Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Status | closed |
Request date | Unknown |
Requesting party | Unknown |
Comment | went to arbcom, please file a new request if problem persists |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|]]
This page is the second case page to exist at this location. For the original, see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive 1. Thank you for your understanding!
2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict - inclusion of links to blogs and sites with images
For | Against |
---|---|
AdamKesher, Cerejota, Iorek85 | Denis Diderot, tasc, Barberio |
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 |
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, they contained unverified original research, some contained copyrighted material, they were not reliable sources of information like textbooks, and there were already a number of external links. |
Please note that these are quotes from the previous case page.
You are going to need to compromise.
Also remember, this is Wikipedia. Verifiability > truth. Encyclopedia > policy.
That being said, a compromise should keep this in mind:
Keeping these general things in mind, I'm sure you can come up with an agreeable and helpful solution. -- Keitei ( talk) 22:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I propose an NPOV-balanced list of quality to high quality blogs and compilations of news service photographs that satisfy WP:EL. As an example, I suggect the following links, which present views from both sides:
I furthermore propose that the inclusion or exclusion of any specific blog or compilation of news service photographs should be subject to the community of editors, and these links should not be removed wholesale; the intent is to have about this many, of this quality or better. AdamKesher 01:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
At the moment, I'm ready to accept a limited selection of Blog Sites that are of a reasionable high standard of quality, so long as we mark these links with Template:Unverifiable-external-links.
I'm not ready to accept sites such as hirhome.com, that pass themselves off as 'factual' articles when they are unverified opinion, and 'image colections' made up of copyrighted materials used without licence. I'm fine with linking to image collections of accredited photo journalists and news sites, as these sites are both licensed to use the images and have a higher verifiability in atributing and identifying the images. -- Barberio 23:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
This does not sound like the compromise you have proposed above. We want a meaningful solution, not one that will break down if this template is deleted. What do you propose to do if the template is deleted? What guarantees are there that if this link is included, you or other will not declare WP:EL-acceptable links dubious and subject to deletion, based on this template? AdamKesher 01:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)"The template has had language added that makes it clear that these links should be replaced."
"there are exceptions [to blog links], 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."
Perhaps it'd be useful to begin a system to establish and maintain a current idea of consensus. Not necessarily voting, but a way to know if the blog has suddenly veered into the irrelevant or disreputable. If such a system is drawn up and continued, it won't be a single (very long) discussion every month or so that anyone can ignore and claim that they can do whatever because it wasn't a binding decision. A continued solution that can change as quickly as this conflict does seems to be in the best interest? Opinions on that? -- Keitei ( talk) 20:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Having raised the issue on Wikipedia talk:External links, I belive it's consensus that "The article should be related to the blog, not the blog related to the article.", which I belive eliminates the argument that the links are allowable under this exception. -- Barberio 10:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
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. -- Cerejota 22:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Cerejota in his comment under "Discussion" above. I also note that tasc has again deleted these links without discussion here or in the other case currently under informal mediation ( Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-02 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict Photographs), yet in his edit comments asserts that this has been done to remove "propaganda". I ask again as I have before of this issue: " 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 11:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
This mediation process has been flagrantly ignored and abused by those who wish to delete information from the article. I note that tasc has again deleted these links while thumbing his nose at this process. This particular user has been banned several times in the past for similar actions. By my lights, his actions in this dispute warrant at least this response. Really, what good is this mediation process if individuals are allowed to act in this way with impunity, suffering no consequences whatsoever? As Cerejota points out, this has become a mockery. I'm not sure how to take this to the next level or if it's even appropriate that I be involved, but if someone outlines the proper steps, I'll take them. AdamKesher 13:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
This page for this information moderation is Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.
It appears that this mediation is stalled, since neither Cerejota or Adam are willing to offer any compromise on their positions. I've tried to make a compromise on this, and feel somewhat anoyed over the characterisation that I've been obstructive. -- Barberio 11:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Based on the fact that this mediation process has been ignored and mocked, I have requested arbitration on the censorship of links and images that satisfy Wikipedia policies WP:EL and others. Please see the page Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Deletion_of_WP:EL-compliant_links_and_images_from_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict. AdamKesher 16:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm unsure if we should continue mediation with the people still willing to discuss things, (which appears to be me and Iorek85), or suspend this till after arbitration. (Which will probably take considerable time) --
Barberio 09:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Status | closed |
Request date | Unknown |
Requesting party | Unknown |
Comment | went to arbcom, please file a new request if problem persists |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|]]
This page is the second case page to exist at this location. For the original, see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive 1. Thank you for your understanding!
2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict - inclusion of links to blogs and sites with images
For | Against |
---|---|
AdamKesher, Cerejota, Iorek85 | Denis Diderot, tasc, Barberio |
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 |
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, they contained unverified original research, some contained copyrighted material, they were not reliable sources of information like textbooks, and there were already a number of external links. |
Please note that these are quotes from the previous case page.
You are going to need to compromise.
Also remember, this is Wikipedia. Verifiability > truth. Encyclopedia > policy.
That being said, a compromise should keep this in mind:
Keeping these general things in mind, I'm sure you can come up with an agreeable and helpful solution. -- Keitei ( talk) 22:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I propose an NPOV-balanced list of quality to high quality blogs and compilations of news service photographs that satisfy WP:EL. As an example, I suggect the following links, which present views from both sides:
I furthermore propose that the inclusion or exclusion of any specific blog or compilation of news service photographs should be subject to the community of editors, and these links should not be removed wholesale; the intent is to have about this many, of this quality or better. AdamKesher 01:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
At the moment, I'm ready to accept a limited selection of Blog Sites that are of a reasionable high standard of quality, so long as we mark these links with Template:Unverifiable-external-links.
I'm not ready to accept sites such as hirhome.com, that pass themselves off as 'factual' articles when they are unverified opinion, and 'image colections' made up of copyrighted materials used without licence. I'm fine with linking to image collections of accredited photo journalists and news sites, as these sites are both licensed to use the images and have a higher verifiability in atributing and identifying the images. -- Barberio 23:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
This does not sound like the compromise you have proposed above. We want a meaningful solution, not one that will break down if this template is deleted. What do you propose to do if the template is deleted? What guarantees are there that if this link is included, you or other will not declare WP:EL-acceptable links dubious and subject to deletion, based on this template? AdamKesher 01:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)"The template has had language added that makes it clear that these links should be replaced."
"there are exceptions [to blog links], 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."
Perhaps it'd be useful to begin a system to establish and maintain a current idea of consensus. Not necessarily voting, but a way to know if the blog has suddenly veered into the irrelevant or disreputable. If such a system is drawn up and continued, it won't be a single (very long) discussion every month or so that anyone can ignore and claim that they can do whatever because it wasn't a binding decision. A continued solution that can change as quickly as this conflict does seems to be in the best interest? Opinions on that? -- Keitei ( talk) 20:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Having raised the issue on Wikipedia talk:External links, I belive it's consensus that "The article should be related to the blog, not the blog related to the article.", which I belive eliminates the argument that the links are allowable under this exception. -- Barberio 10:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
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. -- Cerejota 22:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Cerejota in his comment under "Discussion" above. I also note that tasc has again deleted these links without discussion here or in the other case currently under informal mediation ( Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-02 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict Photographs), yet in his edit comments asserts that this has been done to remove "propaganda". I ask again as I have before of this issue: " 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 11:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
This mediation process has been flagrantly ignored and abused by those who wish to delete information from the article. I note that tasc has again deleted these links while thumbing his nose at this process. This particular user has been banned several times in the past for similar actions. By my lights, his actions in this dispute warrant at least this response. Really, what good is this mediation process if individuals are allowed to act in this way with impunity, suffering no consequences whatsoever? As Cerejota points out, this has become a mockery. I'm not sure how to take this to the next level or if it's even appropriate that I be involved, but if someone outlines the proper steps, I'll take them. AdamKesher 13:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
This page for this information moderation is Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.
It appears that this mediation is stalled, since neither Cerejota or Adam are willing to offer any compromise on their positions. I've tried to make a compromise on this, and feel somewhat anoyed over the characterisation that I've been obstructive. -- Barberio 11:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Based on the fact that this mediation process has been ignored and mocked, I have requested arbitration on the censorship of links and images that satisfy Wikipedia policies WP:EL and others. Please see the page Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Deletion_of_WP:EL-compliant_links_and_images_from_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict. AdamKesher 16:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm unsure if we should continue mediation with the people still willing to discuss things, (which appears to be me and Iorek85), or suspend this till after arbitration. (Which will probably take considerable time) --
Barberio 09:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)