Alex R. a écrit: Alex, I was acting as a mediator. The mediator is not supposed to judge, nor to arbitrate. I spent 10 minutes trying to respect a rule I was criticized for not using another time. Now, not only was I wrong not to know that this rule was not valid any more, but on top, I should have decided what was the proper version as a neutral mediator ? People, if you want help, please stop complaining each time someone makes a move, that the move is incorrect. That is the *best* way to discourage good willingness. Seriously

Sascha Noyes a écrit: I checked what was rule number 2. I saw it was "never protect if you have edited the page" I suppose you are trying to tell me now that I have broken rule number 2 in reverting the article to a previous state while protecting it ? I never edited the article before I made that reversion. I am *absolutely* not interested by this article This morning I answered to a request of Adam Carr for mediation. Mav and I told him there were other steps before mediation. This evening, I saw no progress, only reversions going on. I thought in my innocence, that I could protect a page I had never edited once, since I saw Adam and 172 reverting it on turn. Bad move ! Last time I protected a page, I was very coldly told I did wrong, because I protected the current version, and not the stable version. So, as a good girl, I am careful this time to protect the stable version, and to list the page in the protected pages And I did not do the right think again ??? Want me to be very strongly honest here ? No, I won't, I might break a rule of basic politeness.

On Sunday 01 February 2004 02:46 pm, Anthere wrote: It is correct that you were not involved in the dispute. I just had a knee-jerk reaction to seeing someone revert a page to a particular version, and then protecting it. (Having seen 168.. do that on [[DNA]] just yesterday - a dispute in which they were involved). For this I apologise. I don't see anything on [[Wikipedia:Protection policy]] about reverting to a "stable version" before protecting a page, so I don't see what the people telling you to revert to a stable version would have based this on. I do, however, see on the policy page that: "In addition, admins should try to avoid favoring one version of the article over another, unless of course, one version is trolling or vandalism in which case you don't want to protect that version. However, it is best to let someone else do the reversion to maintain some distance." Which would seem to contradict what they told you. I don't have a problem with you expressing your honest opinion, and appreciate the fact that you were obviously not concerned which version of the page should be displayed, but rather that you wanted to end the reversion war. Best, Sascha Noyes -- Please encrypt all email. Public key available from www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc

Going back to December, 2003, just puts 172's version up. He has written articles from a favorable point of view for several of these dictatorships. What is happening is that someone has challenged his apologetic point of view. Fred

From: "Anthere" <anthere8(a)yahoo.com> either. I think that you may have comments or may not, but the fact of the matter is that the wiki is a collaborative process open to all. We should keep that in mind and this step in the dispute resolution process gives input to anyone interested. If there is no one interested then the parties appear to recognize the differeing POVs and if that cannot be reconciled you can take the dispute resolution process further. I think that it really has to do with content and that is something that we can help with to one degree or another. If both are useful why not try posting it and soliciting comments; really at an early stage this could only get people interested in the subject page, that would be a good thing, no? Alex756

You are right Fred, there is not a lot of "reliable news" in English out of Belarus. There are plenty of sources if you speak Russian, however. In English there is the Belpan news service with some of their articles reprinted on Charter97.org and on Brestonline.com, there are also a few Russian services that have English versions of stories written. There are various Human Rights reports that have a lot of verifiable information and OSCE committees that regularly report on Belarus. The problem with a lot of this material is that there are always allegations about the news sources being slanted to be "pro Western" or pro Luka. Regarding journalists everyone pointing the finger at everyone else and even Russian journalists are being expelled from that country so it is hard to know what is accurate or propaganda from either side. If you've been to Belarus (I've been there four times) you quickly realize that it is hard to study this country in the face of all the mounting opposition to Lukashenko outside Belarus and what appears to be a very apathic populace that is just trying to survive. Reminded me a lot of Haiti as it shares a similar status with the western hemisphere's poorest country, but without the aging soviet infrastructure and few international aid projects. Lukashenko's renovated main train terminal in Mensk is _so_ tacky. Alex From: "Fred Bauder" <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> Part of the problem here is that we don't get a lot of news out of Belarus. So even if someone is interested and has a general opinion we may still not know the specifics. I know not to trust anything 172 writes but can't vouch for the factual basis of the alternative article. Fred