Eisspeedway

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon

Case Opened on 18:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 03:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

Deletion of WP:EL-compliant links to Israeli and Lebanese online journals, blogs, and news service photographs in the article 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.


Requests for comment

Statement by AdamKesher

Both links to Israeli and Lebanese online journals, blogs, and news service photographs compliant with Wikipedia's policies WP:EL and others are being repeatedly deleted from the article 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. I will simply use the mediator's language from second mediation attempt, after Barberio accused without justification the first mediator of mistakes:

"The links under question are:
  • closely related to the article itself
  • argued to be of a high standard (web collectives of writers, compendiums of news agency photos, etc.)
  • providing a unique resource of frontline observations beyond what the article can provide"

Furthermore, tasc insists on deleting WP:EL-complant links to online journals, blogs and news service photographs from article 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict without resorting to any talk page or mediation process. AdamKesher 16:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my proposed solution to this dispute centered on a limited number of links:
BEGIN
Frontline blogs
Israeli blogs
Lebanese blogs
Frontline photographs
Warning: Extremely graphic wartime imagery
END
None of the other parties ever responded or explained about why specifically any one of these links does not satisfy WP:EL. AdamKesher 21:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to what Barberio has to say below, I simply note that this action was initiated after tasc repeatedly deleted links while ignoring the entire process and Barberio declared this process to be "stalled." Also, the language above was used both by me and the moderator to accurately represent the pro- position. Finally, I note that the content of Barberio's proposed compromise is the inclusion of a template, {{Unverifiable-external-links}}, that is proposed for deletion and has been used by Barberio himself to label these links "dubious", and to declare that the presence of this template means that the links should be "replaced":

"The template has had language added that makes it clear that these links should be replaced."

The effect of tasc's and Barberio's words and actions—either delete the links without discussion, or add a template that says that they should be replaced—hardly appear to represent a compromise position. Instead of replying to this reasonable response on the mediation page, Barberio declared the process "stalled" and now expresses bemusement now that it has been taken to the next level beyond mediation. The links either satisfy the exceptions of WP:EL or they don't. If there are other avenues that could resolve this dispute under these circumstances, I am certainly open to them. AdamKesher 15:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note here tasc's deletion of these relevant links (11:11, 11 August 2006, 12:54, 11 August 2006, 13:20, 11 August 2006) to Israeli and Lebanese online journals, weblogs, and news service photographs, who states in the comment field,

As one example of tasc's attitude toward fellow editors and Wikipedia itself, I offer this exchange from Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict#Tasc_deletions:

BEGIN
Today's reversions by Tasc: at 11:11, at 12:54, and at 13:20. Isn't there some Wikipedia policy about that behavior? Edison 13:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
of course there are! plenty of them! wanna play? -- tasc wordsdeeds 13:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
END

This behavior has been longstanding and has been done while consistently disregarding or mocking the talk, mediation, and now arbitration processes. AdamKesher 14:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References
  1. ^ Tom Zeller Jr. (2006-07-24). "Anne Frank 2006: War Diaries Online". The New York Times. Retrieved 2006-07-28.
  2. ^ "ISRAELI AIR ATTACK KILLS CIVILIANS". CNN. 2006-07-30.

Statement by party User:Barberio

Refactored myself since this was getting long --Barberio 00:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My position on the links involved has always been that they were not complaint with WP:EL, and should not be on the page. I was willing to accept a compromise offer of keeping a limited amount of links on the page under a warning. And that when editors found suitable replacements for the links which are compliant with WP:EL, they should be removed in preference to those links.

I don't expect the ArbCom to rule on this since it's outside of scope. The issue is already under discussion on Wikipedia talk:External links. And following a proposed consensus, the guideline has been edited by an uninvolved editor to remove the lines used to defend inclusion of the links. If this remains consensus, then I belive the content issue will have been settled by outside parties.

Responces to the various things brought up:

  • Edit waring on the article.
I did not take part in the Edit war that caused the original mediation, and this arbitration. My edits to the article were in line with what I belived the comprimise on allowing blog sites but under a warnng message that mediation had produced. I don't think I've been charged with edit waring by anyone.
As far as I can tell, I've not been accused of Edit waring, and I do not defend in any way the acts of edit waring by any other parties in this dispute.
  • Withdrawing from mediation.
I never withdrew from mediation. I commented that mediation had stalled only after Cerejota stated "I cannot possibly reach any agreement with someone as ill willed as Barbeiro, who has made a mockery of the process. Either take me out of this proceeding or move to ArbCom." and Adam followed up to concur.
I am willing to continue mediation, and belive I have reached an amiable compromise with Iorek85 to allow a limited set of blog links under a warning notice. (Altho, some more discussion might be needed over image collection sites)
I also feel the next step from the Mediation Cabal should have been a step to the formal Mediation Process, not abandonment of all mediation in favour of arbitration. As far as I can tell, no other form of dispute resolution was attempted, including failure to post an RFC on either the article, or any of the parties accused of wrong doing.
  • Asking for CP/M's recusal.
I asked for CP/M's recusal only after a series of what I viewed as mistakes made that impeded the mediation process. These mistakes have been listed on the /Evidence page with diffs.
I decided to gain some third opinion on the matter first from the Mediation Cabal's IRC channel. Something the Mediation Cabal recomends. I directed the people there to the mediation, and asked if I was warented in bringing it up for discussion. There was no decision made by the Mediation Cabal on what to do at this point. It was after this that I raised the issue in full on the Mediation Cabal Coordination Desk. CP/M had every opertunity at this point to dispute this. I'm not sure why he's waited till this aribtaration case to do so. I'm sorry if he feels I've damaged his reputation. No personal attack was intended, and I atempted to make the request as civil as I could in the circumstances.
If CP/M feels my actions were a personal attack on him, then I feel it's up to him to say so. I don't think Adam and Cerjota have standing to make any claim beyond 'Barberio asked for CP/M's Recusal'. Since I was willing to engage in mediation after this, and have reached a compromise with Iorek85, I don't feel that characterising this as atempting to 'gain an advantage' or 'mocking the mediation process' is fair.
Aside from apologising for any unintentional bad feeling CP/M may feel he has gained, I don't belive I have anthing to apologise for. I will not be withdrawing my comments on the Mediation Cabal Coordination Desk, since they are not intended as a personal attack, and I think it would be a stretch to say so. I did not, and do not, accuse CP/M or wilfull wrong doing or malice, but of making honest mistakes. I will admit that I made a mistake of my own when typing that out by stating 'none of the people', and this was an error that I will retract.

I've not edited the article itself since the 7th, and have no intent to do so again since it's clearly too hot an article to touch at moment.

Important Reminder - I will be away from Thursday the 17th until at least the 22nd. I'm now back.

Statement by party Denis Diderot

I don't really understand what this arbitration is about, so I don't know what to say. It seems to me that AdamKesher is merely using Wikipedia as a tool to promote his POV. The last time I edited the article was more than 2 weeks ago. I took part in the informal mediation and supported Barberio's creative proposal for a compromise. According to the description on this page the arbritration is about "[d]eletion of WP:EL-compliant links to Israeli and Lebanese online journals, blogs, and news service photographs in the article 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict." But I don't think they are "WP:EL-compliant" at all. That's why I removed them. I have explained my position on the article talk page and on the first mediation page here. CP/M has asked me if I could "[recuse myself] from editing the links in questioned pages for a few months" in order to achieve "a peaceful solution". That's perfectly fine with me, since I have in effect "recused myself" already, although I doubt if it would bring "peace". (Many of the original links were added by anonymous editors who don't participate in these proceedings. So they may be added again, and then someone will probably remove them while citing Wikipedia policies. Etc.)--Denis Diderot 08:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iorek85

I agree these links should be in the article. They add a unique and important source (though NOT reference) for the war. However, I can see the use in the changes proposed by Barberio. Without knowing what blogs you consider reliable, is this what you are asking for?;

Conflict blogs
The following links are offered as suggestions for further reading only and have not been used as sources in the article.
Israeli blogs
Lebanese blogs
Frontline photographs
Warning: Extremely graphic wartime imagery
END

Statement by Cerejota

First, from the start of the mediation process I established that while I believed the links should stay, this was an edit dispute and hence I thought the more appropiate place for this was the talk page of the article. However, I do agree that editor tasc consistently and in other articles refused to engage in reasoned community debate, prefering to just edit, usually with some vague explanation but sometimes with no explanation at all. So I understand Adam's frustation, yet I am not fully convinced this process (ie moderation and arbcom) are the way to go, even when I expressed that the moderation was not possible and that escalation might be in order. I am being ambivalent, but that is my honest position on this proceeding. If a consensus of admisn is that this proceeding has no merits, I can accept that, but I wasn't who raised it.

Now, Barbeiro raises some serious concerns, including feeling like he was personally attacked, which deserve, in my opinion, a serious reply.

I believe Barbeiro has indeed made a mockery of the moderation process because:

  1. A compromise was offered which included links with a caveat template, which is a huge compromise as the links are both relevant and WP:EL and in some cases WP:RS compliant. This compromise was ignored in discussion. Shows a tendency to simply want the elemination of WP:EL rather than reach a compromise on NPOV. This refusal to either prove the links as not compliant to policy in a convincing way or accept the huge compromise presented mocks the moderation process.
  2. Instead of discussing his problems with how the process was being carried out within the wiki, with its accountable diff system, community involvement and ability for asynchronous communication, he choose, by his own admission, to chat in IRC with unindentified moderators, with no accountability and no reliable record. I believe extrordinary things like a mediation process require one be extra careful, and not even give the impression of wrongdoing. By engaging in off-wiki, non-accountable discussions which didn't involve other people in the moderation process, Barbeiro possibly demonstrated bad faith, lack of respect and dishonesty towards those in the process, including myself. These discussions also give the appearance of wrondoing on the part of other moderators and definitely show that Barbeiro didn't belive in the good faith of others in the process enough to raise and discuss his concerns publicly. I feel personally insulted and mocked by this very action of not being honest and expressing his concerns in an accountable fashion that engages the community. It is a personal attack on all of us, including those who share his views. It also mocked the Moderation Cabal itself, putting its neutrality and questioning its usefulness. This back-handedness and lack of trust and collegiality mocks the moderation process.
  3. His accusations against the moderator in this case are only substantiated with the correct view that the moderator expressed active support that the compromise solution was a good one (a limited set of bias-balanced links with a caveat template). Moderators do this all the time in the moderating process, without them coming under attack. As a matter of fact, I am involved in a moderation process myself where I feel the moderators have commented disfavorably against me, yet I don't mock the process by questioning the good faith of the moderators. If I raised a moderation, it is to move things to where uninterested parties can inform the debate, not to win. Barbeiro demonstrated that he could only accept as result of moderation having his position win. That mocks the entire process and makes impossible, by definition, reaching a compromise.
  4. He could have refrained from what I view as launching a personal attack against the moderator in question (which should be invited into this process to hear him out, maybe he disagrees with my characterization of what was said as a personal attack) and asked civily and with respect to all of those in the process for the moderator to recusse himself. The illwill evident in his comments mocks the moderation process.

I have no personal ill will to Barbeiro, which I don't know, nor do I belive this to be a generalized behaivior on his part. But I cannot take part in a moderation process where one of the participants chooses to use backchannels, off-wiki conversations, and other unaccountable methods to difame a moderator, and in turn, predispose any substitute moderator to take up his position, lest he or she face his wrath.

Perhaps this is not what Barbeiro intended, but the immanent (in my opinion) Law of unintended consequences supports the view that his intention is irrelevant, what counts are the consequences, which was paving the way for this ArbCom proceeding to happen, by not trusting his fellow wikipedians, and mocking them by speaking behind their backs instead that in front of them.--Cerejota 04:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reread Barbeiro's statement and two things become obvious:
  1. I will strike item one of my response to his statement, as he is saying he is willing to reach a compromise. I apologize as I was under this impression.
  2. He accuses me incorrectly of this: [described] my failure to accept their positions vertabim as 'Ill Will' and 'Mockery of the Mediation Process. I did no such thing. I was barely involved in the process and only jumped in when Barbeiro did the hings I go into detail above. I don't think our different views on something are "ill-willed" as I have stated before that edit conflicts are the secret recipe that makes wikipedia fingerlickin' good. From our disagreement, an agreement to disagree emerges with the consequence of a better encyclopedia than one written only with our respective views.
I state without reservation that I only see "ill will" and "mockery" in his actions and words against the moderator in the moderation process, and have rather extensively listed the reasons why above. Period.
His other opinions, while I do disagree with them, I belive to have been relatively civil and good willed.--Cerejota 05:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision

Principles

1) Wikipedia:External links discourages links to sites which are not reliable sources or which are not suitable for permanent links due to their changing nature, such as blogs.

Pass 5-0 at 03:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Developing current events

2) It is appropriate to temporarily include external links to blogs and other sites which reflect contemporary reactions to a developing event. This is especially true in the case of events which are the focus of substantial attention. As the article becomes history rather than a current event the appropriateness of such links may change.

Pass 5-0 at 03:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Policy, guideline and style guide

3) In appropriate circumstances it is proper to markedly deviate from the usual practices set forth in Wikipedia guidelines and style guides in order to fulfill the encyclopedic purpose of Wikipedia, for example, as in the instant case, an adequate presentation of an ongoing event. Deviations from Wikipedia policies, especially fundamental policy, may also occur in rare instances but are much more difficult to justify.

Pass 5-0 at 03:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Good faith mediation

5) It is inappropriate during mediation to edit war regarding the subject of the mediation. If a subject is in mediation a user is expected to participate in the mediation in good faith.

Pass 5-0 at 03:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Nature of mediation

6) Mediation is traditionally a process which permits free expression of diverse opinions. For this reason its content is often confidential. Absent bad faith (refusal to address the subjects under discussion or to participate), aggressive expression of opinion is to be expected and ought not be negatively sanctioned. This may include dissatisfaction with the course of mediation.

Pass 5-0 at 03:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith

7) Wikipedia mediators are usually not trained and are often inexperienced. They may not only fail to do the optimal thing, but may make gross errors. However, they are expected to do their best and presumably do. Wikipedia:Assume good faith mandates a reasonable attempt to work with them during the mediation process. It is not the sole responsibility of the "Mediator" to made a success of the process; forgiving participation in good faith by the users who have a dispute is also required.

Pass 5-0 at 03:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Creative work

8) Advancement of a proposal or template which potentially solves a problem is commendable.

Pass 5-0 at 03:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of the dispute is inclusion or exclusion of external links to contemporary opinion such as blogs and images regarding the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict . Users, AdamKesher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Cerejota (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Iorek85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Pro) and Denis_Diderot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Tasc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Barberio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Con), took positions on both sides of this issue. The article at the time in issue was the developing history of a current event. This dispute was unsuccessfully mediated at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive 1 and again at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.

Pass 5-0 at 03:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

2) Tasc removed external links to a diversity of contemporary images and opinions on the basis that they were "irrelevant propaganda" [1], see evidence presented by AdamKesher. Tasc continued to edit war over this matter during mediation reports of Tasc's edit warring.

Pass 5-0 at 03:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Adequacy of mediation

4) CP/M (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was the mediator in this matter. Viewed from his perspective, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israel-Lebanon/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_CP.2FM, and considering the records at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive 1 and at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, his performance met the minimum requirements for Wikipedia mediation.

Pass 5-0 at 03:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Use of blogs

1) In the case of articles which chronicle a developing current event it is not a violation of Wikipedia policy to temporarily include links to blogs which contain contemporary opinion and observations about the event. A diverse mix is recommended, but the extent and selection of specific blogs is a matter of content to be determined by the editors of the article.

Pass 5-0 at 03:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Editors cautioned

2) Editors are cautioned that there may be exceptions to Wikipedia Guidelines and Style Guides due to unusual circumstances such as an important current event. Decisions need to be based on utility of the article to readers, not to literal compliance with Wikipedia rules.

Pass 5-0 at 03:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

... is Just Plain Bad(tm)

3.1) Any user, particularly Tasc, who engages in edit warring with respect to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict may be banned from the article for an appropriate period. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon#Log of blocks and bans.

Pass 5-0 at 03:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Violators of bans imposed under this decision may be blocked for an appropriate period. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israel-Lebanon#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Pass 5-0 at 03:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Log of blocks and bans

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.


  1. ^ Tom Zeller Jr. (2006-07-24). "Anne Frank 2006: War Diaries Online". The New York Times. Retrieved 2006-07-28.
  2. ^ "ISRAELI AIR ATTACK KILLS CIVILIANS". CNN. 2006-07-30.
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israel-Lebanon