Jump to content

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-21 Hezbollah

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
ArticleHezbollah
StatusClosed
Request dateUnknown
Requesting party[email protected]
Parties involved[email protected], Elizmr
Mediator(s)False Prophet
CommentSuccess

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Hezbollah]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Hezbollah]]

Mediation Case: 2006-08-21 Hezbollah[edit]

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.


Request Information[edit]

Request made by: [email protected] 02:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the issue taking place?
Hezbollah
Who's involved?
[email protected] 02:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC) & Elizmr[reply]
What's going on?
User:Elizmr is:
  • ignoring consensus
  • refusing to seek consensus
  • repeatedly making contentious edits for avowedly political reasons
What would you like to change about that?
  • ensure Elizmr understands meaning of word "consensus"
  • get Elizmr to seek consensus prior to making contentious edits
  • get Elizmr to respect consensus on points discussed by others
  • ultimately block Elizmr if the unilateral pattern of the edits is not reversed
Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
  • Please work as publicly as possible.

Notes from other party: [email protected] let me know he/she was requesting mediation and referred me here. After reading his comments, I am somewhat confused by this request and feel it was somewhat hastily made.

Other comments relevant to mediation: [email protected] clearly has a well-defined interest and expertise on this particular topic. All of his work on Wikipedia has been associated with Hezbollah. He has done outstanding work on the article, but I feel he needs to hang back and be less of an "owner" and "gatekeeper" of this article. And while his tone is generally collegial, he has veered towards making personal attacks when he has called a comment of mine "disingenuous", saying I am "inflicting" changes on the article, and accusing myself and another editor of not reading the comments and discussions. I think he needs to guard against this kind of thing as a contributor to Wikipedia. Elizmr 11:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal

  • Elizmr's first point illustrates my complaint. In the thread Talk:Hezbollah#Widened or Abandoned, Elizmr simply informed the interested editors that an edit had been made without any attempt whatsoever to achieve consensus for it.
  • Elizmr also cites the thread Talk:Hezbollah#Current discussion in the first point as an example of seeking consensus. Elizmr has proposed no compromise wording in this thread; there is merely a note that Elizmr has placed a POV tag on the article.
  • In the second point, Elizmr notes that subheadings were placed on the talk page. These subheadings:
  • ignored the existence of discussions on the page regarding structure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hezbollah#Structure ; note that these various headings have been collected after this request for mediation by another user).
  • ignored the consensus that had been reached by other editors over the period of a week.
  • Also with respect to the second point, Elizmr made these changes very shortly after posting and ignored the fact that the sole comments (mine) that had been made in the short time he allotted for discussion were negative.
  • With respect to the third point, I refer particularly to the edit made at 23:25 August 20 (Comment: remove umbrella term "social activities" over "media activities"; arguably Al Manar functions in service of the military arm as a propaganda organ--goal is not merely social)
  • Elizmr's first attempt to define consensus can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hezbollah#Remove_.22Operational_History.22 This thread is important for other reasons, as it is the subject of the POV tag Elizmr has placed on the article. It built on the consensus formed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hezbollah/Archive_4#Suggestion_to_shorten_the_article_size_a_bit
  • Elizmr's current definition of consensus is best illustrated by his recent actions with respect to the dispute on structure: explicitly ignoring a current debate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hezbollah#Order_of_sections:__Military:_Political:_Social , note that these sections were not connected in the talk page at the time his comment was made); ignoring the consensus that had been achieved in that debate by making structural changes to the article; and, (if we ignore these two points), posting contentious "suggestions" on the talk page simultaneously with their execution allowing no time for debate whatsoever; and ignoring the fact that the only comment received had been negative prior to re-posting the changes.
  • In summary, user Elizmr is a disruptive influence on the article. Elizmr posts an enormous number of edits pushing a pro-Israeli / anti-Hezbollah POV, most of which are quickly removed by other editors. I didn't care much when these activities were limited to the lead and the introduction (which, until things calm down, I have written off anyway!) but now that the field of operations has been widened it is time to put an end to them.

[email protected] 15:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

????

  • We are editing an encyclopedia article, not waging a war here and I find the hostile and militaristic language in the above highly unfortunate. I actually think it is pretty cool that I am getting to edit with an Iranian guy (I am not referring to JiHymas; I am referring to someone else) on this topic. I find his viewpoints as valid as mine and want to see both and others expressed cogently.
  • The article needs to express both pro-Israeli and pro-Hezbollah points of view to conform to WP:NPOV.
  • If [email protected] feels that I am adding pro-Israeli stuff to disrupt the article rather than to achieve balance, he should refer to WP:AGF.
  • None of my edits have been out of line with Wikipedia editing policies. [email protected] should review Wikipedia:Editing policy#Editing styles before accusing me of disruptive editing.
  • [email protected]'s comment that he "didn't care much when [my] activities were limited to the lead and the introduction...but now that the field of operations has widened it is time to put an end to them," implies that he feels he "owns" this article. This user should refer to WP:OWN on this topic.

Elizmr 16:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Mediator response[edit]

I'll take this case. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 16:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm in Toronto, so it's Eastern Time. I am most usually on Wikipedia from 9am EDT to 9pm EDT. Not too sure where to answer the message on my talk page, so I'm replying here. [email protected] 17:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also in Eastern time. I am on variably, depending on my work schedule. Typically evenings more than daytimes, but early ams sometimes. Elizmr 18:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have started some basic discussion on the talk page. Don't delete or edit what I have posted unless you've contacted me and I've given it my ok, or if someone writes here that they believe that the section or entry is irrelivant or unhelpful and you BOTH sign below with a Support and then 4 ~s done with '''Support''' ~~~~. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 00:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)(better explanation below) Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 15:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am not sure if I am supposed to take any specific action in response to your comments. Please let me know. Elizmr 14:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, FP, you have managed to get Elizmr & I to agree on something, anyway! Are we to continue the basic discussion you have started on the talk page? Do we need to submit talk-page edits to you prior to posting? and if so, how? [email protected] 14:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I posted could be discussed, or if you have things that you think you would rather discuss and try and compromise on, go ahead. I was merely trying to get some discussion going. If you think that something isnt working that I posted, tell me and Ill probably let you delete it. IF you have something that we can work on, post it and we can see if it helps. I just was trying to get something started. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 14:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is actually some discussion on the talk page of the article about structure now which is seeming to be productive. Elizmr 15:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Also, as far as I'm concerned this is JHim's "meeting" since he requested the mediation so I am willing to have him set the agenda if he feels there is something to work on. In this regard, it might be helpful for you to comment on the rest of the comments he and I made above. Elizmr 15:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless JiH can show that he is actively trying to resolve his case, then I will close this with the outcome as both parties no longer willing to mediate, and would say to JiH that if he still believes there is a problem, to file a User Conduct Rfc against Elizmr, in which I would be certain to explain why this mediation attempt failed. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 01:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone want to negotiate any more points? If not, then I guess we are finnished here. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 16:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only last thing I wonder is why JiHy has "opposed" these points: "JiH promises to be polite, and to think before commenting on other editors and not on the page itself. " "Jih also admits that he has been uncivil at times during this mediation process, and promises to follow WP:DICK, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA. " "Finaly JiH promises to think carefuly before reverting other editors edits. " They are pledges of good behavior, why oppose them? Elizmr 18:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The final point that he proposed was a more accurate description of what I wanted from him. He opposed them because he favored the more in context version. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 23:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK with me. Elizmr 01:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied with a final settlement as specified here. [email protected] 03:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise offers[edit]

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

If you agree to follow the offer I am proposing, then sign below under "support"

Elizmr promises to respect what has already been discussed on the talk page; to ensure that a high level of clarity in discussion has been achieved prior to taking action based on such discussion; and, when in the minority on contentious topics important to her, to add to the talk page a clear and precise statement of changes she considers necessary in order for her to join the majority. JiH promises to be polite, and to think before commenting on other editors and not on the page itself. Jih also admits that he has been uncivil at times during this mediation process, and promises to follow WP:DICK, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA. Finaly JiH promises to think carefuly before reverting other editors edits.

(note that the text above the asterices was submitted by False Prophet) I accept the above Elizmr 00:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide details of instances in which:
  • I am alleged not to have been polite
  • I am alleged not to have thought prior to commenting on other editors and not on the page itself:*I am alleged to have been uncivil
  • I am alleged not to have followed WP:DICK
  • I am alleged not to have followed WP:CIVIL
  • I am alleged not to have followed WP:NPA
  • I am alleged not to have thought carefully before reverting other editors' edits.

It was a deliberate deletion. I normally would not consider such a possibility, but Elizmr's conduct throughout the episode encourages me to verify everything. I regret that I am not familiar enough with Wikipedia software to state definately whether the public information regarding this deletion (e.g. the timestamps of the edit records) is consistent with an edit conflict. There may be additional non-public information in the system records that would conclusively answer the question. Perhaps the mediator can help us out a little with respect to this question. [email protected] 15:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

How about this for a scenairo, "JiHy could see that his comment was deleted, assume good faith, leave a comment on elizmr's talk page about the deletion, put his comment back, and just chill out. When elizmr said she didn't do a delete intentionally (and she would have apologized for doing it even unintentionally if given half a chance), he could believe her and just drop the matter rather than perseverating on it for days and days and days and days. Elizmr 23:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

fits just about all of these. You are uncivil by assuming that it was a deliberate deletion. What Elizmr suggested would be a civil way of handling that situation. If some one deletes your comment, leave a note on their talk page asking why they deleted it.

Then you followed up with this:

Your continued evasiveness on this point lead me to conclude that, at the very least, the Wikipedia software informed you of an edit conflict and that you wilfully ignored this warning - possibly after examining the post to determine your action. This would be disgraceful conduct at the best of times, but considering that it was a post opposing a change that you had proposed and were desperate to process immediately, your lack of action was completely unethical. [email protected] 15:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There not only are you saying that she intentionaly deleted it, but she was given a system warning, which wouldn't even happen, and then you call out her ethics in doing so. That is a very blatant personal attack. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 03:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the last thing I want to do is give the appearance of arguing with the mediator, so please bear with me while I try to understand the point being made.
  • The first block-quote cited (quoting me at 15:49, 30 August 2006) was not made in isolation. It was one of three scenarios I could think of that fit the observed facts ... the first of the three scenarios in this group explicitly stated that "no blame can be attached to Elizmr for the deletion". It is not clear to me why FP states that I am "assuming that it was a deliberate deletion", given that it is one of three different scenarios, presented simultaneously, with no opinion expressed as to which scenario was the actual fact.
  • The second block-quote citing me (which was the third in total, citing me at 15:42, 31 August 2006)
  • (a) FP interprets this as "saying that she intentionally deleted it" - I don't think this is what it says, precisely, and it's certainly not what I meant. I do recognize that there is a difference between an intentional deletion and wilfull disregard of an edit warning.
  • (b) I agree that Elizmr would not have been given a system warning for a deliberate deletion - but then it would have been a deliberate deletion. According to Help:Edit conflict, an "Edit Conflict" screen must have been shown - if this is the case, then it was ignored. I have seen one of these screens once and discussed the matter here. As I remember, the screen is impossible to miss and requires at least one unexpected extra step in posting the over-writing edit.
  • (c) Talk page posts are supposed to be inviolable - or, at least, relatively inviolable and there have been no claims made that the deletion was justified in any way. If point (b) is accepted as valid, is any purpose really served by placing a note on a user page, given that the situation could only have arisen either deliberately or through willful disregard by an extremely experienced editor? All I have done is made this a minor point in my complaint and asked for a committment to a higher standard of care in the future.
  • (d) I will certainly admit to a certain amount of frustration at Elizmr's refusal to confirm or deny (or address in any way at the time these posts were made!) the existence of an "Edit Conflict" screen.
  • If False Prophet, after reading the above, confirms that I was uncivil by giving even passing consideration to the third scenario in this matter even in the context of a dedicated dispute page, then I will support the following addition to my proposed changes to the settlement: JiH regrets his incivility (violating WP:DICK, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA) when listing possible explanations for the deletion of a talk page post and apologizes to Elizmr for any distress caused.
[email protected] 06:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's first examine the three scenarios you listed. The first scenario is practicaly impossible, as unless the system was malfunctioning, it couldn't happen. The second scenario has elizmr being warned, and regardless, to just say that she was warned and proceed to delete what you posted anyway is not civil. Suggesting the third scenario violates the listed policies. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 15:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I respect the views of the mediator and support the inclusion of the sentence "JiH regrets his incivility (violating WP:DICK, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA) when listing possible explanations for the deletion of a talk page post and apologizes to Elizmr for any distress caused. in the settlement. As an aside, FP posted while I was composing my reply to Elizmr, which could have resulted in an Edit Conflict. Now that would have been funny! [email protected] 16:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My prior request for substantiation regarding some of these allegations has been refused. Other elements of this proposal are now being mentioned for the first time. Additionally, I wish to see the following sentences added:

  • Elizmr agrees that the word consensus as used by the wikipedia community means the reflection of majority opinion without silencing the minority.
  • Elizmr regrets the deletion of a talk-page post and will ensure that deletion of material due to edit conflicts is avoided or repaired, or at the very least that notification of accidental and irreparable deletion is posted on the talk page in question.

There has been at least one previous instance in which Elizmr's full acceptance of the spirit of Wikipedia policies has been questioned and I wish to ensure that we are all on the same page with respect to "consensus" in the future. [email protected] 18:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC) with edits: [email protected] 21:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JiHy,

1) This is not a perfect world. Accidents happen. I have already apologized multiple times for accidentally deleting what you wrote on the talk page. I would certainly have notified you I had done this if I realized I had done it. If I had realized I had deleted your comment, I would have put it back myself. In any case, what I did was hardly "irreperable", quite the opposite--it was actually easily reversed. I would have reversed the mistake myself if you have given me a chance and given me the benefit of the doubt rather than bringing it to my attention in a very flagrant display of assumption of poor faith. I completely understand you being mad when you thought I had deleted your comment on purpose. Who wouldn't be? What I don't understand is why you can't accept that I did not in any way do this intentionally, accept my apology, and move on. The magnitude of your reaction seems out of proportion to what I actually did. My counterproposal on this is that you just drop this particular point.

  • Apologies are all very well and good - committments regarding future behaviour is a lot better. You will note that all I am looking for with respect to this matter in a final settlement is:
  • Elizmr regrets the deletion of a talk-page post and will ensure that deletion of material due to edit conflicts is avoided or repaired, or at the very least that notification of accidental and irreparable deletion is posted on the talk page in question.
It's hardly a prostration. If you're apologizing for the action, why are you resisting the inclusion of this sentence in a settlement?
[email protected] 16:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2) Dredging up something on another article talk page and mentioning it out of context in an attempt to discredit me is quite honestly an act of near-stalking. Maybe you would like to check out the follow-up on this as well: [1]. And maybe you would like to cite the instances in which I was accused of using North Korean brainwashing techniques or being a paid representative of Israeli intelligence. My counterproposal on this is that you express your regrets for bringing this up and assure me that at the conclusion of this episode you will not follow me around Wikipedia in an attempt to discredit me.

Reading Wikipedia hardly qualifies as cyberstalking. The matter was brought up to emphasize the need for you to buy into the concept of Wikipedic consensus. As your unnumbered paragraph below shows, you have not accepted dry, factual, neutral content as an ideal despite the remonstration of such an illustrious administrator - thus the need to ensure that you have made an explicit committment to support each element of an agreement. [email protected] 16:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3) As far as consensus goes, my first counterproposal on this is that you apologize to me for belittling me for not knowing what "consensus" meant while I was actually using the Oxford English Dictionary definition as my operational meaning. Secondly, you might acknowledge you own behavior on the Hezbollah page has not always been a model in this regard. When someone on Wikipedia says they have a problem with something that three people had said was "ok with them" without much discussion, it is not completely in keeping with the concept of "editing by consensus" to dismissively silence the fourth person citing the already reached "consensus" by the first three. Elizmr 00:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your operational meaning? I've brought up the point before, but you have still never shown that you have ever applied this definition at a time when it didn't suit you. Can you reference any instance in which you made a talk-page proposal, received majority support and then said 'Wait, guys, we can't do this, it's not unanimous'? With respect to the case in point - there was no need for me to make any substantive comment: I had made my substantive comment when making the proposal and you had not made any substantive argument against it. I fail to see how my remark was dismissive. In any event, the history of this subsection is:
The section, which referred to events that took place 20-ish years ago, was simply moved to the History of Hezbollah, where it remains. As I have noted on more than one occasion you have not proposed a single sentence of compromise wording in this matter. Despite the suggestion of Editor brenneman on August 30, you have still not proposed a compromise wording on the Hezbollah Talk Page, despite the fact that the "History" section is currently substantially identical to what it was then.
You are making no attempt to achieve consensus on this matter, much less unanimity.
The comment I made in no way shut down the discussion, even assuming I had the authority to do such a thing. Consensus can change. But in all the time since that discussion, despite repeated references to the discussion, despite your highlighting the issue when placing your POV tag on the article ... not a single editor has voiced support for your position on the issue. [email protected] 16:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a further note, you wrote above: "Elizmr posts an enormous number of edits pushing a pro-Israeli / anti-Hezbollah POV, most of which are quickly removed by other editors. I didn't care much when these activities were limited to the lead and the introduction (which, until things calm down, I have written off anyway!) but now that the field of operations has been widened it is time to put an end to them." You might review this statement of yours, which suggests that the proHezbollah antiIsrael POV is the only POV which properly be expressed in the Hezbollah article, when considering your own committment to the concept of consensus and NPOV in Wikipedia. Elizmr 00:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The antithesis of POV-pushing is not 'more POV in the opposite direction', as has been previously noted and my statement implies no such thing. I have endeavored throughout my involvement with the article to ensure that dry facts were presented in a neutral fashion. If you are stating that I have a pro-Hezbollah viewpoint, please supply some support for that allegation. It is entirely possible that I have deleted, edited and reverted more pro-Israeli POV-pushing statements than pro-Hezbollah ones - but only because on this English-speaking site there are more POV-pushers who are pro-Israeli than otherwise. [email protected] 16:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement that "there are more POV-pushers who are pro-Israeli than otherwise" on the english Wikipedia is not, in my experience, accurate but is also completely beside the point. One editor shouldn't be deleting well sourced neutrally stated stuff that someone else has posted, period, without a really good reason. If you have been doing this to even the score between what you see as POV-pushing contents, please see WP:OWN. Also, you have characterized by edits as "POV-pushing", and I completely dispute that. The comment you keep bringing up completely out of context from Jimbo Wales to me on the talk page of another article has some strong and unpleasant history behind it. I had been subject to just the sort of behavior I was describing from other editors on that page while editing another page, and had come to believe that that was the way Wikipedia worked. I was happy to be corrected. More to the point, however, if you are concerned about my editing behavior, you might review this follow up comment from Jimbo Wales [2]. Jimbo says I am not a POV-pusher and should be proud of that. By the way, one change I wanted to make that kept getting reverted on the Hezbollah page is that I wanted to change the way Israel was referred to in the lead from "the Zionist entity" to "Israel". WAs that POV pushing in your opinion? Finally, I didn't say you had a pro-Hezbollah POV, but from your statement("Elizmr posts an enormous number of edits pushing a pro-Israeli / anti-Hezbollah POV, most of which are quickly removed by other editors. I didn't care much when these activities were limited to the lead and the introduction (which, until things calm down, I have written off anyway!) but now that the field of operations has been widened it is time to put an end to them.") it sounded like you didn't feel that pro-Israel POV belonged in the article. If I have misinterpreted what you said, please feel free to parse it out for me correctly and accept my apology. Elizmr 19:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There have been very few complaints or discussion about my edits. I agree that "Israel" is more neutral than "the Zionist entity", but confess I have never followed the lead and introduction with much interest - too many reversions up there for me! You may wish to start a talk-page heading seeking consensus with our view on this subject - if successful, this will give you a mandate for multiple reversions that you can point out to multiple offenders. I do not feel that pro-Israel POV belongs in the article. I do not feel that pro-Hezbollah POV belongs in the article. To the extent possible, the article should be a dry description of Hezbollah, its actions and ideals, so that Joe Public, hearing the name of the organization on the news, can look it up in Wikipedia and become more informed. The more obviously neutral the description is, the more credible it will be.
The problem with this, of course, is that the selection of facts to be included in the article is, at the margins, a subjective process and even the most objective of mortals will, occasionally, make a decision that most people will agree is incorrect. So when in doubt (or even when in no doubt at all personally, but seeking some third party confirmation of my judgment after it has been questioned) I have sought consensus - as in this instance.
[email protected] 20:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the language and presentation should be neutral. I think you misunderstand what I mean by pro-Israeli pov. y this I mean the following: The fact that Hezbollah has a stated goal to destroy Israel and has and is engaging in activities to achieve this end are in the article in neutral plain language. It means that hezbollah is not soely presented as a peaceful political party which does good things for the citizens of Lebanon, but that the acts that Hezbollah is believed to have performed against Jewish and Israeli targets are clearly stated in the article. Given what you've written above about how it was "time to put an end" to my edits, I'm not sure which of my edits you have felt were "pov-pushing". I changed "Zionist entity" to "Israel" and did discuss it but people felt strongly that Israel should be described as the "zionist entity" so the state of Israel remains identified that way in the lead. I took the TV station Al-Manar taken out of the "social services" section and placed in its own section. I wanted to make the order of the article, in terms of Hezbollah's activities, chronological. I protested that a BBC cite that didn't quote any sources or evidence should not be used to support the claim that Hezbollah did not want an Islamic state in Lebanon, and comprimised on that. Anyway, which of these edits do you find to be particularly povpsuhing? Elizmr 00:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Zionist entity" -> Israel : Not POV-Pushing

THanksElizmr 22:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Movement of Al-Manar : POV Pushing - at least in intent. As presented, without any explanation, I believe that Joe Public will view a section of small size dedicated to media operations as merely being sloppy structure and not having any other significance. World opinion is that the bombing of Al Manar was a "violation of international law" since it is a civilian media organization. Clearly, the IDF disagrees, but would appear to be holding a small minority view at this time. It would be an improvement to the article, certainly, if it was made plain why the IDF considers Al Manar to be a legitimate military target - but I can find no argument supporting this thesis, not even in the dedicated Al Manar article.
It is possible that my analysis above is wrong but it did represent, as well as can be determined, the consensus of the editors of the page at the time you changed the structure and, I believe, represents the consensus of world opinion. I would certainly think that the default categorization of a television station is "Social Service" and before labelling it otherwise some compelling arguments must be made.

Have you seen Al-Manar? I have, and have read on it. It is not public service programming. The program directors and staff freely admit that their goal in creating programming is to incite violence against Israel, and they make no claim to neutrality. Using the outcry at the Israeli bombing of the station headquarters to say that the thing belongs in "social services" is roundabout original research at best. Elizmr 22:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Chronological order of article: POV Pushing (but of little concern while restricted to talk-page discussion, rather than actual edits to the article [email protected] 15:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)). Hezbollah is today a very different organization than what is was. Highlighting activities from the eighties by placing them earlier in the article will present a distorted view of the organization to a casual reader - unless such sections are clearly headed "Hezbollah in the '80's", "Hezbollah in the '90's" and so on to emphasize the chronological nature of the article lay-out. At the very least, the article structure would have to be clearly explained in the introduction. To place, for instance, the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing front and centre merely because it happened first is a distortion of Hezbollah's current stance.[reply]

Well, sure, I agree with that, but quite honestly two months or so ago Hezbollah crossed the blue line and killed several Israeli soldiers and kidnapped others. They are still advocating the destruction of Israel and the illegit of Israel as a state. They are an armed militia and fired rockets at Israeli civilians and civilian targets killing many and damaging many buildings and displacing as many inside Israel as were displaced inside Lebanon (I realize you didn't hear or see much about this in the Canadian press). I realize they are also participating in politics now and have spent a lot of money from overseas to buy the affections of Southern Lebanon, but I don't see much evidence that their STANCE is different. Means, maybe; Stance, not so much. Sa.va who is editing from a strongly pro-Hezbollah pov agrees. Elizmr 22:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • BBC cite : Perhaps not POV Pushing but certainly pushy. I see little evidence of "compromise" on your part in this matter. During the discussion of the matter on the talk page, three distinct and exclusive views were put forward regarding the most accurate statement of Hezbollah's position regarding a Lebanese Islamic Republic. After this initial statement of views, but prior to any discussion, you decided how the article should read and simply stated that you had applied the change. Perhaps if the situation had been discussed more thoroughly, you would not now be deprecating your own edit.

First, please read more carefully. I didn't deprecate my own edit. In a discussion with another editor, I had said something about disarming the org and I said that that issue clouded the one at hand and apologized for that. I did comprimise by leavig the sentence in with the phrase, "according to the BBC" but then took that out in another comprimise with Sa.va. Another editor, Palmiro, acutally just objected to the statement that the BBC cite refers to as well, saying the cite isn't strong enough to support the statement. Elizmr 22:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your own statements : You have justified the addition of pro-Israeli elements to the article in order to 'balance out' pro-Hezbollah elements. POV Pushing is what it is, regardless of intent. If you feel that pro-Hezbollah-biased statements exist in the article, they should be restated to mere statements of fact, not counter-balanced by equal and oppositely biased stattements.

Please see the above. When I started editing the article, it was incred biased in a PRO-hezb way. Of course this POV should stay in the article, but needs to be balanced with other POVs as well. Nothing regarding this org or the issues relevant to it are neutral and dry unfortunately. Elizmr 22:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The History Section : As has been noted in the course of this discussion, the "History" section was moved to a dedicated article in order to reduce size - it was the intent at one time to spin-off other sections as well. Your insistence that "Operational History", with its exclusive focus on terrorist actions, had to be maintained in the main article, duplicating the content of the History of Hezbollah article, constitutes POV Pushing.

As it stood at the time of my orig complaint, the article didn't mention the suicide bombings and kidnappings AT ALL, even in a summary way. After a LOT of discussion I managed to get them in there in the introduction. I have not changed the history section after one first attempt there was reverted by you the second after it was made. Elizmr 22:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • These are the responses to the specific instances regarding which you requested my views, with the last two paragraphs referring to other elements discussed in the course of this mediation. It does not address the impression made by the many edits you made to the article during July and August.
[email protected] 15:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC) (refactored [email protected] 00:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

JiHy, with all due respect, the amount of time you are spending grinding your axe against me is bizarre and I do not have equal time to respond to each one of your points. However, for a reality check, you might note below that my edit count to the Hezbollah article is no where near what you say it is, probably by an order of magnitude. Since I first started editing on Wikipedia this past Feb, I have only made 717 edits to articles themselves total. Your guess that I have made 500-1000 edits on the Hezbollah page during July and August is as much of an exaggeration and misrepresentation as your other statements above. I don't know what motivates this vendetta of yours against me but I hope it will end as we close this mediation.

Username Elizmr Total edits 1609 User groups user Distinct pages edited 232 Edits/page (avg) 6.94 Avg edits/day 7.38 First edit 2006/02/06 21:53:48 Edits by namespace Namespace Edits (Main) 717 Talk 454 Elizmr 20:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I stand corrected on the edit count and have refactored my post to reflect this correction. Sorry! With respect to POV-Pushing, well, what can I say? I believe that my preferred statements better reflect neutrality than yours, and that you are engaged in POV-Pushing; without wishing to put words in your mouth, it appears that you believe that your preferred statements better reflect neutrality than mine, and that I am engaged in POV-Pushing. Neither of us can prove that we're right, with all the certainty of a Euclidean geometrical proof; all we can do is engage in discussion on the talk page prior to posting anything that might be considered contentious, to seek consensus and to respect consensus. Hopefully an agreement on this mediation will help us to achieve this goal. [email protected] 00:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JiHy: First of all, I very much appreciate your new calmer tone. Let's try this again because this is important. First, I NEVER said you were engaged in POV pushing. That, IMO, would be an example of assuming bad faith. Also, this is a subtle point but IMO there is no such thing as neutrality of POSITION here since the situation is so polarized, however various positions can be stated using neutral LANGUAGE. For example, a suicide attack can be called a "suicide bombing" in Wikipedia, but shouldn't be called a "brutal inhumane suicide attack on innocent civilians" or something like that. From one side Hez is an org with a stated goal to destroy the soverign state on the other side of its border, using military means, propaganda, political means, etc to achieve this. From the other side, Hezbollah is an org performing God's work of liberating muslim lands from an illegitamate occupying force. It is not POV pushing to present these positions. There are other positions as well, but you get the idea. These are both reasonable POVs and they both belong in the article neutrally stated. Do you disagree with this? Elizmr 10:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both statements regarding H's goal are highly emotional and convey very little information. What does "destroy the sovereign state" mean, for instance? Do they want to dig a big hole from the surface of Israel down to the centre of the earth in a gigantic wedge, or what? Much of the phrasing in your example statements (which I recognize are not actual suggestions for final content) consists of code words, which should not be used in the article except as direct quotes after the reader has be primed to interpret what is meant. A preferable statement would be:
Such a statement tells the reader just what the issue is, with enough citations so that he can get all the detail he wants at his leisure. [email protected] 16:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence you wrote above does not get any closer to the truth than the ones I wrote, It simply expresses yet another POV--that of the Western apologist (I'm not calling you an apologist, I'm saying the phrase is written from that POV). Elizmr 18:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

Scorecard[edit]

Can't tell your settlements without a programme!

Status of Proposed Settlement Statement
Statement J Position E Position
Elizmr promises to respect what has already been discussed on the talk page; to ensure that a high level of clarity in discussion has been achieved prior to taking action based on such discussion; and, when in the minority on contentious topics important to her, to add to the talk page a clear and precise statement of changes she considers necessary in order for her to join the majority. Support Support
JiH promises to be polite, and to think before commenting on other editors and not on the page itself. Oppose Support
Jih also admits that he has been uncivil at times during this mediation process, and promises to follow WP:DICK, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA. Oppose Support
Finaly JiH promises to think carefuly before reverting other editors edits. Oppose Support
Elizmr agrees that the word consensus as used by the wikipedia community means the reflection of majority opinion without silencing the minority. Support Support
Elizmr regrets the accidental deletion of a talk-page post and will ensure that deletion of material due to edit conflicts is avoided or repaired, or at the very least that notification of accidental and irreparable deletion is posted on the talk page in question. Support Support
JiH regrets his incivility (violating WP:DICK, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA) when listing possible explanations for the deletion of a talk page post and apologizes to Elizmr for any distress caused. Support Support

I thought this would be useful, so that we can keep track of where we are. The table is intended to be simple and there is no provision for nuances such as 'support conditional on inclusion of another statement'. I believe I have summarized Elizmr's position accurately, but if not it can always be edited.

Thanks, this helps, I think that from that we get this:

Elizmr promises to respect what has already been discussed on the talk page; to ensure that a high level of clarity in discussion has been achieved prior to taking action based on such discussion; and, when in the minority on contentious topics important to her, to add to the talk page a clear and precise statement of changes she considers necessary in order for her to join the majority. JiH regrets his incivility (violating WP:DICK, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA) when listing possible explanations for the deletion of a talk page post and apologizes to Elizmr for any distress caused. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 21:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what we get so far, yes, by way of currently mutually agreed line-items. But there are two sentences I want added (as noted in the table) before I'm happy with the package as a whole; I am currently awaiting Elizmr's response to this post. I cannot, of course, speculate regarding Elizmr's views. [email protected] 21:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the second to last point, could we add the word "accidental" before deletion? Then I will support 100%. I did not do this on purpose, woudl not do this on purpose, and don't want to sign something saying that I did do it on purpose and apologize for that. I'm sorry to have to be a stickler on this point, but feel it is advisable. Elizmr 18:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the word "accidental" before "deletion" as proposed. I will support a complete settlement package comprised of the individual statements that I support, e.g.:
  • Elizmr promises to respect what has already been discussed on the talk page; to ensure that a high level of clarity in discussion has been achieved prior to taking action based on such discussion; and, when in the minority on contentious topics important to her, to add to the talk page a clear and precise statement of changes she considers necessary in order for her to join the majority. Elizmr agrees that the word consensus as used by the wikipedia community means the reflection of majority opinion without silencing the minority. Elizmr regrets the accidental deletion of a talk-page post and will ensure that deletion of material due to edit conflicts is avoided or repaired, or at the very least that notification of accidental and irreparable deletion is posted on the talk page in question. JiH regrets his incivility (violating WP:DICK, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA) when listing possible explanations for the deletion of a talk page post and apologizes to Elizmr for any distress caused.
I am indifferent as to whether anything 'officially final' refers to me as JiH, [email protected] or James Hymas.
That leaves some items in the table listed as supported by E, opposed by J. If Elizmr drops them and agrees with the package above, we're done. If Elizmr wishes to discuss these items, I have no problems with that but my support of the package as a whole is then cancelled (i.e., if anything further is added to the package above, I may wish to discuss other elements myself.)
[email protected] 19:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

About the term, "consensus": When I said that I thought consensus meant "everyone agrees", I really did believe that this was the definition. Here is the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) definition, "Agreement in opinion; the collective unanimous opinion of a number of persons." The wikipedia discussion of this term differs from the OED, but it still entails all opinions being heard and considered. Elizmr 17:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I cannot answer JiHym's recent points. They are over the top in their assumption of bad faith and attacking tone. There is no reason for the hostility this editor is displaying. I have stated my position, explained my actions several times, and cited Wikipedia policy to support my editing style. On the page itself, when he has made a request for me to discuss, I have done so. Every reply I have made on this page has just invited more invective. Elizmr 18:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing. As I've said above, I did not intentionally delete any thing written in the talk page by another editor. I have only recently done my first revert on Wikipedia. It is just not my style to delete someone else's work. I have a pov on issues related to the topic, and this is ok. So does JiHy and this is also OK. I want my POV to be expressed. This does not mean I am not a balanced editor. I want all povs to be expressed cogently in Wikipedia; not only mine. I did alot of work to explain to a reader why a lot of the muslim world considers Hezbollah attacks to be legitaminte jihad, for example, and fixed the section when other editors tried to make the explanation less powerful. I do sometimes ask other editors to explicitly tell me why they feel a certain article should have a certain structure or read a certain way. In the Al-Manar structure example that JiHy thinks I should be raked over the coals for my actions on, a bare outline was suggested without explication and a few people said it was alright with them. I did see this. This is different, however, from explicitly defending why Al-Manar thematically belonged in a certain section, and the latter was not done. I didn't see a reason not to move the section and open discussion on the talk page. Moreover, there is no Wikipedia policy stating that anything I did was wrong. Elizmr 21:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

::::Let's review JiHy's obejctives for this mediation and how we are proceeding:

ensure Elizmr understands meaning of word "consensus"
  • We've established that JiHy, actually, was the one who might not have been aware of the meaning of this word (not meaning to be snarky here, but really, admit it when you've make a mistake)
get Elizmr to seek consensus prior to making contentious edits
  • Editors differ on what is considered "contentious". I have cited Wikipedia policy to show that I have not done anything really uncalled for on the page, and when asked to discuss more I did. I would say this is accomplished as well. I would ask JiHy to expand his def of "contentious" to include what might be considered "contentious" to more varied POVs
get Elizmr to respect consensus on points discussed by others
  • done, however consensus should be based on 1) everone's opinions being heard and considered and 2)rational discussion in defense of particular points. Also, Wikipedia is by its nature in a state of flux and a consensus previously agreed to, especially if not in compliance with the two points above, is not written in stone. On one occassion I was shot down by JiHy for raising an objection after three people had said something was ok with them since "consensus" had already been arrived at. On another occassion JiHy because very upset becuase I moved something (with an explanatory edit summary) that a few folks had passed as part of a larger structure discussion without any specific discussion related to section in question. (Of note, this has been moved, raised on the talk page and no one except for JiHy has raised any objection. In addition, JiHy has not presented any argument supporting previous placement.)
ultimately block Elizmr if the unilateral pattern of the edits is not reversed
  • No one has established that anything like a "unilateral pattern of edits" exists. I have not done any edits in which I have departed from Wikipedia policies on editing (see "????" above for any details). I do not know what "Wikilawyering" is, but asking someone to review policy before criticizing and taking action against other editors is not problematic. Also, the mediator has informed JiHy that blocking me would be "ridiculous" and is not an appropriate goal for mediation.

So, based on the original goals, I think we are done here. Elizmr 17:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My original plan was to take this slowly, and work and something in depth that would solve a lot of the problems on the article page regardless of the editor, but that isn't working, so what I want both of you to do, is below this list what you think the problems are, and what should be done about them. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 16:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that JiHy's request for mediation has degenerated into an excuse for a prolonged series of personal attacks. I would like him to take a step back, a deep breath, and try to put the infractions he feels I have committed into some perspective. What damage, really, has been done? I'd like him to actually read what I have written here and hear it and give me the benefit of the doubt instead of using it as fodder for his next diatribe. And then I'd like him to realize I responded immediately to his requests when he made them. Finally, I'd like him to stop looking for me to promise to never do something again that I didn't do in the first place. Then I'd like him to move on. If he is unable to do this, I would like to invite him to file an RFC against me. Oh yeah, and he also might apologize for belittling me on the talk page for not knowing the def of the word consensus when I actually had it right. Elizmr 18:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the long weekend off and don't even have my password with me - so you'll just have to trust that it is actually jiHymas writing this! I'll post again on Tuesday morning. 69.158.148.180 22:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This will confirm that the above post by 69.158.148.180 was made by me.
  • Elizmr has a history of bad faith when using the talk pages.
  • One example is the edit that arose from the discussion "Widened or Abandoned". A discussion on the talk page was broken off by Elizmr advising that he had simply posted an edit - the wording of this edit had not been mentioned in the discussion. It is interesting to note that Elizmr is now deprecating the article he gave such prominence with the edit.
  • Another example is POV Tag on the article. Since placing the tag he has not proposed a single sentence of compromise wording that would persuede him to remove the tag from the article.
  • In fact, Elizmr is now using the claim of POV to justify completely unrelated edits without any prior discussion or notification whatsoever.
  • Elizmr has refused to respect decisions reached by multiple editors on the talk pages.
  • Structural changes to the article had been agreed and the user "Banzai" had offered to implement them on the weekend in question. Note that Elizmr had not engaged in any of this discussion regarding structure.
  • Without any notice to other editors or discussion, Elizmr changed the structure of the article
  • No discussion was posted.
  • Elizmr refused to join the discussion of structure.
  • Despite multiple reversions, Elizmr will not even accept that his edit is contentious
  • Further discussion of this matter is on this article's talk page.
  • Elizmr is, at best, wilfully negligent when editing
He deleted my notice of disagreement with my edit.
  • Elizmr does not make a good faith effort to seek consensus
See discussion under Line 107, here.
  • Elizmr has very different expectations for other editors' behaviour than his own actions would indicate.
See his expectations
Given all the above, I am seeking to:
  • ensure Elizmr understands meaning of word "consensus" (note: Elizmr has engaged in game of dictionary quotation with this point. He has not been able to produce a practical and succinct definition for the purpose of Wikipedia edits, nor to show that his behaviour respects this principle.)
  • get Elizmr to seek consensus prior to making contentious edits
  • get Elizmr to respect consensus on points discussed by others
[email protected] 15:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The word consensus as the by the wikipedia community means to reflect the majority opinion without silencing the minority. Both of you are guilty of this. Elizmr needs to participate on the talk page, and JiH needs to understand and accept what elizmr is attempting to add to the article. There are cases in which people just leave POV tags on articles. My advice is if you don't see a problem, leave a message on the talk page of the user that left the tag on the page. If they don't respond within a few days, remove the tag.
Elizmr, if you want to change something that the majority doesn't agree with, then find a way to incorperate both into the article.
Now let's see if this will work as a compromise:

Elizmr promises more active in talk page discussions, and to respect what has all ready been discussed. JiH promises to be politte, and to think before commenting on other editors and not on the page itself. Can we live with this? Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 18:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the proposed promises of Elizmr: her level of activity on the talk page, in and of itself, is not a problem. I suggest that Elizmr's proposed promise be revised to:
  • Elizmr promises to respect what has already been discussed on the talk page; to ensure that a high level of clarity in discussion has been achieved prior to taking action based on such discussion; and, when in the minority on contentious topics important to her, to add to the talk page a clear and precise statement of changes she considers necessary in order for her to join the majority.
With respect to my proposed promises, I would appreciate more detail as to why such promises are considered necessary. [email protected] 20:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with this, But I think it is how I am already editing for the most part. I have been using the talk page more since JiHy asked me to. JiHy needs to realize that what was decided without any *substantive* discussion by two or three people is not written in stone and replies to request for changes like "this was discussed and rejected not up for further discussion" are not acceptable. RE" "contentious" edits, he needs to accept that Wikipedia becomes NPOV not by conforming to his POV, but by expressing many points of view in a neutral way. JiHy has been much more tolerant of edits made to the page when in keeping with his particular POV and has expressed dissatisfaction with my editing becuase I have put stuff in from what he calls a "pro-Israel" point of view as if there were something wrong with that. This is not acceptable. I agree he needs to avoid personal attacks. Elizmr 21:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"JiH promises to be polite, and to think before commenting on other editors and not on the page itself."

I listed those points because for the past few days, Elizmr has been complaining about how she believes that you have been making personal attacks against her. That is what she has made clear to me is her biggest problem concerning this case. All the second part means is that instead of commenting on other users, you only comment on the article and ideas on how to make it better. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 03:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am more than willing to take responsibility for my own actions, but I'm sure you will agree that I cannot make promises regarding what Elizmr will or will not believe in the future.
  • In these discussions, I have made allegations regarding conduct by Elizmr and supported these allegations with evidence. I am unaware of personal attacks. Since it would be unethical for me to agree to change something in an area in which it is uncertain where I have transgressed, I would appreciate specific references to particular instances that are the subject of the complaining. We can then look at these instances and come to some agreement regarding them.
  • It is unclear to me just what Elizmr doesn't "have a problem with". Is it the proposal by False Prophet, my initial revisions, or what?
  • I forgot one amendment to the original settlement proposal (sorry!) - the following should be added to my proposed revisions: Elizmr agrees that the word consensus as used by the wikipedia community means the reflection of majority opinion without silencing the minority.
  • Elizmr's most recent post contains statements to which I take great exception, but will refrain from discussing at the moment as this segment of the mediation does not seem to me to be the proper place for either introducing new material or for rebutting such material. However, I am most uncomfortable with letting the statements stand unanswered. Perhaps Elizmr could voluntarily withdraw these statements? Or perhaps False Prophet could provide guidance regarding what I should do?
[email protected] 15:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since JiHy seems to take exception with my whole reply, I withdraw it. I have tried to meet JiHy halfway. Even before he filed this request for mediation, in response to his complaints to me I IMMEDIATELY took every change I had made to the talk page. I have since used the talk page more extensively when editing the article. I have tried to respond to his points made here with support of what I did and explanations of what I did. JiHy doesn't accept the support in which I quoted Wikipedia policy, and has called me a liar when I have supplied explanations. In addition, when I have tried to supply explanations, he has then accused me of Wikilawyering, being evasive, or changing my postion towards some nefarious end. And since he clearly feels that his personal attacks are in my mind only, then I am fairly confident we have not reached any agreement on that point either. He has not budged a centimeter from any of his original positions. I'm not sure what I am supposed to do here except to invite JiHy to file an RFC against me. Elizmr 15:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand the situation is currently this:
  • Our long-suffering mediator has proposed a draft agreement that includes committments by both Elizmr and myself
  • I have made a counter-proposal regarding the committments to be made by Elizmr and have requested further information regarding the committments to be made by me
  • Following Elizmr's withdrawal of the post time-stamped 21:04, Elizmr has not yet indicated support, opposition or specific discussion regarding either False Prophet's proposal or mine.
  • There is an outstanding allegation that I have engaged in personal attacks in the course of this mediation.
  • I request clarification of these allegations.
  • I am currently of the view that although I have criticized - severely criticized - Elizmr's actions I have not crossed the line that demarcates personal attacks.
  • I am unable to find the word "liar" in anything I have written here.
  • Since this appears to be a major obstacle to a settlement, I suggest that:
  • a new section of the talk page of this article be created
  • Elizmr substantiate the allegations with direct quotations from specified posts
  • The allegations can then be discussed and Elizmr & I can either come to an agreement or not regarding whether a particular statement constitutes a personal attack.
  • If I agree that I have made a personal attack, I will apologize for such an attack and will not oppose such apology being part of the settlement.
  • If Elizmr and I do not come to such an agreement characterizing a particular statement I have made, I will agree to be bound by an indication from the mediator that the statement in question does, in fact, constitute a personal attack. In such a case, as above, I will apologize and will not oppose inclusion of the apology in a settlement.
  • I hope that Elizmr will similarly agree to be bound by such a mediator indication, but do not make this a precondition of the talks.
[email protected] 14:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JiHy: I have told you repeatedly that I did not purpously delete anything that you wrote on the talk page. YOu have refused to believe this. YOu have not called me a liar using the word liar, but I know you are intelligent to understand that a given unit of meaning can be conveyed by more than one specific word. Please review what you have written here and on the other talk page regarding my accidental deletion of your talk page comment to see why I think you have called me a liar. Similarly for your personal attacks. Please examine what you have written. At this point I am loath to go back and find examples for you. I can't bring myself to read this stuff again, and I also anticipate that you will not accept my characterization in any case. As I said before, I consider this a failed mediation and invite you to file an RFC against me. Or better yet, just let the thing go. Elizmr 16:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-21_Hezbollah&oldid=1046586409"