of cooperation with Irgun, which they regarded as an adventurist and wholly destructive force (...)."
 * (p.376) : "[During World War II, Stern] refused to stop the fight against the mandatory power."
 * (p.376) : "Stern and his friends had lost all faith in diplomatic action. Their radicalism stemmed from a burning belief in 'direct action' on the onde hand and massive politicla ignorance on the other, a combination which led them to adopt a policy so obviously suicidal."
 * (p.377) : "(...) [In] early 1944, (...) [Irgun members] resumed their attacks on the British (...) and continued the armed struggle throughout the war. (...)"

CCL : in these chapters, Laqueur considers the actions performed by IZL in 1939 and later as terrorism and he considers the Irgun members as terrorists [at least after WWII].
 * in other chapters :
 * (p.533) "On 11 September (1939) the IZL announced in circulars distributed in the streets of Tel Aviv that it was suspending its terror campaign (...)"
 * (p.572) "British-Zionist relations were reaching their lowest ebb when the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, with the loss of almost one hundred lives, British, Jews and Arabs. The British imposed a three-day curfew on Tel Aviv, during which 787 men and women were arrested. The terrorist leaders were not among them".
 * (p.557) "What induced the Zionist leaders to turn against the terrorists [Referring to Irgun members] was the overriding political consideration: the dissidents were doing grave, perhaps irreparable harm to Zionist policy. How could a Zionist foreign policy be formulated and carried out if the terrorists refused to accept internal discipline, trying to dictate their own line to the elected leadership of the yishuv ? The acts of terror were defended by some as desperate attempts to draw attention to the plight of the Jewish people."

Who : Tom Segev - Proof of scholarship : Journalist considered as New Historian - several books on the topic of Zionism and the I-P conflict. - Reference : ''One Palestine. Complete'', 2000 - Quotes : ...
 * p.607 (index) : reference to Jewish terrorism (p.6 - 7 - 365 - 385 - 466 - 467 - 468 - 470:485)
 * p.606 (Etzel) : reference to Etzel (without particular denomination)
 * p.6-7 Segev refers to different British killed by Arab and "Jewish terrorists".

Who : Efraim Karsh - Proof of scholarship : Prof, a few publication on the topic - scholarship disputed but recognized by some peers such as Anita Shapira and Yoav Gelber - Reference : The Arab-Israeli Conflict - The Palestine War 1948, 2002 - Quotes : ...

Who : Benny Morris - Proof of scholarship : Prof, New Historian, the most quoted on the topic of the 1948 Palestinian exodus - Reference : 1948, 2008 - Quotes : ...

Who : Daniel Levine - Proof of scholarship : PhD dedicated to David Raziel - Reference : The Birth of the Irgun Zvai Leumi - A Jewish Liberation Movement, 1991 - Quotes : ...

Who : Charles Enderlin - Proof of scholarship : Journalist and reporter - controversed - Reference : Par le feu et par le sang : le combat clandestin pour l'indépendance d'Israel ("By fire and bloold - the clandestine struggle for the independance of Israel"), 2008 - Quotes : ...

Who :Ilan Pappe - Proof of scholarship : Prof. in the UK - controversed - Reference : "The Ethnic cleansing of Palestine", 2008 - Quotes : ...
 * Just one : (p.92 in the French version). He writes Irgun was a terrorist organisation and justifies this by the destruction of the al-Najada HQ at Jaffa and by the destruction of the Semiranis hotel at Jerusalem. Other example given is the throwing of a bomb in the crowd of Haifa raffinery in the claimed reprisal of the killing of Jews.
 * (nb: al-Najada HQ was bombed by Lehi and Semiranis was bombed by Haganah)