Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Zeq's and Heptor's Most Recent Edits to 1948 Arab-Israeli War and Zeq's to Palestinian exodus as of 28 January 2006
In my original statement I asked if there was a mechanism (short of arbitration) for enforcing Wikipedia's policy that editors must cite credible sources. Clearly, as we've reached arbitration, the answer is "no".

This is Zeq's last edit to 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Heptor has made pretty much the same edit here (see below). This is the edit that Zeq has made numerous times to Palestinian exodus and which has so far been reverted by,  ,   and. As a result of the injuction Zeq made a final self-revert.

Zeq and Heptor's Changes to 1948 Arab-Israeli War
In assessing the analysis below readers should remember that I have been asking for credible sources for two months now and yet these are the latest changes :


 * 1) Line 38: This section has been labelled "POV" although there are six appropriate references.
 * 2) Line 44: Wikilink broken, reference removed (to Israel Foreign Ministry, Foreign Ministry of the Russian Federation, Israel State Archives, Russian Federal Archives, Cummings Center for Russian Studies Tel Aviv University, Oriental Institute (2000). Documents on Israeli Soviet Relations, 1941-53. London: Routledge. ISBN 0714648434); section on the Jewish Brigade removed and reference removed (to Beckman, Morris (1999). The Jewish Brigade: An Army With Two Masters, 1944-45. Sarpedon Publishers. ISBN 1885119569).
 * 3) Line 59: Link to main article on Amin al-Husayni removed and the following links added to the first sentence: ,,, ,,, , , , , , [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1053823/posts],,. I don't think this even requires comment.
 * 4) Line 72: Section added: "In 1940, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem, requested the Axis powers to acknowledge the Arab right": "to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy."[ http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21741 ]. (Comment: Joan Peters' From Time Immemorial is the source of this quotation. For an assessment of her credibility see Yehoshua Porath's Mrs. Peters's Palestine. However, even without knowing anything about Peters one might spot that the chronology makes no sense.) The section on military capabilities from Benny Morris's 2003 work on the war has been deleted without explanation.
 * 5) Line 79:Section rewritten and references deleted (to The Times, The New York Times, The Palestine Post, Benevisti, Meron (2002). Sacred Landscape. University of California Press. ISBN 0520234227, Gilbert, Martin (1998). Israel: A History. Black Swan. ISBN 0552995452), without explanation.
 * 6) Line 112: the qualification that Azzam Pasha "is claimed to have" said the words attributed has been removed even though editors have already compromised by allowing the quotation to remain. No one has been able to find a scholarly source for it. There are allusions to a vaguely similar statement about a crusade to save the Holy Land attributed to "an Egyptian" in The Palestine Post of 16 May 1948, p. 2. The following have been added ,, ,, supposedly to support the claim that mufti was "one of the few identified leaders of the Palestinian Arabs", although none of them are relevant and the fact that the mufti was a leader is already mentioned in the section devoted to him. That section was added specifically as a compromise to prevent references to the mufti being inserted throughout the article - to no effect. The article doesn't have a section on any other leader. The last link is to the Amazon web page for a self-published book by an American talk-radio host! This quotation is added "Arabs, arise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you.", even though it relates to World War II, not the 1948 War, and the source is a 1947 propaganda tract by the Haganah spokesman Maurice Pearlman. This is followed by the claim that in the "immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, such statements by Arab leaders (along with the Mufti's violently antisemitic history) led to a widespread belief that the Israelis were facing a new “warrant for genocide.” Repeated requests for a scholarly reference to support this claim of fears of genocide resulted eventually in the following being added: an article that says nothing about the 1948 War,, a link to the Amazon web page on a book about Pope Pius XII, and  a "Think Israel" article that says nothing about fears of genocide.
 * 7) Line 314: The edit concludes with the deletion of 11 footnotes, the addition of another dubious quotation, and the deletion of four references.

It's up to the Arbitration Committee to find a quality assurance process in order to ensure that the policy on credible sources has some meaning. --Ian Pitchford 22:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Who should be party to this arbitration
Ian should not have involved Tom Lillis in his evidence ( Ian idenified Tom as having a problem with my attempts to make the Pal exodus article NPOV): Tom has only objected to one small comment (invisiable text) that he knows was not even my text, as he explain in User_talk:Zeq:

Red text, bottom of the third text block. Tom Lillis 16:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The section you identified is what I have a problem with. I understand it's not yours. It was, however, inappropriate and signified bad faith, which is a valid reason for reversion. I do not object to the rest of the edit, except for the fact that it is not a solution to the edit warring problem. Clearer? Tom Lillis 16:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The rest of the people that Ian idenified (not sure about Mirv) should be part of this Arbitration process as they have tried to make the article POV with their edits and belong to a group that practicaly "own" the article - not allowing any outside contribution that is not part of the Palestinian POV (Narative) of the events. Zeq 08:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

How to make an article NPOV (after years of bias)
The problems in Palestinian_exodus have been going on for years. Including protections that did not help.

User Zero has been involved in this article for 2.5 years. During those 2.5 years the article has never come close to become an NPOV article.

Years ago, one of the editors (that since that time have left -almost anyone who objected the group who "own" the article has left) has made this proposal about the article.

All I can do, is echo her words in Talk:Palestinian_exodus/Archive1 as  she understand what NPOV really is:

"

Suggestion of an outline:


 * short abstract what happened (carefully worded)
 * a little bit of historical details about the war 1948 with the different flight and expulsion movements (If I trust Morris there happened both: spontaneous flight and direct expulsion)
 * what happened after the war, confiscation of the property, conference of Lausanne, right of return, UN-resolutions, creation of UNRWA etc.
 * at the end of the article a resumee of the ongoing debate:
 * Israeli view: flight encouraged by Arab leadership and surrounding Arab countries, mention of "New historians".
 * Arab view: systematic expulsion
 * Arab demand: granting of right of return
 * Israeli fear of the demographic consequences for Israel as a Jewish state


 * second refugee wave 1967...

And as a basis for rewriting the article, I think we should adopt a view that it is totally normal human behaviour for civilians to move out of an area in a war. This is directed against extremist views and arguments on both sides "total systematic expulsion" vs. "but they left on their own free will!" which I consider both as rubbish and which should be clearly marked as views. In history there is no "one single truth". --Elian

"

user:Elian is a member of the board of the German Wikimedia chapter and press officer of the Wikimedia Foundation and indeed if you look at the NPOV policy she seem to outline how should an NPOV article on the subject should look like.

Zeq 08:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

First assertion
It seems that the evidence I provided, as well as motions I made did not worthy of any response.

To make It easy for the ArbCom to focus on the issues and not the person I will recuse myself from editing wikipedia for several months.

For now, the Arbitors should pay close attention to the article Nakba which is a blant violation of Wikipedia own NPOV policy. This violation has been going for years (as shown in the evidence)

Second the Arbitors can focus on the sources used in the 1948 war article. The dit war there is going on prefectly without my help.

So I hope I made it easy for you to focus on fixing Wikipedia problems but somehow I think your arrogance will prevent you from that. Zeq signs off for at least several months. Zeq 20:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Second assertion
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by Palmiro
These are some examples from Israeli Arab and its talk page, demonstrating a sample of the problems posed by Zeq's editing style. Unfortunately this is the most I have time for at the moment, but there are many more examples on Israeli West Bank barrier. Palmiro | Talk 14:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Zeq makes an edit comprising a mixture of (a) confusing and incoherent material re population and (b) what is later found to be a large amount of material copied from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs website: ; the subsequent editing of the article and talk page reflects serious problems getting Zeq's contributions into reasonable shape; Zeq's responses to requests for clarification aren't terribly helpful (though his good faith appears clear), so the process is quite a drag.
 * 2) Zeq fails to provide sources for his edit:
 * 3) One month later, Zeq, in the course of a campaign against sections of the article he disagrees with, condemns part of the material he added as POV:
 * 4) Zeq makes a bulk deletion of material he disagrees with:
 * 5) Zeq makes a particularly unpleasant insinuation in a talk page comment:
 * 6) Zeq deletes material stating that the Arab elite was not present in Israel after 1948, and justifies the deletion on grounds that suggest (assuming good faith) that he did not understand what he was deleting at all:


 * I will not deal with all the accusations excpet for the last one: The diff clearly shows that Palmiro claimed there is No palestinian ilit (elite?) in israel and I named few notable leaders and authors who are Palestinians. He insulted them I was only correcting it. Zeq 09:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Evidence on Edit wars by user:zero0000 (deletion of sourced content, POV pushing -- material added by Zeq
Zero wants to remove refrences to a specific [person Nazi connections past (This is part of this case):


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amin_al-Husayni&diff=36588268&oldid=36560009


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amin_al-Husayni&diff=39721334&oldid=39697291 removal of sourced well known facts ((the fact that the Mufti was pro-nazi and also:

Serious attempt to sneaking-in a grossly misleading "fact"

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amin_al-Husayni&diff=39721334&oldid=39697291

Trying to mislead the reader that the Mufti helped the army of the federal republic of Germany (when in actuallity the Federal republic of Germany did not exist at the same time) Zero linked the article to Germans while the Mufti actualli helped the Nazi army.

More ecidence of edit war
Here is some more proofs that Zero continue edit wars in the last 48 hours including removal of well sourced material.


 * 


 * 


 * 


 * 


 * 

This maybe of value:


 * it is clear that Zero is using wikipedia against this directive in his case from 2004:


 * "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political advocacy or propaganda, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which states that Wikipedia articles are not to used for "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind".

User Zero was as much a party to edit wars as the people you voted to ban. Zero is continuing this edit war all over Wikipedia articles that deal with palestine/israel and the conflict:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestine&diff=39192956&oldid=39156321


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestine&diff=39326047&oldid=39285194


 * 21:36, January 25, 2006 UTC


 * 21:11, January 25, 2006 UTC


 * 19:33, January 24, 2006 UTC


 * 17:40, January 24, 2006 UTC


 * 10:20, January 19, 2006 UTC


 * 13:30, January 18, 2006 UTC


 * 10:02, January 18, 2006 UTC


 * 10:42, January 6, 2006 UTC


 * 08:49, January 6, 2006 UTC


 * 10:08, December 22, 2005 UTC


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1948_Arab-Israeli_War&diff=37692693&oldid=37657831


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1948_Arab-Israeli_War&diff=37623180&oldid=37621840


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1948_Arab-Israeli_War&diff=next&oldid=37622704


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1948_Arab-Israeli_War&diff=next&oldid=37622866


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1948_Arab-Israeli_War&diff=next&oldid=37622992


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1948_Arab-Israeli_War&diff=next&oldid=37657831


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1948_Arab-Israeli_War&diff=37623180&oldid=37621840


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1948_Arab-Israeli_War&diff=next&oldid=37622704


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1948_Arab-Israeli_War&diff=next&oldid=37622866


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1948_Arab-Israeli_War&diff=next&oldid=37622992


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1948_Arab-Israeli_War&diff=next&oldid=37657831

Evidence presented by Zero
By now the committee is well aware of Zeq's style of operating. I repeat my previous opinion that Zeq is the worst disaster to hit the Middle-East section of Wikipedia since I have been here. That includes previous disasters like the now-banned Lance6wins. Blocking him from editing certain articles will not slow him down at all as he will just go to other articles with the same intentions. (This part of Wikipedia is badly fragmented and the same topics are covered in multiple places.) To see why he should be banned it suffices to go to his contributions and click on practically any link. He is dedicated to presenting his strongly anti-Arab political views here, and doesn't give a damn about notions like neutrality. His only reference to the rules is to play games with them. The effect of his presence here is that editors like me don't have any time left to write articles. Maybe that is his intention; if so, he's succeeding.

I apologise for the flame in the previous paragraph. I probably should delete it, but it is how I feel. To see the truth about Zeq's long list of my misdeads, one can just click on them and think about it. Here is how it goes: This edit supposedly proves that I want to hide the fact that Amin al-Husayni was "pro-Nazi" and that I want to mislead readers into thinking that al-Husayni recruited for the military of the Federal Republic of Germany!! Later he accused me of wishing to hide anti-semitism with the same edit. In fact, as anyone can check, the long segment of this article that describes both al-Husayni's collaboration with the Nazis and his recruitment of Muslims for the Waffen SS was largely written by me. Of course, presenting the facts will never satisfy Zeq. What he wants, as in this version of the article is to use the word "Nazi" as often as possible as close to the start of the article as possible and to make it stand out by wikifying it (he missed one). Now multiply this example by Zeq's huge number of edits and you will start to see what we are dealing with here.

--Zero 10:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The disaster seems to be spreading. Following a comment by H eptor   talk  regarding the question of "nazi" vs "German" and how other articles dealt with this, Zeq went on and changed these articles accordingly, so that they couldn't be taken as evidence against him. . One or two articles and specific issues related to them is not the main problem. --Cybbe 18:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Disaster ? Not realy. It is actually a great example to the abuse by the Pro-palestinian editors:


 * Heptor linked two articles to his comment. I looked at them and decided to edit them to improve them. After a comment by Cybbe this is what the final edit of Quisling look like Quisling (made by this edit: )


 * Cybee is wrong if he thinks that he should hide the Nazi colaboration of Quisling and Andrey Vlasov - both of them mentioned here: Collaborator (as he did in these edits:,   and this ) only so he will be able to remove the fact that the Palestinian Mufti also was pro-Nazi  (as Cybbe did here  and under a sockppupet here )


 * Why is he wrong ?


 * Because Wikipedia is not the place to  hide correct historical facts just because they put your POV in a bad light . No one can  hide the fact these people colaborated with the Nazis - even on Wikipedia  (as long as I am editing. Signed : Zeq 19:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC) )

PS There are many people now watching Wikipedia and we will check what takes place if I avoid editing these articles for few days. I bet that the words "pro-Nazi" and "colaboration with the Nazis" will soon be gone. So typical of Wikipedia where POV is king (curtesy of ArbCom which ban the NPOV editors) - I wonder if even communist ArbCom mebers will not go agaionst those who try to hide the Nazi past of a palestinian leader. I guess we will see Zeq 19:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * According to Zeq, this version apparently "hides historical facts" regarding Quislings collaboration, although the only real difference from his version is the word "nazi" in the introduction. Cybbe 16:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is the diff that Cybbe "forgot to give you": See for your self

Or maybe it is this:
 * 
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vidkun_Quisling&diff=40304841&oldid=40288153

In any case he is not telling the truth and his latest edits on this article (not yet subject of an ArbCom case) are a clear indication to What Wikipedia has bwecome: A place where an article about Quisling hides the fact that he colaborated with  the Nazis . And Jay if you read this: I was civil about Quisling article did it helped ? Zeq 17:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Zero continued his edit war reverts on this subject mulitple times
Clearly in this edit Zero removed the well known fact that the Mufti was indeed Pro Nazi:

Edit wars (To be clear it is not just with ZEQ) - Zero fights everyone: -


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * - clear proof of edit war on part of Zero. Evidence you continue to ignore.


 * When Zero maxes out on his 3 revertes per day he turn to help of a sockpuppet - not directly. My guess he contacted Cybee or someone else and asked them to revert.


 * Sure, it was my edit, from a computer I normally dont use and thus forgot to log on. Why would I use a sockpuppet when my last edit was two days ago? And no, Zero did not contact me, this is paranoia on your part. --15:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC) last edit was an unsigned comment by Cybbe admiting he wasa the cultprit. Zeq 16:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Zero should be prohibited from discussing the Grand Mufti; his claims that Wisliceny never identified the Grand Mufti as a contributor to Nazi Germany are refuted by the following link:

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/eichmann-adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-050-07.html

It is conceivable that Mr. Steiner committed perjury, but that must be proven. Arguing evidentiary statements from the Eichmann trial are lies constitute statements that Isreali courts, unlike those of the Nuremburg, are without justice; that this borders on anti-semitism is clearcut.

Zero even contradict himself, while in this edit-war (with others not me) he tried to claim that "The mufti role was  hotly contested" :  Few days later he wrote that both the Mufti and the jews agreed about the mufti role:


 * The first refers to 1929 and the second refers to 1920. --Zero 12:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, my mistake. appology on this one. Zeq 12:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

This pattern of abuse goes a long way. While Zero knows the Mufti recuireted for the Nazi army his inital edits in this article try to claim this recuirtment operastion was on behalf of the British:
 * Yes, in 1918 he worked in recruiting for the British. I put that information back, thanks for alerting me to the fact that it was gone. --Zero 12:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Typical attempt at confusing: The Mufti first worked with the British (in the 1920s) later, his recuiretment of Muslim for the Nazi army is well documented. Zero has removed this well sourced info several times trying now to confuse the issue with the Mufti's work for the British. Zero know about those efforts by the Mufti to help the Nazis (he himself wrote them here: but he removed some of them here :  Zeq 12:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

While other editors (now banned by ArbCom) have tried to highlight the Mufti pro-Nazi past he reverted them and called their edit "junk":

In fact, I am tired of trying to present to this comitee evidence, anyone who will look at Zero complete contributions to Wikipdedia will see a  long pattern of hiding facts  His POV pushing is subttle but clear. Zeq 12:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Zero "chased away" an honorable admin of the Hebrew Wikipedia by using Palestinian Propeganda sources
Just look at this edit: and contact Almog, he will tell you that he can not fight with people like Zero.

I can. That is why you are about to ban me. Zeq 13:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

When Slim removed that Propegamda site: Zero just added it back:

He did this multiple times - here again Almog explain it is not the offcial site but a propeganda site:



But Zero just put it in (claiming it is the official city site - which it is not):



" This is a pattern. The comitee choose to ignore this pattern (although it is aprt of the case you voted to accept) . Why because his edit are against israel (all over Wikipedia) and I have edited only 5-6 articles to remove the palestinian propeganda ? The examples for this pattern by zero are numerous, by far more than mine. All I did was standing uop to him. Zeq 13:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)"


 * The warring by Zeg on Amin al-Husayni got pretty annoying, especially one round of reverts was over quite minor issue (whether WWII army should be labeled as "German" or "Nazi"). Pavel Vozenilek 01:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * based on ArbCom suggestion for Prper dispure resolution I am trying mediation. Zeq 04:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Huldra
Some examples from Israeli Arab and its talk page:


 * 1) Palmiro wrote (well sourced) about the situation in Israel just after 1948: "....[The Israeli Arabs were] to some degree decapitated by the consequences of the [1948] war: the traditional Palestinian political elite were no longer present.". Zeq say this is insulting to the Palestinians, and as a counterargument/"proof" he names 2 Palestinian leaders/authors: Ahmed Tibi (who first entered the Knesset in 1999) and author Sayed Kishua(Kashua) (born ca 1976)


 * 1) Your links proove nothing. Follow them and see. Palmiro additions were just a collection of badly written propeganda some of it indeed insulting to Israeli Arab and not correctly identifying their current situation. I have given evidence to how Israeli Arab article was before i started to edit it and how it looks now: Much more comprehansive, much more NPOV. That is all I care. You, Plamiro and the rest have this personal vandeta on me ? Zeq 21:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Evidence ignored by ArbCom
Zero is the one that removed scholrly sourced content and replaced it with Propeganda sources. 

see also this edit by zero:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_exodus&diff=40564693&oldid=40562639

He did not source it ?

You know why ?

because like much else of his contribution it comes from this source:

http://www.radioislam.org/historia/zionism/zionrac02.html - which is a propeganda source.

If you don't trust me check out Radio Islam.

I again suggest that you stop, look in deapth at what you are doing. The accusations about sources that were presented in evidence are false. What I removed is mostly Zero and Ian OR. Your rulling makes it impossible for anyone to remove  sourced content.

As Jay have said quite correctly: "Good in principle, but very easy to game; who decides what material is relevant, and who is a scholarly authority? In non-obvious cases we should try to stick to behavioural issues, they're much easier to judge. Jayjg (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC) "

I suggest you listen to Jay and take another look at the evidence: Did I removed scholarly content or Original research (dotted with quotes of BG speches which gave the source as a scholarly book)

What I did add to {Palestinian exodus]] comes from a scholarly source:

"Benny Morris, in particular, disagrees with the "Master Plan" theory. He writes: + My feeling is that the transfer thinking and near-consensus that emerged in the 1930s and early 1940s was not tantamount to pre-planning and did not issue in the production of a policy or master-plan of expulsion; the Yishuv and its miltary forces did not enter the 1948 War, which was initiated by the Arab side, with a policy or plan for expulsion. (Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, p. 60)  "

But this text was removed by Zero and Ian (because it does not fit their OR POV):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_exodus&diff=36692362&oldid=36688721

You are really making a mistake about sources (but not about Edit wars)

I await your reply after you looked at the edit diff above: "who removed sourced content and replaced with with propeganda sources" ?

was it:


 * Just me ?
 * Just Zero ?
 * Both ?

The evidence is there to see. you just need to look.

Zeq 10:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Fred, Did you look at thios quote by Benny Morris ? Do you understand why, although it is "scholraly source" it was removed by Zero from the article and replaced with Propeganda )from radio Islam web site) ?


 * This is what you accuse me of doing (but I added the scholarly source and removed other propeganda) but here is the evidence that Zero did what you accused me of doing.


 * I repeat my question: Under what conditions can "scholarly work" be deleted. Should I understand that if this is Zero deleting a POV that does not fir his own OR in the article thisis OK ?


 * Surly, you now can see that the whole nakba article is written in a non NPOV fashion and I was only trying to make it NPOV. It is time to get this article re-written or removed completly. It is a disgrace to Wikipedia to keep such propeganda on what supposed to be a respectable encyclopedia. Zeq 08:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I have never quoted a single word from Radio Islam. Zeq is getting into a panic. --Zero 10:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Another false claim by Zero. Any google search of the material he added will show the source is on Radio Islam. In fact this pure propeganda is still in the article even after ArbCom has finished it's delibarartion on the article. What can we do:
 * I am in "Panic" and Zero continue to attempt to decive ArbCom as he did before when he claimed that a complete pragarph he added (unsourced, mostly Original research) is (he claimed) comes from benny Morris.


 * Zero deleted from the article A quote from Benny Morris(BM) book, in which BM completly deny the exact claim made by Zero (see evidence above). facts are facts, Zero completly misrpresent what BM has said, but ArbCom is already showed that it ignore facts. Zeq 14:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)