all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

• Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
• Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
• Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if they so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, no arbitrators are recused and 5 are inactive, so 5 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Place those on /Workshop.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision[edit]

External links[edit]

1) Wikipedia:External links discourages links to sites which are not reliable sources or which are not suitable for permanent links due to their changing nature, such as blogs.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. "Discourages" in the sense of "unless there is nothing better" of course, not as a rule. Dmcdevit·t 19:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 21:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Developing current events[edit]

2) It is appropriate to temporarily include external links to blogs and other sites which reflect contemporary reactions to a developing event. This is especially true in the case of events which are the focus of substantial attention. As the article becomes history rather than a current event the appropriateness of such links may change.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Dmcdevit·t 19:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 21:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Policy, guideline and style guide[edit]

3) In appropriate circumstances it is proper to markedly deviate from the usual practices set forth in Wikipedia guidelines and style guides in order to fulfill the encyclopedic purpose of Wikipedia, for example, as in the instant case, an adequate presentation of an ongoing event. Deviations from Wikipedia policies, especially fundamental policy, may also occur in rare instances but are much more difficult to justify.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Dmcdevit·t 19:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 21:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template:Unverifiable-external-links[edit]

4) Insertion of clarifying notices such as Template:Unverifiable-external-links may be useful to the reader, warning them of the ephemeral and biased nature of external links to sites such as blogs.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. External links are inherently unverifiable, in as much as that they are not verified by the English Wikipedia community, nor are they (in generis) editable to fix problems. James F. (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. ➥the Epopt 21:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. That template doesn't make sense. External links don't need to be verifiable (how can tehy not be?), they just need to fit out inclusion guidelines. Dmcdevit·t 19:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. There may be a good point to make in this area, but is this it?Charles Matthews 16:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith mediation[edit]

5) It is inappropriate during mediation to edit war regarding the subject of the mediation. If a subject is in mediation a user is expected to participate in the mediation in good faith.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Dmcdevit·t 19:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 21:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Nature of mediation[edit]

6) Mediation is traditionally a process which permits free expression of diverse opinions. For this reason its content is often confidential. Absent bad faith (refusal to address the subjects under discussion or to participate), aggressive expression of opinion is to be expected and ought not be negatively sanctioned. This may include dissatisfaction with the course of mediation.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Not so sure about "aggressive" however. Dmcdevit·t 19:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 21:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Assume good faith[edit]

7) Wikipedia mediators are usually not trained and are often inexperienced. They may not only fail to do the optimal thing, but may make gross errors. However, they are expected to do their best and presumably do. Wikipedia:Assume good faith mandates a reasonable attempt to work with them during the mediation process. It is not the sole responsibility of the "Mediator" to made a success of the process; forgiving participation in good faith by the users who have a dispute is also required.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Dmcdevit·t 19:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 21:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Creative work[edit]

8) Advancement of a proposal or template which potentially solves a problem is commendable.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Dmcdevit·t 19:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 21:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Locus of dispute[edit]

1) The locus of the dispute is inclusion or exclusion of external links to contemporary opinion such as blogs and images regarding the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict . Users, AdamKesher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Cerejota (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Iorek85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Pro) and Denis_Diderot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Tasc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Barberio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Con), took positions on both sides of this issue. The article at the time in issue was the developing history of a current event. This dispute was unsuccessfully mediated at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive 1 and again at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Dmcdevit·t 19:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 21:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Removal of contemporary links by Tasc[edit]

2) Tasc removed external links to a diversity of contemporary images and opinions on the basis that they were "irrelevant propaganda" [1], see evidence presented by AdamKesher. Tasc continued to edit war over this matter during mediation reports of Tasc's edit warring.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Dmcdevit·t 19:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 21:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template:Unverifiable-external-links[edit]

3) During mediation Barberio created Template:Unverifiable-external-links which he advanced as a possible solution to the dispute [2]]. This template was discussed at length at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_30#Template:Unverifiable-external-links.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC):# Dmcdevit·t 19:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Not particularly relevant to the misconduct in question... Dmcdevit·t 19:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. true, but ... ➥the Epopt 21:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews 16:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Not sure where this is going. James F. (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adequacy of mediation[edit]

4) CP/M (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was the mediator in this matter. Viewed from his perspective, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israel-Lebanon/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_CP.2FM, and considering the records at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive 1 and at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, his performance met the minimum requirements for Wikipedia mediation.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Dmcdevit·t 19:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 21:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

The Nature of Blogs[edit]

5) With respect to Wikipedia articles, blogs are ephemeral, soon moving on to other topics. Even now, about a month into the 2006 Israeli-Lebanon conflict, the links to the blogs in dispute are stale and will soon be obsolete. If they had utility it was only during the period that the conflict was a current event.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. While I may agree, the utility of individual external links is a community decision. Dmcdevit·t 19:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Community decision. James F. (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 21:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews 16:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Use of blogs[edit]

1) In the case of articles which chronicle a developing current event it is not a violation of Wikipedia policy to temporarily include links to blogs which contain contemporary opinion and observations about the event. A diverse mix is recommended, but the extent and selection of specific blogs is a matter of content to be determined by the editors of the article.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Dmcdevit·t 19:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 21:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Editors cautioned[edit]

2) Editors are cautioned that there may be exceptions to Wikipedia Guidelines and Style Guides due to unusual circumstances such as an important current event. Decisions need to be based on utility of the article to readers, not to literal compliance with Wikipedia rules.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Dmcdevit·t 19:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 21:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Edit warring[edit]

3) Any user, particularly Tasc, who engages in edit warring with respect to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict without engaging in good faith negotiation regarding the matter in dispute may be banned from the article for an appropriate period. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Discussion does not negate the disruptive nature of edit warring. There's no excuse for edit warring ever. That's a loophole waiting for abuse. See alternate proposal. Dmcdevit·t 19:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Dom. James F. (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 21:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews 16:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

... is Just Plain Bad(tm)[edit]

3.1) Any user, particularly Tasc, who engages in edit warring with respect to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict may be banned from the article for an appropriate period. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 19:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 21:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Fred Bauder 18:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enforcement by block[edit]

1) Violators of bans imposed under this decision may be blocked for an appropriate period. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israel-Lebanon#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Dmcdevit·t 19:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 21:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

General[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

• The majority for this case is 5.
• All motions pass 5-0 with the following exceptions:
  • Principles: 4, "Template:Unverifiable-external-links" fails
  • Findings: 3, "Template:Unverifiable-external-links" and 5 "The Nature of Blogs" fail.
  • Remedies: 3, "Edit warring" fails and is superseded by 3.1.

Vote[edit]

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

1. Close. Dmcdevit·t 17:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Close Fred Bauder 17:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Close. Charles Matthews 18:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Close ➥the Epopt 02:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]