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

message: I saw this on the talk page, and thought this needed to be brought up.
    * 1 Introduction
          (including summaries from each of the following sections)
    * 2 History
          o 2.1 1982-2000: Under Israel
          o 2.2 2000-2005: Post-occupation
    * 3 Ideology 
          o 3.1 Religous
               o 3.1.1 Initial
               o 3.1.2 Evolving
          o 3.2 Social
               o 3.2.1 Initial
               o 3.2.2 Evolving
          o 3.3 Political
               o 3.2.1 Initial
               o 3.2.2 Evolving
    * 4 Structure and activities
          o 4.1 Political
               o 4.1.1 Elected Members
 
===Major objections to this layout===
===Minor objections to this layout===
===Discussion===
Thank you for the attempt, but the issue (as far as I'm concerned) is not so much the result of the layout discussion as the process. I opposed Elizmr's proposed change, but would certainly not have 'gone to the wall' to oppose it, or have been particularly angry if consensus had gone against me. What does irritate me is the idea that it doesn't matter what gets discussed and agreed on the talk page - any editor will feel perfectly entitled to do whatever he pleases at any time for any reason. JiHymas@himivest.com 15:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JiHy please refer to Wikipedia:Editing policy on this.  And please try to look at the changes I actually was making and see if they've warranted all this fuss.  I was not introducing anarchy into the page.  I was not doing vandalism.  I was not disrupting the article.  For example, I moved Al-Manar TV from Social Servies to its own section.  I don't know if you've ever seen Al-Manar, and I'm not suggesting you haven't, but it is not all sweet kids cartoons, reading lessons, and cooking shows.  It is pretty blatant hate-inspiring violence-inspiring politically motivated stuff.  This may all be ok and in the service of Allah, (I personally don't think God wants any human to hate any other human), who knows?   What I do know is that most definitions of the english speaking world it is not a "social service" to provide this type of programming, and thus is actually misleading to put it there.  I personally feel the station is a military functionality, but please note that I did not put it there in the structure.  I gave the thing its own section.  No one had said on the talk page, "Al-Manar belongs in Social Services because x, y,z." There was no discussion.  There was a little tree and that was the end of it.  So I changed it with an edit summary and a plan to summarize changes on the talk page.  Anyway, I've spent way too much time on this nonsense and so have you.  If I've hurt you at all or dissed you in any way I apologize.  OK?  Let's move on.  Elizmr 23:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I find it very difficult to believe that "ignoring consensus" is considered an acceptable editing style. While the attempt at an apology is appreciated, you are not making any committments whatsoever with respect to future activities - in fact, you are refusing to acknowledge that there is, or was, any issue at all, to the point where you are claiming that there is no need to consider an edit contentious after it has been reverted twice. JiHymas@himivest.com 15:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JiH, Please try to read my comments suspending your anger and indignation at me for a few minutes and see where I am coming from.  Please ALSO at least read the section on editing styles that I've referred to.  I know you are really upset and think I have done something really heinous, and I apoligize for editing in a way that has upset you and will try to avoid similar edits in the future.  OK?  At the same time  I don't think I willfully ignored any properly developed consensus and you are not going to be able to bully me into saying that I did.  Please consider giving me the benefit of the doubt and meeting me half way on this.  If you are not able to do this you could always bring a user conduct rfc against me.  Elizmr 22:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read the section on editing styles. It provides leeway and discretion. It does not provide carte blanche to do anything you like without accountability. You are sounding more and more like an al-Manar apologist claiming that the right to free speech means they can say anything they like. Bully you? You're here voluntarily. "user conduct rfc"? All I'm looking for is an end to the evasiveness and commitment from you that you will cease your arrogant POV-pushing activities and try to work with the other editors ... and really work with them, not your usual nonsense on the talk page, where you and Sa.va spend all day talking past each other and all night reverting each others' edits. JiHymas@himivest.com 16:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Layout

message: Thank you for the attempt, but the issue (as far as I'm concerned) is not so much the result of the layout discussion as the process. I opposed Elizmr's proposed change, but would certainly not have 'gone to the wall' to oppose it, or have been particularly angry if consensus had gone against me. What does irritate me is the idea that it doesn't matter what gets discussed and agreed on the talk page - any editor will feel perfectly entitled to do whatever he pleases at any time for any reason. JiHymas@himivest.com 15:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JiHy please refer to Wikipedia:Editing policy on this.  And please try to look at the changes I actually was making and see if they've warranted all this fuss.  I was not introducing anarchy into the page.  I was not doing vandalism.  I was not disrupting the article.  For example, I moved Al-Manar TV from Social Servies to its own section.  I don't know if you've ever seen Al-Manar, and I'm not suggesting you haven't, but it is not all sweet kids cartoons, reading lessons, and cooking shows.  It is pretty blatant hate-inspiring violence-inspiring politically motivated stuff.  This may all be ok and in the service of Allah, (I personally don't think God wants any human to hate any other human), who knows?   What I do know is that most definitions of the english speaking world it is not a "social service" to provide this type of programming, and thus is actually misleading to put it there.  I personally feel the station is a military functionality, but please note that I did not put it there in the structure.  I gave the thing its own section.  No one had said on the talk page, "Al-Manar belongs in Social Services because x, y,z." There was no discussion.  There was a little tree and that was the end of it.  So I changed it with an edit summary and a plan to summarize changes on the talk page.  Anyway, I've spent way too much time on this nonsense and so have you.  If I've hurt you at all or dissed you in any way I apologize.  OK?  Let's move on.  Elizmr 23:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I find it very difficult to believe that "ignoring consensus" is considered an acceptable editing style. While the attempt at an apology is appreciated, you are not making any committments whatsoever with respect to future activities - in fact, you are refusing to acknowledge that there is, or was, any issue at all, to the point where you are claiming that there is no need to consider an edit contentious after it has been reverted twice. JiHymas@himivest.com 15:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JiH, Please try to read my comments suspending your anger and indignation at me for a few minutes and see where I am coming from.  Please ALSO at least read the section on editing styles that I've referred to.  I know you are really upset and think I have done something really heinous, and I apoligize for editing in a way that has upset you and will try to avoid similar edits in the future.  OK?  At the same time  I don't think I willfully ignored any properly developed consensus and you are not going to be able to bully me into saying that I did.  Please consider giving me the benefit of the doubt and meeting me half way on this.  If you are not able to do this you could always bring a user conduct rfc against me.  Elizmr 22:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read the section on editing styles. It provides leeway and discretion. It does not provide carte blanche to do anything you like without accountability. You are sounding more and more like an al-Manar apologist claiming that the right to free speech means they can say anything they like. Bully you? You're here voluntarily. "user conduct rfc"? All I'm looking for is an end to the evasiveness and commitment from you that you will cease your arrogant POV-pushing activities and try to work with the other editors ... and really work with them, not your usual nonsense on the talk page, where you and Sa.va spend all day talking past each other and all night reverting each others' edits. JiHymas@himivest.com 16:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Just so you know, others have been editing the page as well.  As far as the subpage thing goes, I am willing to try it and have done it before when I have been working on something really complicated.  I generally prefer to make small edits rather than editing on a subpage and bringing it in wholesale for two reasons.  First, I can use the edit summaries to make sure people understand the thought behind each edit individually.  It makes things very explicit.  Also, since many people are often editing at once, when one person brings in something done "off-line" it can end up wiping out work that was done between the time the editor grabbed a version to edit and the time the new version was imported in.  I don't want to delete someone else's work.  Elizmr 18:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion