Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.
When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.
As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.
Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.
If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.
Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.
The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.
There has been a concerted effort to delete of WP:EL-compliant links to Israeli and Lebanese online journals, blogs, and news service photographs in the article 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. In the course of attempting to resolve this dispute, Wikipedia's dispute handling mechanisms have either been ignored, mocked, or misused.
tasc (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has ignored or mocked all attempts at a peaceful resolution, and in fact has said that there is no resolution. Though their are numerous instances of this behavior, one example is representative and should suffice: tasc's deleted of these relevant links (11:11, 11 August 2006 [2], 12:54, 11 August 2006 [3], 13:20, 11 August 2006 [4]) to Israeli and Lebanese online journals, weblogs, and news service photographs, while stating in the comment field,
As another example of tasc's attitude toward fellow editors and Wikipedia itself, I offer this exchange from Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict#Tasc_deletions [8]:
This behavior has been longstanding and has been done while consistently disregarding or mocking the talk, mediation, and now arbitration processes. I also note tasc's non-response to CP/M's offer of a peaceful alternative to arbitration [9].
Supporting evidence:
Barberio (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has not deleted any links to my knowledge, but introduced himself into the mediation process that I initiated. After the initial mediation (by CP/M) appeared not to go in the direction Barberio desired, he made serious charges against the mediator, but presented absolutely no evidence for these grave charges, which I charactertize as calumnious [10]. Specifically, Barberio never responded to this challenge to his bizarre charages against CP/M:
"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."
I also note that CP/M tried valiantly to avoid this case reaching ArbCom, and convinced me to offer to withdraw the complaint if only the links would stop being deleted without reasonable discussion, and that Barberio apologize to CP/M and withdraw his unsubstantiated accusations at the mediation desk [11]. Barberio rejected this offer [12], saying
"I don't belive I have anthing to apologise for. I will not be withdrawing my comments on the Mediation Cabal Coordination Desk"
Supporting evidence:
I was initially ready to accept the proposed compromise of using Barberio's template ((Unverifiable-external-links)), however, when I read Barberio's intent at the discission about deleting this template, I reconsidered my support because Barberio misrepresented his "compromise" at the arbitration page. He declared elsewhere [13] 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."
Yet Barberio previously said that this template was intended to be merely a "disclaimer warning" for "Unverifiable External Links" [14]:
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.
I have always sought a true compromise position on the inclusion of WP:EL-compliant links. It is telling that the people attempting to delete these links have never explained how they violate Wikipedia policy WP:EL. Barberio at least tried, but made the absurd argument that while the links are "closely related" to the article, the article is not "closely related" to the links [15].
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—are not a true compromise position. Instead of replying to this reasonable response on the mediation page, Barberio declared the process "stalled" [16] and now expressed bemusement when I requested arbitration on this matter. At the time, I said that Barberio's behavior added weight [17] to Cerejota's accusation of Barberio's ill will and mockery of the mediation process; based upon the history of this case, I still believe this to be true.
Adam and Cerejota withdrew from mediation while I was still willing to take part in it. [18] [19]
Adam accepted the proposed compromise. However, he later rejected the offer, after he noticed it had not originated from the mediator, and the template being used as the warning was nominated for TfD (which later failed). The offer itself had not changed.
Iorek85 accepted the compromise as offered, and as far as I know still does as mentioned in his statement. [21]
Asking for CP/M's recusal was neither a personal attack, nor an atempt to disrail mediation.
I felt the request was warrented, for the following reasons,
Discussion on IRC is irelevent to my request to have CP/M recused, as this decision was taken on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Coordination Desk, and CP/M had every opertunity to rebut my conclusions. I will note that the Mediation Cabal currently recomend use of their IRC channel when required.
Following CP/M's recusion, mediation continued under the replacement mediatior up until Adam and Cerejota withdrew.
I was not involved in the conflict and have no personal interest in this case or articles in question. However, since I was a mediator, I can describe a loose timeline of events as I observed them.
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 (5 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 suggested 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.
Before starting actual mediation, I checked if there was need to notify any parties, but noticed that all of them were informed:
The mediation started with Cerejota's suggestion to reduce number of links of two per side of the conflict [32]. 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 [33]. AdamKesher disagreed with that ([34]), 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 [35].
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 [36]. Since we were alredy close to a consensus, I attempted to explain him the reasons to include some links [37], 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. [38].
The discussion went on for a while, but at July 31 AdamKesher noticed that Barberio's template was considered for deletion [39]. Barberio shortly stated that the only way he could accept inclusion of these links was with this warning [40]. At the same time he added himself as a participant in the dispute [41]. Discussion between participants went for some time further, when Denis stated he didn't think that it is acceptable to edit others' comments [42]. Barberio shortly came to my user talk page and asked me not to edit others' comments [43]. 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 [44] and apologized [45]. Today I admit that it might have been better to repeat the citations, but, however, don't consider it something notable, since this edit didn't change neither the sense of the comment, nor a single of his words. Also, it was not Denis who complained about the edit, but rather another user, whose comments I didn't touch. However, I've apologized for any inconvenience caused by that, and apologize again.
Surprisingly to me, Barberio called my reversion of my own actions "another breach of my role as mediator" [46], 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. However, he neither asked me to leave at good will, nor allowed time for discussion in the open (I had only 10 minutes), but discuss it via IRC.
After that, Keitei took the case and made another attempt for mediation, taking a much milder approach. However, his suggestions were refused (which isn't something inherently wrong, though), and, despite the mediator was replaced, the compromise wasn't reached and the mediation halted.
I'll reply to some statements. In general, I would prefer to just ignore that and let the case focus on conflict, so I'll be brief.
1. All of the participants were aware of the mediation by July 26. I did not specify parties involved or treat them as if they had a special status different from anyone else, because it was purely a content dispute, and I preferred it to stay equally open for everyone.
2. As I explained above, I perceived this case as difficult and likely to cause heated debates between parties. To avoid such debates, I tried to stand between opponents and take fire on myself, presenting possible pros and cons of each position. My approach was to build compromise and remove disagreements step-by-step, even if these steps would be as small as getting just two editors agree on just one detail. I tried to find possible compromises and convince both sides to agree on them, sometimes just posting my opinion, sometimes citing policy, sometimes supporting any compromise proposed. I tried to convince editors to agree with others at least about something, and to convince them that other parties were acting in good faith as well. Probably that was my most serious mistake - usually convincing someone in good faith of others is only effective if he, first of all, assumes that mediator wants to resolve the conflict. With good mutual attitude similar disputes are easily resolved in mediation, but here it turned out that not all parties had such attitude, despite using civil wording, and I didn't realize that in time.
I don't want to blame anyone specific, but it seems that totally the dispute resolution failed because of lack of trust. The case is different with tasc, who mostly ignored attempts of dispute resolution, continued reversions, and didn't seem to be even considering the possibility of compromise.
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.