Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

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.


[edit] Request Information

Request made by: AdamKesher 14:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Where is the issue taking place?
Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict#Front_Line_Photographs_Section_-_concerns_re_clear_breach_of_NPOV
Who's involved?
Pro: AdamKesher, Cerejota, Iorek85;
Con: Denis Diderot, tasc, Barberio
What's going on?
Dispute over the inclusion of links to relevant and informative information about the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict in its External links section. One side argues that these links are relevant and appropriate and that their continued deletion constitutes censorship; the other side asserts that including these links is a violation of Wikipedia's rules. I note that recently the opposition side has been deleting these links without prior discussion on the talk page.
Could you state here below specifically which links are disputed? It's important to find the crux of the problem. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 21:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
[1] - Photos of destruction in Lebanon
[2] - Pictures from a pro-Isreali perspective
[3] - Do I need to explain? :P
[4] - Website in french, pro-Lebanon.
I was included without being asked as a "Pro" user. While I am for the inclusion of the picture links, but I dont think their continued deletion constitutes "censorship" in a way that implies I question the bad faith of the removing editors: I think it constitutes an edit dispute thats is turning to an edit war. --Cerejota 23:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Here the links that have been deleted continuously:
BEGIN
Frontline blogs
Israeli blogs
Lebanese blogs
Frontline photographs (Warning: Extemely graphic wartime imagery)
END
By the way Cerejota, I'm sorry if I violated any protocol by not informing you directly of my request for this informal moderation. I simply listed your name above as someone arguing for the inclusion of some links, and pointed to the section with your arguments. You obviously can speak for yourself, and the characterization above is entirely my own. AdamKesher 02:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
No problem, am just a bit, well, sensitive now to procedural issues... Where is Jimbo when we need him! :P--Cerejota 04:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I note here that Denis Diderot has again deleted these links without any discussion on the Talk page, yet in his edit comments asserts that this has been done per the Talk page. I will revert this deletion once today. AdamKesher 12:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I note the deletion of these links by Denis Diderot without discussion either on this talk page or the page of informal mediation given above. AdamKesher 12:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I note here that Denis Diderot has again deleted these links without discussion here or in the case currently under informal moderation, yet in his edit comments asserts that this has been done per the Talk page. This page for this information moderation is Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. I will revert this deletion once today. AdamKesher 11:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I note here that Denis Diderot has again deleted these links without discussion here or in the case currently under informal moderation, yet in his edit comments asserts that this has been done per the Talk page. This page for this informal mediation is Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. AdamKesher 12:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I note here that Denis Diderot has again deleted these links without discussion here or in the case currently under informal moderation, yet in his edit comments asserts that this has been done per the Talk page. This page for this informal mediation is Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. AdamKesher 20:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
What would you like to change about that?
Informal moderation of the dispute to achieve consensus on the inclusion of relevant links.
Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
My talk page is fine. AdamKesher 14:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator response

Clerk notes - see related case Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-24 Tewfik harrassment of Cerejota. CQJ 17:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Taking the case. Currently reviewing details. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 21:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Corrently Denis Diderot hasn't yet participated, but I hope he'll join the mediation soon, so we can form the complete consensus. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 11:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Limit the section to FOUR (4) websites, two of which must have a Lebanese perspective, and two of which must have an Israeli perspective. Presentation of the website must be NPOV, but of course, as implied by the above compromise, the websites themselves can be POV. The two pro-Lebanon websites shall be the english edition ones (as this is english wikipedia!), and we must find an additional pro-Israeli website as part of this compromise [inset website here].
Lastly, all parties recognize the website in question as sites that meet WP:V and WP:RS standards, and that further the goal of having a quality, informative, and NPOV encyclopedia entry by allowing the user to have easy access to websites that can publish photographic material not allowed in Wikipedia for copyright reasons. --Cerejota 23:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I would be perfectly happy with this compromise. My sense is (judging from this list provided above) that 2 each is a little low, which may promote using the list as a "link dump" or edit wars about who gets their favorite link in. As a practical compromise, I suggest 3 each, with a community agreement that if any more are to be added, they must be added in equal number to retain NPOV on the page. My suggestion for this list are:
BEGIN
Frontline blogs
Israeli blogs
Lebanese blogs
END
AdamKesher 03:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The suggestion seems fitting. I'd also add an option to include one pro-Hesbollah blog. It's just about free speech, just to inform about their position. Israel and Lebanon deserve major representation, of course. I'd also suggest some more Lebanese blogs to be added, if no one objects - just because the war goes on in Lebanese territory.
Any objections? If not, it will be implemented. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 22:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
CP/M -- Thank you very much for volunteering your time to mediate this dispute. I have no objections to your proposed implementation. I also agree with your suggestion of adding more high quality blogs that adhere to the exceptions of WP:EL -- if no one objects. I will list the ones I believe fall into this category below, and leave this to your's and the community's discretion. Though it's easy to find on Google, I cannot bring myself to list the Hezbolllah site, though I do agree with your wisdom that the option should exist for it to be listed. Here are the links to frontline information and commentary that I suggest:
BEGIN
Frontline blogs
Israeli blogs
Lebanese blogs
Frontline photographs (Warning: Extemely graphic wartime imagery)
END
AdamKesher 11:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Let's delete a couple of Lebanese blogs, at least (I think you know better which should fit). Over twice more would be excessive in any case. Also, I suggest to add description for every blog, since they aren't self-explanatory.
However, there's some problem with other editor. I expect for him to come here and explain his position in strict accordance to the policies. I'll also ask other mediators for comments, if necessity arises. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 11:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I suggest the following links and descriptions:
BEGIN
Frontline blogs
Israeli blogs
Lebanese blogs
Frontline photographs (Warning: Extemely graphic wartime imagery)
END
AdamKesher 14:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


I Think I'd have to ask, at the very least, that the links section carry an obvious and relevent disclaimer warning the reader that these sites are Unverifiable External Sites and the reader should use discression and caution in using them as resources. --Barberio 18:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree—such a disclaimer can be viewed as POV, like scare quotes. There is no such disclaimer in other articles with external links, e.g., in the Scientology external links page with a link to the critical Operation Clambake website. No such disclaimer is called for in WP:EL, which in fact says the opposite:

On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view – in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight.)

I believe that the proposal above satisfies this criterion quite nicely. AdamKesher 19:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
If there is no current warning of the reader on links to external sites that are unverifiable, then there should be. To that aim I just created this,
Template:Unverifiable-external-links
Which can be added to any and all articles which have unqualified links to unverifiable sites. --Barberio 20:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
In fact, they all are unverifiable and POV by default, so disclaimer isn't necessary. Well, it might be worth to warn the readers - Wikipedia is surprisingly getting acceptance outside internet-familiar users, and not everyone knows what a blog is. I'd suggest some simple text explanation, but that actually isn't important. I guess the vast majority of readers will perfectly understand implications beyond section names like "Israeli blogs". However, if you still think more warning is needed, I have no objections. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 00:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I added CP/M's template to the page. AdamKesher 02:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I misread the thread. I thought that this was the moderator CP/M's template and deferred to his Wikithority by including it, but it is in fact Barberio's. This template is now being considered for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Unverifiable-external-links. Please chime in if you have an opinion. I do not like this template because no such disclaimer is called for anywhere in the Wiki policy for external links, WP:EL, and could in fact be argued to be necessary for any and every external link. Furthermore, it infantalizes Wiki readers. I believe that it is unnecessary and inappropriate. Finally, I must disagree with the characterization in Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Unverifiable-external-links that this template was invented to label "dubious" sites, or that it was a necessary part of the compromise mediation of this case -- the sites in question contain online publications and news service photographs from the frontlines of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, every single one satisfying the exceptions to the policy clearly laid out in WP:EL and therefore appropriate for inclusion without any such template. The fact that the presence of this template is now being argued to label these links as "dubious" is strong evidence of the POV slant this template gives to external links. AdamKesher 13:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
At the moment, the only way I could find inclusion of links to unverified and blog like sites is with this warning. Without it, I object to their inclusion, and inclusion of links to sites such as hirhome.com which pass off as a 'reseach institute' when they are no such thing. I'm trying to compromise with you, but this is all I'm offering. Otherwise, I think the links should go, and we should have a strict interpretation of WP:EL. --Barberio 16:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
As discussed above, we're all agreed to the application of WP:EL. 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
Therefore, they fall within the inclusion guidelines of WP:EL, which makes no stipulations about any disclaimers associated with external links. I also note that the proposal to delete the template was made elsewhere, and is not necessarily related to the discussion about including these links on 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. AdamKesher 18:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The template up for deletion should not have been presumptuously added to a contentious article like this prior to the deletion determination and without the any sort of agreement whatever. 2005 19:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I was happy with the disclaimer, since it points out that the following links are more unreliable and less NPOV than most external links but mostly because it seemed to satisfy the objections. I think the only diclaimer that is really necessary is that the pictures contain graphic imagery. Most people realise blogs, by definition, are POV. Currently some of the other links are labelled as Pro Israeli or pro Lebanese, which works better. --Iorek85 23:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

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.

Please, do not post irrelevant comments here.

Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, wp:not, wp:el.

Specificaly, "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. However, there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or where the website is of a particularly high standard." and "In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.".

Unless the article is citing something, then we have to adress it by our standards for a simple external link. And those standards are high, with good reason. There is no reason to overide the style guide in this case. Blogs and 'news agrigators' should not be linked to. --Barberio 13:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing to the policy in dispute so clearly. 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
These are all excellent reasons to provide these links, which are not a random dump of links somebody added, but argued to possess the qualities above. AdamKesher 15:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I generally agree with Adam's point about blogs being a unique resource of frontline observations. They are extremely important to understanding the conflict. And they are contain bias, which Wikipedia itself can never accept. It's better to let the sides speak for themselves rather than attempt to build disputes in the article, and much better than to leave readers underinformed. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 00:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It is beyond my comprehension that this cabal feels fine about deleting the scholarly, well researched pro israeli links without any good justification. The links i am talking about are the Historical and Investigative Research articles on the conflict. You obviously are disregarding wikipedias NPOV stance on the blogs, so how can you justify enforcing it with such vigor in the case of well sourced research articles that, like the blogs you kept, present a point of view. if either of the two, blogs or research articles, belong on an encyclopedic website, research articles should win hands down. the links i am talking about are these: Who Attacked Israel? , What is Hezbollah? , What Caused this War? , Understanding the US position , The Arab reaction, and what it means and Who is killing Lebanese civilians?

Please keep in mind that I don't know most of the links in detail. I haven't actually suggested anything about any specific link, only that the number of links should be roughly equal; the specific selection of links was not my suggestion, and I'd better leave it to consensus of the editors. So, now we can get to the question of specific links. However, since hirhome.com is one site, a single link for all articles is enough. Judging on the topics discussed, I have nothing against these links, so let's add some parent category for them on the hirhome site in the Israeli links category. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 13:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Denis Diderot

I've been asked to state my position on this issue, so here it is:

[edit] Basic principles

First the relevant quotes from WP:EL (the prefixed letters were added by me for easy reference):

A. Wikipedia is not a web directory; no page should be dominated by or consist solely of a collection of external links. It is always preferred to use internal links over external links. However, adding a small number of relevant external links can be a valuable service to our readers

  • What should be linked to

B. 6. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks.

  • Occasionally acceptable links

C. 5. External sites can possibly violate copyright. [...] If it is, please do not link to the page. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States

  • Links normally to be avoided

D. 2. Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)

E. 9. Blogs, [...] should generally not be linked to. However, there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or where the website is of a particularly high standard.


The interpretation of these guidelines must be based on the fundamental Wikipedia policies, namely WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and [[WP:V]. Thus, the issue isn't whether we've interpreted WP:EL correctly. The issue is how WP:EL should be interpreted according to these three policies.

Although the content on external websites obviously is outside Wikipedia space, the links themselves and the information about the links are inside Wikipedia. Therefore the selction of links and the information about links should be governed by Wikipedia policies.

When we're including external links in an article, we're clearly implying something about the links. We're implying that the liked websites will provide more information about the article's topic. If the links have headings and descriptions, then these headings and statements should be evaluated according to basic Wikipedia principles. If we say that www.trotskyites-united.org is the official website of Trotskyites United, then that statement should conform with all of these three policies.

Suppose there are three different groups who all claim to be the true Trostkyites United, and each group has its own website. Then we should normally link to all these factions, and not support any particular POV. Anything we claim about these websites should be verifiable. We should never do original research to determine the facts about www.trotskyites-united.com, www.trotskyites-united.com, and www.trotskyitesunited.org.

[edit] Application of principles to this particular case

In this case, a number of editors, mainly anomymous, introduced links to various blogs. They were put under the header "frontline blogs" thereby suggesting that they reported directly from the war zone and that they constituted firsthand testimony. ("Blogs from the conflict area" would have been much more adequate. "Frontline blogs" smacks of war romanticism.) Since only a few blogs were included, there was a strong implication that these blogs were particularly reliable or relevant. This interpretation was also confirmed by comments on the talk page. A special section was added with collections of photos that supposedly portrayed the effects of military operations. The comments to the photos described the alleged context and expressed a very strong POV. (The words "supposedly" and "alleged" are used here in a completely neutral sense.)

I regarded this as a very clear violation of basic Wikipedia policies. The blogs were clearly not reliable sources, they expressed a strong POV, they were not selected according to NPOV criteria, and the claim that they really were "frontline blogs" had not been verified.

They were blogs (E), they contained unverified original research (D), some contained copyrighted material (C), they were not reliable sources of information like textbooks (B), and there were already a number of external links (A).

To illustrate the facts that the description "frontline blogs" may be misleading, let me quote from one of the blogs linked to in that section: ""Wow. This blog is apparently cited in wikipedia’s article on the Israel-Lebanon 2006 conflict as a “Frontline Blog”. Amusing, since I’m far from being frontline"

Hope this clarifies my viewpoint a bit. --Denis Diderot 22:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right about incorrect implications; they ought (and should) be checked more carefully, and the section should be renamed... I don't think many people Lebanese frontline somehow connect to the net and write blogs.
Concerning the parts of the policy you've posted... you actually pulled some phrases out of context. I assume it wasn't intentional, and will restore the context right in your post. It's better not to cut policies and guidelines in sentences.
You have also missed the most important point for inclusion:

What should be linked to - 4. On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view – in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight.)

This is actually a very strong reason for inclusion.
Concerning the blog point, these sites aren't really blogs. In general, blogs are undesirable because most of them are set up on free blog hosting sites and edited by someone as he wants. But at least half of these sites are quite serious, going beyond just personal blogs, for instance [Live from Lebanon], part of [Electronic Lebanon] (BTW, I'd suggest considering use of the second, more parent link, rather than the first). That's why this point does apply only partially. It also falls under the exception of high standart, as Electronic Intifada could well have - BTW, it really has - an article on its own.
So, based on inclusion criteria 4, I consider inclusion of several sites for each side appropriate. However, a different section title would be better, and sites should be checked individually.
CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 00:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't miss point 4. I didn't include it since it didn't think it was relevant. There are a huge number of opinions about this war (as about any war). This point (4) as I understand it, is about linking to Hezbollah's web site, that of the Lebanese governent, the Israeli government, and other similarly prominent sites. There are of course two main POVs in this conflict: support of Israel and support of Hizbollah. But there are also those who support Lebanon and are opposed to Hizbollah. There are those who support Israel, are opposed to Hizbollah and are opposed to the bombings. And so on. If there are clear transparent principles for exclusion and inclusion, then linking to prominent opinion sites is ok. Otherwise it's simply better to remember that Wikipedia isn't a web directory.
Also, I absolutely did not "[pull] some phrases out of context" as you falsely claim. I clearly indicated, using ellipsis according to well established convention ('[...]') where I had excluded passages that weren't immediately relevant to the discussion. I don't think it's acceptable to modify other editors' statements. --Denis Diderot 08:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, sorry if you found that offensive. It seemed to me that these omissions weren't obvious to people not very familiar with the guideline (I didn't accuse you of anything), and I just fixed the citations instead of repeating them completely. In general it is considered normal to fix misspellings in others' comments, and this was actually a citation, so I considered change similar, not changing the meaning. However, I've reverted it to the original form. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The defence of 'particularly high standard' (note, not high standard, particularly high standard. Being good isn't enough) only applies to a limited number of the sites listed. For instance, one site I do object to, passes its self off as a 'research institute' when it is representing the opinions of a single person. --Barberio 18:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by tasc

regarding imagery/photos

selection of highly emotional, pov and propaganda images should not be promoted on wikipedia. there are dozens explanations on internet of situation these images where taken in. but none on linked, propaganda sites. images are aranged in a voluntary fashion portraying Israel as an aggressor and Lebanon as a victim. What we don't see on these images is a major player of current conflict - Hezbollah. They are neither being killed nor injured. What we do see are vicious Israeli children eager to kill. We don't see even a slightest hint on them being in shelter for days, but playing around military equipment is shown as a everyday life. Photos taken in Qana - is a pure propaganda. a good example. not to forget, that neither israeli, nor international investigation is over. They are positioned as though none is needed. As a final truth. As an ultimate proof. We, btw, don't see even comparable pictures from Israeli site. (and we shouldn't, in my opinion). Does it mean that Israeli suffered no civilian (including children) casuality?

blogs

none of the blogs entries (not to mention specially created journals) can be trusted unless reference could be found in reliable sources. they do not represent any significantly important opinion. it's mostly personal emotions (+ propaganda) from powerless commoners. none of the blogs contribute in any positive way in shading new light on a conflict. they are fairly limited both in pov and covering current situation. for sure, more limited that even current text of an article. -- tasc wordsdeeds 15:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asking for a new mediator

Following on from the mistakes made during this mediation process, I'm going to have to ask for a new mediator before we continue this. Failure to notify those named in the mediation, editing the content of someone's comment, and acting more as judge than mediator are worsening the problem. This has been submitted via Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Coordination Desk and I request we pause mediation untill this is resolved. --Barberio 16:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have relisted this case in the cases needing mediators section. Someone should look at it in the near future, hopefully. Cowman109Talk 17:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Those are very strong charges against the mediator CP/M. I believe it would be best if you presented evidence for each and every one of them. Could the first one ("Failure to notify those named in the mediation") be my simple statement above to Cerejota, who I simply listed as someone supporting the case for including these links?

"I'm sorry if I violated any protocol by not informing you directly of my request for this informal moderation. I simply listed your name above as someone arguing for the inclusion of some links, and pointed to the section with your arguments."

This mediation page was well advertised in the relevant discussion on the article Talk page, and the persons against the inclusion of the links were notified personally (see User_talk:Denis_Diderot#Your_unsubstantiated_deletion_of_information_from_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict and User_talk:Tasc#Deleting_external_links_in_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict). Certainly Cerejota was aware of it, as he was the first to comment here. Yet the opposing editors were absent until very recently, in spite of numerous personal invitations to participate in the mediation. Therefore, your first charge appears to prejudiciously misrepresent the facts in the case, and might be viewed as a procedural maneuver to attempt your luck with a new mediator, not having succeeded with the first. Would you please clarify your position so that this may be cleared up? AdamKesher 18:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I would also add that the quality of the consistently bad arguments used against the inclusion of these links have become abyssmally poor, even vile. I would encourage everyone to examine the photograph highlighted by tasc above:

"Photos taken in Qana - is a pure propaganda. a good example."

The added caption,

"I see non-dead people?"

has been added above a casualty of Israeli airstrikes in the advanced stages of rigor mortis. AdamKesher 19:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
If you don't like a simple fact it doesn't mean that they are not reliable. -- tasc wordsdeeds 05:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Greetings good editors. I'll be taking over this case, and archiving this page first. Bear with me for a bit, and hopefully this will be solved soon. Cheers! --Keitei (talk) 22:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please take all the time you need to aquaint yourself with the issue. For personal reasons, I'm trying to avoid news media and 'information stress' at the moment, so will likely be slow to respond anyway.--Barberio 22:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request Assistance for Unmitigated and Unsubstantiated Edits by tasc, Contrary to Mediation

Dear Mediator,

Please note the continued deletion of external links by tasc, as well as WP:V photographs (see here), on articles related to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. In this instance on the sub-article 2006 Qana airstrike, tasc deleted the very links discussed on this mediation page without resorting to either mediation or the talk page—the commented explanation is "rm propaganda." He has apparently violated WP:3RR, and is involved in numerous other disputes with other editors who complain about POV edits without explanation through talk or mediation. I would suggest that this continuing problem has repeated itself too many times, gone on too long, and should be stopped in accordance with whichever Wikipedia policies are deemed to be appropriate. AdamKesher 15:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

don't forget adam. claim repeated hundreds times does not become true.-- tasc wordsdeeds 15:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
This link documents tasc's reply to this complaint: the deletion, yet again and without explanation, of information related to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. I conclude from his repeated actions documented here and elsewhere that this user is contemptuous of both the facts and Wikipedia policy. AdamKesher 15:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Adam, it's not a fact. It is hoax. I conclude from your disability to understand it, that you're acting in bad faith. -- tasc wordsdeeds 15:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
This bickering between you two needs to truly be settled elsewhere. Like the boxing ring, for example, or in a game of Battlefield II, if you are so inclined, however it has gone on through multiple Talk pages. Tasc provided simple explanation- there is/was no inherent proof of the validity of the articles/pictures, therefore they were deleted. This is a very sensitive subject and therefore great care must be taken to quadruple-check your sources and pictures for accuracy. John D'Adamo 17:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
A blog does not counter a new agency. Saying the incident may not have happened according to conspiracy theorists doesnt mean the picture is fake. Its like removing mention of planes from 9/11 articles. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
This is a discussion about tasc's deletion of links. For the latest problem, his deletion of photographs, please see the other mediation page. Nevertheless, the image being discussed is a fair use photograph from the news services Agence France-Presse/Getty Images. This appears on CNN's website (link). Therefore, would you also say that CNN is using photographs that are "staged" or "propagandic in nature"? AdamKesher 17:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I also note that tasc deleted the links being discussed in this mediation on 05:14, 2 August 2006 without recourse to mediation or the talk page. AdamKesher 18:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)