Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/October 2006/PalestineRemembered

Wikipedian filing request:



Other Wikipedians this pertains to:



Wikipedia pages this pertains to:



Questions:
Have you read the AMA FAQ?
 * Answer:

Yes (though I don't guarantee to have understood every twist and turn and comma!)

'''How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)'''
 * Answer:

Policy violation.

Someone has reverted the edit I did to Hezbollah, and been to my page to accuse me of OR (while not notifying me of the page where it is supposed to have happened). He has then (separately?) accused me of using quotes out of context. I don't believe that I've done so - and certainly don't believe this is an acceptable basis on which to remove (easily sourced) Wikipedia contributions without discussion.

I think the basis of my claim (Israel has always intended to seize southern Lebanon) is amply proved and well known to anyone familiar with this subject. I can produce 3 authors (all Israeli?) who refer to the matter as if it is proven. I suspect I could quickly find more references.

It's possible (though extremely unlikely in this particular case) that my information is wrong - but no attempt was made to re-phrase my statement, which was as follows: [Hezbollah] "seems to have come into being with Israel's 1982 Lebanon War invasion. (Israel has always aspired to seize parts of, or the whole of, Lebanon eg Ben-Gurion in May 1948 "Our aim is to smash Lebanon ...... The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine.").

And no attempt was made to discuss this particular historical understanding, I was simply told "Please do not intorduce OR based on out-of-context quotes into the encyclopedia. Thanks. Isarig".

I have a great deal more to add to Wikipedia, and on many other subjects - but I've had other substantive (and sometimes substantial) contributions summarily reverted in this fashion. Life is too short to carry out "edit-wars", and I've tried to made it clear I'm not interested. The result is that my talk-page has mysteriously been added to with more vaguely accusatory postings - almost as if this is deliberate intimidation of the newcomer.

I look forwards to meeting other editors and contributing to this great project. But I can see that an awful lot of my time will be wasted if I have to hack my way through the jungle on my own.

'''What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.'''
 * Answer:

None - the "dispute" is at an extremely early stage. I'm asking for help before the atmosphere becomes poisoned.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
 * Answer:

I need guidance through the mine-field I feel is being opened up in front of me. Separately, I (may) need assistance to produce Wiki-acceptable edits.

Followup:
When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?
 * Answer: Yes, and I appreciate someone coming forwards and putting themselves in the firing line over contentious matters.

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?
 * Answer: I was disappointed. I cannot understand why nations (if they've come about as a result of prior intention) cannot be described as having "national intentions", based on the words of their founders.

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?
 * Answer: He was good - I had the impression of someone who'd considered the issue, even if didn't agree with me.

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?
 * Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?
 * Answer:

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?
 * Answer: It could be more testing on the complainant (ie me). My advocate, with very little effort, could have encouraged me to turn my gripe into a full federal case, and then shot down some/all of the individual elements based on his own experience. I'd have got more out of it if I'd been forced to write and re-write my case until it either did or did not stand up as a full-blown case for (potential) ArbCom.

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?
 * Answer:

AMA Information
Case Status: open

Advocate Status:
 * left message on talk page.--Amerique 00:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)