Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered

message: I concur with Wooyi's referral (I am also not personally involved in the case). The allegations against PalestineRemembered are essentially ones of POV-pushing, incivil editing conduct and falsification of sources. There is certainly a case for PalestineRemembered to answer here, though in my judgment credible counter-arguments have been made on at least some of the allegations. Unfortunately the community's ability to resolve this matter is seriously hampered by the partisan edit wars on articles relating to this case and the direct involvement of the initiating administrator in clashes with PalestineRemembered. Some users have already raised questions about the fairness and transparency of the proposed community sanctions against PR (I make no judgment on that point, but I note the presentational difficulties it raises). I believe that a review by the Committee is the only way a satisfactory resolution to this matter is going to be found. -- ChrisO 01:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Added) The debate below, and especially the increasingly vitriolic debate at WP:CN, indicates that the community cannot satisfactorily resolve this issue by itself - there's simply too much partisanship, bad feeling and simple confusion to make that possible now. Resolving it will require the attention of cool-headed neutrals, but neither cool-headedness or neutrality has been much in display on either side here. I concur 100% with Tony Sidaway's view - this is indicative of the wider problem that afflicts our Middle Eastern articles. I hope jpgordon and Flonight reconsider their decision not to accept the case. -- ChrisO 18:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by uninvolved editor [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 

message: I see no reason why this problem can't be resolved within the community.  A ban is almost certain to result soon if this fellow doesn't change his ways. --Tony Sidaway 01:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 

message: PalestineRemembered's infraction consisted of citing material to the original primary source (a now-defunct New Zealand newspaper) rather than the secondary source he found it in (a work of scholarship by Sami Hadawi).  No evidence has been provided that PR meant any deceit or knew he was violating WP:CITE#Say_where_you_got_it.  Banning a user from Wikipedia on the strength of this mistake is extreme.  What is especially unsettling, moreover, is that the user who brought PR's error to attention and initiated this process accused PR – falsely as it turns out – of lifting his material from a Holocaust denial website and therefore citing the primary source in order to cover his guilty tracks .  This allegation was offered as if it were a conclusive finding, and – despite a lack of supporting evidence – was initially accepted at face value.  By the time the Holocaust-denial allegation was shown conclusively to be false (PR's source was a 1989 book; the spuriously adduced Holocaust-denial source was written sometime after 1995), a motion was already underway to have him banned.  The editor who made the false accusation has yet to retract it (and in fact has oddly gone on to suggest that the 1989 source may have plagiarized the post-1995 source ).   If there are other reasons to have PR banned, then they should be taken up holistically after the present cloud of specious guilt-by-association blows over.  As things stand now, the false and incendiary charges regarding Holocaust denial have irreversibly tainted the proposal and the ensuing discussion.  Clarification: having read Durova's post below, I want to clarify that I am well aware that there are legitimate issues regarding PR's behavior in the past, which I've noted both on the Community Sanction Noticeboard and on the user's talkpage.  My above statement applies to the present infraction, and to the debate about banning that it has set into motion.--G-Dett 01:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by uninvolved editor [[User:G-Dett|G-Dett]] 

message: On the CN board, as of this writing, the consensus seems to be favoring banning PalestineRemembered by a ratio of roughly 20 to 5 (and a fair number come from editors who do not edit regularly in this area). Of the objectors, most are resting on process concerns. No one will defend this user's behavior. I think this user will almost certainly be banned whether it is left solely to the community or arbcom takes it up. IronDuke 02:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by uninvolved editor [[User:IronDuke|IronDuke]] 

message: I don't think there's really anything to arbitrate here: there had consistently been at WP:AN/I and WP:CN a roughly 75 percent consensus for banning; a clear consensus that seems to have grown to 80 percent + in the last hour. And I've seen absolutely no evidence Jayjg has done anything wrong, all he did was bring the issues with PalestineRemembered to the community's attention at WP:AN/I, the community did the rest, and Jayjg didn't lobby for the ban. On the other hand, CJCurrie, who has a long-running personal issue with Jayjg and been quite peevish toward both of us since I blocked his pal HOTR, has been agitating very hard at WP:CN to rally others against Jayjg, along with G-Dett, which might be worthy of the committee's review... FeloniousMonk 02:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 

message: Claims that the community ban discussion hinges on a single misuse of references are disingenuous.  This account has been blocked for four of its seven months of existence.  This is a classic case of disruptive editing from a single purpose POV-pusher who, as diffs at the WP:CN thread amply demonstrate, is a habitual edit warrior who ignores basic policies such as WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPA.  Citation misuse is the final straw, in my opinion, but far from the only straw on this camel's back.
The argument in PalestineRemembered's defense amounts to one red herring: it inflates the user's admission to misusing WP:CITE from a different source than Jayjg had originally attributed into an accusation of impropriety against Jayjg, then dismisses all other evidence against PalestineRemembered.  That and some background fireworks among editors who favored the recent WP:MFD proposal for the noticeboard are the only actual points of contention.
This editor is headed toward a community ban, if not now then very soon, and there is little to examine here.  ArbCom doesn't need another circus like Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors. DurovaCharge! 02:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In reply to a comment below about defense, the general practice at WP:CN is to reference defense statements that blocked editors post to their own user talk pages.  Templates have been created to repost at the board for this purpose. DurovaCharge! 07:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Consensus at the ban discussion shifted since my original statement and, due to general contentiousness, I now support arbitration.  A request at my user talk page asked for clarification on my position, which might shed light here.  I originally supported a ban based not upon Jayjg's connection to a holocaust denial site but because four months of blocks placed this editor one mistake away from sitebanning, in my opinion, and a WP:CITE violation was enough.  PalestineRemembered's defense admitted a WP:CITE violation (although a different specific instance of it) and failed to recognize the inherent problems of violating WP:CITE.  That was my personal analysis, but the nexus of Holocaust denial and Arab-Israeli conflict drew numerous editors who were unfamiliar with WP:CN.  The community process does what it can, but ArbCom exists for the tough stuff.  So to paraphrase Bette Davis, Fasten your seatbelts.  This arbitration is going to be a bumpy evening. DurovaCharge! 06:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by uninvolved [[User:Durova|Durova]] 

message: I am not sure either that there is anything to arbitate here. Jayjg appears to have brought what he considers a problem editor to AN/I; that he at the time jumped to the conclusion that the editor's error in citation sprung from a holocaust denial website and thus implied that the fact being inserted were fraudulent and that the editor in question was misrepresenting sources to get holocause denial literature onto wikipedia is unfortunate, but not really something that ArbCom is likely to want to pronounce judgment on.
About PalestineRemembered's behaviour: if he is, indeed, generally considered a disruptive editor, then the community sanction noticeboard should manage to take care of it. I notice the last of his blocks was for a month, and for the following statement:; I imagine that that block had the support of the community, since nobody undid it. If any admin undoes the block, then I imagine an arbitration case can open.
For the record, I think that indefblocking for a violation of WP:CITE when introducing material that, as I have said elswhere  seems to be widely known, is excessive, even if the account has been blocked for four months out of seven. Durova's argument above, which is very helpful, puzzles me just a little; if PR was such a disruptive editor, he should have been indefblocked earlier, and this relatively harmless violation of WP:CITE should not be indicative of wholesale backsliding. I also can't find diffs at CN to disruptive editing, only to remarks on talkpages.  Hornplease 03:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just an additional word about comments that SlimVirgin below puts in bold for some reason completely unknown to me. "But PR has made 206 edits to the encyclopedia, many of them his original research, every one of them that I've seen badly written and badly sourced." First, if a SPA editing in a controversial area (which is a perfectly legal use of an SPA, I understand) has made 206 edits (256 by my count), to mainspace, and a little more than that to talkspace, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. Secondly. looking through his contributions all of them have informative and largely polite edit comments; and none that I have seen are 'badly written' - this is simply untrue, and unworthy of stating at a RfArb. Hornplease 19:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by uninvolved editor [[User:Hornplease|Hornplease]] 

message: I think this is a waste of arbitrators' time. A community ban is well supported and most certainly well deserved. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by uninvolved editor [[User:Jossi|Jossi]] 

message: I have no strong opinion as to whether or not the ArbComm should hear this case at the present time, but would like state for the record that I strongly object to User:FeloniousMonk's description of my recent interventions.  CJCurrie 03:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:CJCurrie|CJCurrie]] 

message: PalestineRemembered is the poster child of the single-purpose account.  If the purpose was benign (for example, to educate the world about Palestinian history), I don't think most editors would have a problem with PalestineRemembered.  However, PalestineRemembered's agenda is clearly not benign.  Virtually every non-minor edit PalestineRemembered made was specifically intended to demonize Israel and Israelis, often without regard for verifiability, reliable source citation, or NPOV.  If I truly "remembered Palestine" and wanted to keep that memory alive, I would probably spend my time elevating the integrity of such articles as Palestine, Palestinian cuisine, Palestinian Arabic, Flag of Palestine, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Keffiyeh, and other Palestine-related articles.  PalestineRemembered, on the other hand, would rather lurk on talk pages and articles such as Battle of Jenin, Patria disaster, Israeli settlement, Anti-Americanism, Konrad Adenauer, Lehi, Irgun, and Shmuel Katz.  PalestineRemembered has called Israelis and Israeli sympathizers "proud ... of their murderous racism,"  "a lot nastier and more dangerous than anything we've seen since 1945," and unreliable as sources (of course, when PalestineRemembered needs to use the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs for his own edits, then its completely reliable).  This guy has been blocked several times and just doesn't learn.  He has been given many opportunities to reform and edit in peace, but, to paraphrase Abba Eban, PalestineRemembered never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity! Its time for a permanent ban.  --GHcool 04:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by uninvolved editor [[User:GHcool|GHcool]] 

message: PalestineRemembered has not been given the chance to fully respond to all the allegations against him.  The CSN disscussion has been proceeding at full speed ahead even though he was blocked shortly after it began.  Everyone should be given a fair hearing when the punishment is so grave. nadav 06:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, in the very few times I have come across his contributions, I have found them to be tinted by his POV. I support ArbCom taking this up merely so that the decisions reached may be fair and indisputable.  nadav 10:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by uninvolved editor [[User:Nadav1|Nadav1]] 

message: On Wikipedia talk:Single-purpose account, PalestineRemembered self identified as a single purpose account with the intent of pushing POV. I was actually planning on indefnitely blocking the user myself based on that, but apparently the community has decided as well. In the face of overwhelming community consensus that PalestineRemembered is incredibly disruptive, this case is little more than a witch-hunt against Jayjg, and Arbcom should reject it. Alternatively, if accepted, the clear weight of policy and community consensus falls on the side of Jayjg. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 08:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by not really involved [[User:Swatjester|Swatjester]] 

message: Some users have tried to turn this into an opportunity to attack Jay, but he has done nothing wrong. He reported the issue to AN/I (later moved to CSN), which was the right thing to do, and so far 21 editors have supported a ban. Some of the editors who haven't supported it (five when I last looked) have opposed it only because it was Jay who initiated the discussion, and their objections boil down to complaints about process. PalestineRemembered is a disruptive editor, and a bad one. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Response to Zero's statement: We're sliding into the inevitable cant and hypocrisy. Zero protests the community ban because PalestineRemembered is a "long-term editor," and therefore shouldn't be removed without more process. But PR has made 206 edits to the encyclopedia, many of them his original research, every one of them that I've seen badly written and badly sourced. On the other hand, Zero was quite happy to indefblock Zeq himself in May last year,  though he was in numerous content disputes with him, and Zeq had made considerably more edits (currently 2,000 to articles, 8,000 overall) than PalestineRemembered. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by SlimVirgin

message: I'm sorry, but I have to say that PalestineRemebered is a chronic POV pusher. Being blocked for 4 months out of the 7 he's been here does not suggest to me that this user is a very good contributer. I would possibly go as far to say he's been trolling over his username on a number of occasions. I fully support his ascertation that he is an SPA. As to whether this ArbCom is to proceed, I would suggest you take it on board - the community sanction board has turned into a farce regarding this user, with no clear way of gaining a consensus of a community ban, and his behaviour goes far beyond the scope of the initial complaint there. I think the clarity of ArbCom is needed to take it out of the communities hands. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

message: I sincerely hope that the committee examines all aspects of this incident.
My summary: PalestineRemebered was blocked mostly on the basis of a mistaken charge brought by an editing opponent, after a meagre few hours of discussion where almost no evidence was produced, with scarcely any opportunity to defend himself.  In my opinion, this represents a failure of due process that should be corrected, and raises serious questions about how WP:CSN operates.
Various points:
# The context of the incident was an edit war between PalestineRemebered and Jayjg (and some others) at Zionist political violence.  PalestineRemebered wanted to insert some material which at least prima facie is relevant to the page, and Jayjg kept deleting it. (The material, btw, is mostly factually correct and is either sourced or easily sourcable. I'm not here taking a position on whether it is better in the article or elsewhere.)
# In my opinion, PalestineRemembered's behavior on Zionist political violence was not worse than Jayjg's behavior.
# Jayjg devoted almost no effort to explaining his deletions either in edit summaries or on the Talk page, until he accused PalestineRemebered of getting some of his information from a Holcause Denial site (IHR).  This accusation is  factually incorrect.
# 18 minutes later, Jayjg repeated the IHR charge on AN/I .
# While more general accusations were made, almost no evidence for them was presented but only non-specific assertions.  Some contended that PalestineRemebered should be blocked for violating WP:CITE#Say where you got it even if Jayjg's charge was wrong, but WP:CITE is a guideline, not a policy.  Furthermore, the majority in favor of blocking is meaningless since it is clear from the comments that many were misled by Jayjg's incorrect accusation.
# PR was first blocked only 18 minutes after being notified that there was a discussion about him. Only 5 hours and 7 minutes elapsed between the notification and the final block.  That is not enough time for a proper discussion (some of us were asleep the whole time) and certainly not enough time for PalestineRemembered to argue in his own defence.
My recommendation:  The committee should
# Examine the case against PalestineRemebered properly. This has not been done so far.  If it is found that he should be banned, then ban him.
# Examine the operation of WP:CSN and consider whether constraints on its operation should be imposed.  In particular, consider whether long term blocks of established editors should be imposed without those editors having a fair chance to defend themselves.
WP:CITE#Say where you got it:  I was the editor who originally introduced this guideline and I have argued that it should be a policy.  However, the introduction of WP:CITE identifies it as a guideline, not as a policy.  A single violation of a guideline is not a reason to block someone indefinitely. If it is identified as only the trigger, there is an onus to produce the gun.  If a single violation of WP:CITE#Say where you got it is a blockable offence, here are some more regular editors to block for multiple violations.  I'll just give one example for each:  Amoruso  (text of last "quote" does not match source), Isarig , Shamir1  (the latter two are welcome to prove me wrong about those obscure Arabic sources that just happen to be in all the internet propaganda sites).
Final unwise comment: The status of the Arbitration Committee is at stake here.  If we can get a long-term editor banned in a couple of hours without the need to hear a defence or even to provide a carefully presented case, then why should anyone go to all the effort of preparing an Arbitration Committee case?
--Zerotalk 11:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]

message: I have come across many of PR's edits, in both the main namespace and the Talk pages. Without exception, every single one of those I've seen was blatant POV-pushing, conspiracy-theory mongering or a personal attack. I am shocked that some longtime editors here could be fooled into thinking that this is 'a skilled writer and researcher'. I am less surprised that some of his co-POV-pushers have gone to lengths to falsely describe him as "longtime editor". Jaygj's actions here are impeccable. It is false that Jay's original claim (that PR copied this from  a Holocaust denying website) has been proven wrong - all that has been done is that a few other non-Holocaust denying sources for the quote have appeared, but we have no way of knowing where PR copied it from. What we do know conclusively is that PR lied about where the got the quote originally, and has given two different accounts of where he really got them (first it was Hadawi's book which he allegedly has, then it was "some usenet group"). As noted above, PR is a self-declared SPA, created to push a POV - we don't need these kind of editors on the project. Isarig 14:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Isarig|Isarig]] 

message: I would suggest that arbcom take up the issue as it has grown beyond a simple open shut case, with several users in good standing objecting the ban. (please note I am currently indifferent about any potential ban, though I originally thought the ban was unjust, but the evidence is not clear either way, at least for me, and deserves a more indepth approach, then just listing things on a noticeboard.). —— Eagle101Need help? 15:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also like to mention that I thought a ban was when no other admin was willing to undo, not the result of some majority vote, as I see some comments above and below. To me a ban is when a member of the community has worn out the community's patience to such a point that nobody is willing to unblock or give them a second chance. If this is not the case... I'd like to know. Thanks —— Eagle101Need help? 21:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Eagle 101|Eagle 101]] 

message: I urge arbcom to take up this case. The CN process began with allegations, since shown to be false, which, intended or not, clearly incited a knee-jerk response from the mobile vulgus. This is a clear example of when ArbCom must step in to dispassionately examine the situation at hand. -- Kendrick7talk 18:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Response to GHCool's statement I couldn't this let slide that his statement references comments PalestineRemembered made in October and December of 2006, prior to several of his recent blocks only to conclude "This guy has been blocked several times and just doesn't learn." Lack of evidence to the contrary suggests PR in fact has learned. GHCool's complaint that PalestineRemembered is a single purpose account, followed by his complaint that he won't stay corralled within a predictable set of articles (such as the Flag of Palestine, as if that article needed expert attention?) is also contradictory. -- Kendrick7talk 18:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by uninvolved editor [[User:Kendrick7|Kendrick7]] 

message: With notation of the ArbCom below, I have decided to unblock the subject of this case, PalestineRemembered. I have also pasted words of caution and places where he should only edit. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by unblocing admin [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] 

message: I've got two points. We haven't banned indef many other users who passed through here several times. In a case below, arbitrators are discussing an appeal process. We got all those scenarios out there but here we are discussing a ban of a user using questionable reasons! 
The second point which i have referred to at the CN earlier today is the block log. 1/The first block by FeloniousMonk is questionable. Can FM please justify the 1 month block especially that it was the first block. 2/The second block of FeloniousMonk may be justified only if the first one is. 3/The third block by Jayjg is unjustified. Jayjg referred to a talk page comment as a justification. Can you explain Jayjg why did you consider this link as a justification for another 1 block? 4/The fourth indef block by Seraphimblade is quite harsh. The reason was user has had plenty of chances. Which chances? I only can accept that if the earlier blocks are justified. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by uninvolved [[User:FayssalF|FayssalF]] 

message: For the avoidance of doubt, as it affects Mackensen's opinion below on hearing the case, I would be willing to undo the indefinite block as unsupported by either the claimed foul or the community discussion.  (He has already been unblocked with the summary "unblocking for ArbCom case" by Zscout370, so this won't show in the block log.  My read of the discussion at the community noticeboard is that there is no consensus for a ban/indefinite block.  Under the most ban favorable reading of the opinions, they currently run 24 for banning, 15 against, and 4 abstaining or unclear.   At 24/15 that is only 62% for banning, which is not enough to justify a ban.  As the real evidence was not presented until ChrisO's opinion, I'd be quite prepared to disregard anyone who opined before then for the reason that they were opining on false information.  As the early opinions were more in favor of banning it seems quite obvious that there is no consensus for a ban.The longest block I could support for this particular violation is the time already served, and the evidence actually presented (diffs, etc...) at the noticeboard is of a good contribution record with only a minor citation lapse since his prior block.  I prefer, however, to have the committee hear this case, as you can look at the actions of all parties and insist upon diffs to support claims.  GRBerry 20:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by uninvolved [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 

message: Although the trend seems to headed in favor of accepting this case, I will still offer my opinion that it should not be accepted.  The issue is whether or not there is community support for a ban, and that is something that can be (and was being) determined by the established procedures, before the Arb Com case was filed.  It is clear from the discussion on the noticeboard that the filing of this case short-circuited that process.  Intervention by the Arb Com is both unecessary, and may encourage future premature filings when a community process isn't going the way someone wants.  It is also clear that this request has taken on an ideological tone.  Those who agree with the POV of PalestineRemembered, and/or those with past grievances against Jayjg, have predictably urged the Arb Com to take this case, and I can't help feeling that this has a larger purpose.  Such a purpose is not, however, one that the Arb Com is designed to fulfill.  6SJ7 00:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by uninvolved editor [[User:6SJ7|6SJ7]] 

message: #I am fretting that, after 3 days, I still have no indication of the substantive accusations remaining (?) against me.
#I presume we've passed the "evidence-collecting/presenting" stage of deliberations, but I'd like to know whether anything further is required of me.
#If the Arbitration Committee has accepted this case, then I'd like to know, and whether I play any further part.
#If I'm expected (or permitted) to defend my actions, publically or privately I'd like to know. (However, it would be near-enough impossible for me to present anything if I don't know what it is I'm defending myself from). 
#My reading of the accusations (but without the benefit of any Wikipedia-knowledgable "counsel") would suggest all accusations have either been knocked down by others, are not to policy or are old and "time-served".
#When this matter first blew up, I quickly defended myself with  and several editors found this totally satisfying. Others claim I was lying (nobody took me up on the photographic evidence I proffered). This experience has left me wary of defending myself except through the proper channels, which is why I'm writing here and waiting for instructions.
#The original accusation could get me thrown in prison or fined EUR10,000s (the latter punishment was inserted into the record at  - this has contributed to concentrating my mind). I believe this Holocaust-denying allegation to be absurd, but I've seen nothing to suggest that it has been withdrawn.
#If I've been falsely accused of the real-life charge, I've no idea whether I'm entitled to an apology, nor whether it is in the remit of the ArbCom to mandate (offer?) such redress. All I know is that this accusation could haunt me all my life, with no legal redress. I have only the ArbCom to authoritatively deny it - should I plea-bargain innocent on the serious charge and admit guilt on everything else, no matter if I even recognise it?
#Despite gratefully accepting an apparent offer to "Adopt" me by an experienced user, I've had no indication that I have anyone to turn to. (I may have misread the communication I received, but I'm positive I accepted it).
#I would like to repeat that everything I've done since my last punishment blocking has been entirely with the good of the encyclopaedia in mind. I appear to have made some 100 or so edits since 6th April and will hold my hand up to anything that might have been (or appear to be) mischievous, disruptive or in breach of the widely accepted core principles. Currently, I'm only aware that one of my contributions might be in breach of policy (perhaps borderline uncivil?) but I don't know which one it is, nor whether other readers might categorise my work differently.
#Please accept my apologies for writing here repeatedly. Under the circumstances I am sure the Community and the Committee would wish to hear at least a portion of my case. PalestineRemembered 11:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PalestineRemembered in the dark