User:CP\M/nihil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Waste from ArbCom.

Achtung: Kernzerfall!


Contents

[edit] External links of 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

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

[edit] Involved parties

Complainant

Pro-deletion

Other parties arguing against deletion

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • I am aware of the request, but remain only an interested party. I seek guidance from the admins as to what my role is, if any.--Cerejota 04:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Same goes for me. Iorek85 23:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[edit] 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)

For the record, my proposed solution to this dispute centered on a limited number of links:
BEGIN
Frontline blogs
Israeli blogs
Lebanese blogs
  • BloggingBeirut.com — Finkployd's and other's regular war dispatches from Beirut, as featured in the New York Times[1]
  • Live from Lebanon Diaries — "Commentary, analysis, human rights and development information, and diaries from on the ground"
  • Lebanese Political Journal — In-depth analysis on the political situation in Lebanon
  • Beirut Spring — Personal commentary on the conflict, "trying to understand post-Syrian Lebanese politics and society"
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)
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)

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)
of course there are! plenty of them! wanna play? -- tasc wordsdeeds 13:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
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)

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

[edit] Statement by party User:Barberio

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

Responces to the various things brought up:

1) 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.

I do not defend in any way the acts of edit waring by any other parties in this dispute.

2) 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.[1][2]

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.

3) 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. Failure to fully inform those named as parties in the mediation that they were, and starting the mediation process without ensuring both sides of the argument were represented. CP/M then went on to give his support to a compromise offered, [3], without input from the other named parties in the mediation. At this point he asked that if there were no objections, aparently ignoring my comment objecting to blog linking under WP:EL, it would be implimented. Since the other named parties had not yet become involved, there could be no objection from them. Escentialy apointing himself as judge of the best compromise in the situation. At the very least, this was an overly premature decision to push forward a compromise proposed by only one party. Following on from this I checked and noted that the other named parties had not be fully informed, and commented to the pages of those who had not been. The final mistake that caused me to bring the issue up with the Mediation Cabal, was where CP/M edited a comment to 'correct mistakes'. It's notable that other editors also made mistakes in inacuratly describing the WP:EL requirments, but were not corrected. Upon being advised that this was incorrect behaviour CP/M responded that he belived he had done no wrong. [4]

At this point I decided to gain some third opinion on the matter from the Mediation Cabal's IRC channel. 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.

However, 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] Statement by uninvolved admin JzG

It would probably help if the complaint was reworded in neutral language - the word censorship lights up the POV-pusher radar like nothing else and as presented this is more an example of begging the question than of a substantive and fixable dispute. Given that, it came as no surprise at all to discover that the "WP:EL compliant sources" turn out to include such patently uncompliant sources as blogs, and the images turn out to be unfree. Just zis Guy you know? 18:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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

Template:Unverifiable-external-links

Israeli blogs
Lebanese blogs
  • BloggingBeirut.com — Finkployd's and other's regular war dispatches from Beirut, as featured in the New York Times[1]
  • Live from Lebanon Diaries — "Commentary, analysis, human rights and development information, and diaries from on the ground"
  • Lebanese Political Journal — In-depth analysis on the political situation in Lebanon
  • Beirut Spring — Personal commentary on the conflict, "trying to understand post-Syrian Lebanese politics and society"
Frontline photographs
Warning: Extremely graphic wartime imagery
END

[edit] Statement by informal mediator Keitei

The issue here seems to be that certain parties are refusing mediation. The issue of how many links and whether to have links could be easily mediated, but parties are refusing to have anything to do with it, etc. I don't think that ArbCom is the solution to this debate, but if the involved parties want an official ruling on how this should be done, so be it. If the case isn't accepted, mediation can continue as long as it is wanted. --Keitei (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Keitei -- First, thank you for volunteering the time to mediate this. I do not necessarily want to drive this to an official solution, especially if you and other's believe that there are alternatives that might reasonabily be expected to yield a solution. You have suggested a poll, and I am open to this, but this was already refused. Which alternatives would you suggest, and how might they be expected to work when, as you say, certain parties are refusing mediation? AdamKesher 22:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It's a matter of determining what the links' purposes are, which links fulfill that purpose, and then how many there should be. If there really is no purpose for the links to be there, they're removed. If there is a good reason, one goes through and finds the ones that exemplify it. It's a matter of what is best for the article and the article reader. However, it is indeed very hard to come up with a solution when people refuse to participate, so perhaps this is the best route.
It's not specifically an ArbCom issue because it's a content dispute; this ArbCom case, should it be accepted, will probably be about the behavior of certain parties throughout this disagreement. In any case, it's up to you and all the involved parties; should you still require mediation at any point, I'll gladly take the case. --Keitei (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] Quick note by Kim Bruning

Note that it is quite alright to take things off-wiki for a bit, especially in sensitive situations like mediation where a wrong word in the wrong place can have unintended consequences. This is why mediation has often traditionally been discrete, and things were taken off-wiki rather quickly when tempers got a little heated. At least, that's what I learned when I started.

I want to make clear that I don't think off-wiki communication of wiki affair is bad in general, just that it was used unjudiciously by Barbeiro. While disagreements where strong in the Mediation, they where not generally heated or uncivil, which is why I didn't participate actively, as I felt they would run their course. My reaction to Barbeiro was entirely motivated by the surprise and hurt ant his disproportionate and surprising response.--Cerejota 06:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 :-) Kim Bruning 08:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quick note by JNC

I don't know whether this is highly relevant, but I stopped working on Wikipedia because Barberio was so impossible to collaborate with; he's stubborn, and simply will not compromise. It's his way, or the high-way. This attribute of his (his inability to co-operate in a collegial fashion) may be at work here too. If anyone wants more, please email me - I don't read my talk page here, and only dropped by to fix an error I noticed in Lotus 38. Noel (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by mediator CP/M

I was the mediator for the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict Mediation Cabal case, and was dismissed by Barberio's request.

I am not a participant in the conflict, but, since serious accusations were made agaist me, I feel that I have to participate in the arbitration, to either accept responsibility if they prove right and conflict is determined to be my fault, or to clean my name if not.

Specifically, according to his complaint [5], Barberio accused me of:

  1. Not mediating, but acting as a judge of what is right or wrong.
  2. Changing the content of other user's comment in an upsetting way.
  3. Not informing any of the participants.

I will explain the course of mediation and respond each of the claims.

When taking this case, I expected it to be particularly difficult, due to extreme amount of controversy and heated debates about the ongoing conflict, and due to large number of participants (6 were listed in the mediation). Therefore, considering lack of consensus in previous discussions, I took the approach of finding a rough compromise which all parties can be convinced to accept, and then refining it. Initially one of the parties sugested inclusion of a large number of links, and other preferred not to include them. The obvious compromise was to select a few links that are compliant to the policies and can be accepted by all parties.


The mediation started with Cerejota's suggestion to reduce number of links of two per side of the conflict [6]. This was followed by some discussions, and I stated that I find this to be a good compromise, and asked if anyone has objections. Later, Barberio asked for that links to be marked by some kind of disclaimer [7]. AdamKesher disagreed with that ([8]), but, shortly, Barberio suggested Template:Unverifiable-external-links to be placed above these links. I noted that disclaimers aren't generally necessary, but if Barberio still thinks more warning is needed, I have no objections [9]. AdamKesher added the template to the page himself.

At this point (July 30), it seemed that the compromise is reached, or, at least, nearly reached, since both editors suggested and implemented the same. However, in the meantime one of the participants, Denis Diderot, constantly removed the links, and ignored both Adam's and my requests to take part in mediation. During discussion about another case with Kylu, one of the Mediation Cabal coordinators, I asked her to help convince that user to join the mediation. She noticed that he heavily violated 3RR (which I overlooked), but, since that was for mediation, didn't block him and asked to join. Finally, after some convincing, at July 30 Denis joined the case and made a statement, explaining his view on the subject [10]. Since we were alredy close to a consensus, I attempted to explain him the reasons to include some links [11], and convince him to agree to some compromise. Considering other criticism, I suggested him to propose changes. Also, in his statement he made direct quotations from the policy, but skipped some details. To prevent other parties from getting suspicious towards him, and avoid cluttering of the already long page, I restored the citations right in his comment, since most people I know on Wikipedia find minor corrections in their comments acceptable (and I changed only policy citation and not a single of his words), and informed him about that. [12].

The discussion went on for a while, but at July 31 AdamKesher noticed that Barberio's template was considered for deletion [13]. Barberio shortly stated that the only way he could accept inclusion of these links was with this warning [14]. At the same time he added himself as a participant in the dispute [15]. Discussion between participants went for some time further, when Denis stated he didn't think that it is acceptable to edit others' comments [16]. Barberio shortly came to my user talk page and asked me not to edit others' comments [17]. I replied as soon as possible, explaining that I did only correct a citation, and, upon finding out that Denis didn't like it, immediately reverted my action [18] and apologized [19]. Today I admit that it might have been better to repeat the citations, but, however, don't consider it something notable, since it is acceptable for mediator to edit and refactor the page, and this edit didn't change neither the sense of the comment, nor a single of his words, and apologized. Furthermore, it was not Denis who complained about the edit, but rather another user, whose comments I didn't touch.


Surprisingly to me, Barberio called my reversion of my own actions "another breach of my role as mediator" [20], and used this as a reason for a request to dismiss me from the case. I expected him to bring the charges on my talk page (and said I'll quit if some parties want it), or, at least, at the coordination desk. However, he decided neither to ask me to leave at good will, nor to bring the charges in the open, but rather to discuss it via IRC without informing me first, so I had no chance to respond to the accusations then. Above I explained that I haven't acting as a judge and never attempted to enforce or decide something, but only suggested compromise options, and, later, just attepted to convince a newly joined party to accept some kind of compromise. I also explained some justification for the correction of citations in a comment, which might actually be a mistake, for which I apologized. However, the third charge changes my entire view on this matter.

Barberio accuses me, that, citing him, "Initialy, none of the people named in this were contacted or notified, and I've had to do so myself." [21]. I'll provide evidence that, opposite to his claims, every person listed in the conflict was informed about the mediation before I actually started it at July 26. Most of thm notification was done by AdamKesher, and, since this was purely a content dispute, I posted an invitation for everyone to join the mediation on the article's talk page. The initial mediation request [22] included five people: AdamKesher, Cerejota, Iorek85, Denis Diderot, and tasc.

  • AdamKesher was the one who originally created the request, and notified all users on the other side about the mediation. He responded on the case page at July 25 [23].
  • Cerejota was the first to respond, almost immediately after I took the case and asked for some details [24].
  • Iorek85 responded in the mediation section of article's talk page, right under the announcement, and confirmed he supports the mediation.
  • Denis Diderot was notified on his talk page multiple times by Adam Kesher, first on July 25 [25].
  • tasc was informed on his talk page by AdamKesher [26], to which he responded [27].

So, all of the participants were informed of the mediation by July 26.

Despite it might fall out of scope of this arbitration, I don't exactly understand why Barberio used an off-wiki channel to enforce my dismissal, basing on false accusations, instead of just asking me to quit the case. However, I don't consider this a personal attack, since the second mediation attempt, by another mediator, completely inaffiliated with me, was effectively rejected as well. I have an impression ,which is just an impression, not even an opinion) that the actual reason was to halt mediation after it went not in the desired way (his template was considered for deletion). However, I'd like to mention that, in my opinion, damaging the reputation of someone who attempted to help resolve the dispute is not the best way to reach the desired form of some article.

[edit] A different view

After some sleep, I've looked again at all that crap on this case. Sorry if I offend anyone, but I feel like a fool. Just like we all were standing in front of the ArbCom and fighting with pillows over something nobody cares about.

Doesn't anyone feel like that as well? I've got no idea why in the world do we need to think about all these links at all; yeah, the RFAR game was funny, but let's not bother others with all this nonsense for no reason at all. Maybe it would be better if we all just send it all down the drain, shake hands, apologize for whatever one done and not done, forget it, and just voluntarily recuse ourselves from these articles' links and images for a few months. I know how it sounds, but, look, no one of us needs it - so why not just drop this down?

CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 11:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC) - sign below!
I would be happy to do this. --Barberio 11:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again for your time and comments, CP/M. I care about it — I started working on this page because I was interested in writing a neutral, accurate, and informative article about the current conflict. Information outside of the Wikipedia article, as represented by external links to WP:EL-compliant online journals, weblogs, and news service photographs are an essential component of any such article. Though I am not necessarily committed or particularly pleased about the necessity of appealing to ArbCom to prevent this information from being deleted without prior discussion, under the circumstances detailed above, I am not aware of any other avenues that could realistically be expected to promote a good-willed discussion about the article's content. AdamKesher 12:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I see - I know you've been working on the article. But, maybe, this isn't worth this? We can just let other editors handle this; after all, ArbCom won't resolve content disputes. There's a lot of other things to do here, even about the same conflict. Just look at the war we have started - and all that about a couple of links.
Hey, wait... it's really logical - just like that 2006 war started from a couple of soldiers captured. But maybe we can display some more common sense than these people slaughtering each other out there? -- CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 13:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
CP/M, I'm right here at the table, and will happily listen and respond to reasonable alternatives that could be expected to address the issues identified in the complaint. AdamKesher 14:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
What I suggested is just don't address them. Let other, uninvolved users decide, and let admins block the reverters. It's just the last chance, just before the arbitration (24 hours), to reconsider and leave in peace. Of course, if we can get all parties to agree to recuse themselves from the questioned section of an article. While there are problems and conflicts, I don't think they are worth casting enforcement on anyone. Just the simple idea: these few links and minor procedural disagreements aren't worth all the arbitration process. I can bet that if we all cooled down, got a good sleep and gathered in the open with a keg of beer, we would just laugh at this pillow fight. We can imagine that we did just that, or engage in the less friendly process. Just in case you reconsider. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 15:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I am tempted to agree with you as the only reason I support this proceeding its because of the injust mockery of the arbbitration process that Barbeiro did, including his actions against you. If you are not goign to participate in this process, this it is pehaps a bit moot I do so.--Cerejota 21:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, that really was a reason that would force me to participate, and I addressed that above. However, still, instead of some people getting blocked, I'd rather prefer a peaceful resolution. If he apologizes and takes back the claims on the Coordination Desk, and I apologize for everything he considered inacceptable, it would be just fine. Each of us will just learn from that and try to assume more good faith and be more flexible in the future. -- CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not that concerned either way - I would prefer them in there, but I'm not sure its worth all this effort. I've not restored those links in a few days anyway, so recusing myself from them wouldn't be an issue, though I doubt that tsac would be happy to leave them there should someone add them. It does rather seem to be a storm in a teacup. And to be honest, I've not the foggiest what is going on. Since the arbcom(?) won't rule on content decisions, and the content is the only part I'm interested in, I'm happy to agree to just letting it slide, while I might go and suggest a change to WP:EL policy whereever I should do that. Iorek85 00:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Offer for the conditional withdrawal of arbitration case

I've listened to and thought about CP/M and Iorek85's statements above. Though I still have serious concerns about the underlying reasons some people have been deleting this information and the methods they have used to do so, I've decided to trust CP/M's judgement about the approach of letting "admins block the reverters." Therefore, I will conditionally withdraw this request for arbitration, subject to two conditions:

  • The original problem identified in the complaint, the deletion of WP:EL-compliant links to Israeli and Lebanese online journals, blogs, and news service photographs in the article 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, does not again become a problem.
  • Barberio apologizes to CP/M and withdraws his unsubstantiated claims at the Coordination Desk in a way that is satisfactory to CP/M.

If these conditions are met and this case is conditionally withdrawn, I would like to thank everyone here in advance for their consideration and comments in this case. If the peaceful solution proposed by CP/M does not prove to be effective, I will consider using the record of these statements at some point in the future. AdamKesher 13:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I note Barberio's negative response to this offer above,

"I don't belive I have anthing to apologise for. I will not be withdrawing my comments on the Mediation Cabal Coordination Desk"

I also note tasc's non-response to CP/M's offer of a peaceful alternative to arbitration. Therefore, I believe that there is no other recourse but to withdraw this conditional offer and to let the process proceed as determined by ArbCom. AdamKesher 15:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

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

  • Accept Fred Bauder 05:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Accept, though not regarding all the content that has been presented here, but because editors who cannot collaborate well and participate in mediation may be banned from the article in question. Dmcdevit·t 06:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Accept. But the ArbCom cannot be expected to rule on content issues here. Charles Matthews 11:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Accept. - SimonP 14:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)