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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

:-) Kim Bruning 08:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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 [1], 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 [2]. 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 [3]. AdamKesher disagreed with that ( [4]), 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 [5]. 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 [6]. Since we were alredy close to a consensus, I attempted to explain him the reasons to include some links [7], 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. [8].

The discussion went on for a while, but at July 31 AdamKesher noticed that Barberio's template was considered for deletion [9]. Barberio shortly stated that the only way he could accept inclusion of these links was with this warning [10]. At the same time he added himself as a participant in the dispute [11]. Discussion between participants went for some time further, when Denis stated he didn't think that it is acceptable to edit others' comments [12]. Barberio shortly came to my user talk page and asked me not to edit others' comments [13]. 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 [14] and apologized [15]. 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" [16], 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." [17]. 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 [18] 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 [19].
• Cerejota was the first to respond, almost immediately after I took the case and asked for some details [20].
• 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 [21].
• tasc was informed on his talk page by AdamKesher [22], to which he responded [23].

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.

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! reply

I would be happy to do this. -- Barberio 11:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply