Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles

top

Well through my own experience the general handing out of topic bans to multiple editors is extremely unfair as peripheral editors may get dragged into an extremely harsh topic ban through some minor transgressions. Whilst editors who manage to avoid the topic ban through a small oversight or just being on holiday can continue to plug away with the most trollish POV pushing imaginable and are only subject to warnings. Sanctions applied to an individual should be applied to the individual based on a weighing up of the need to apply that sanction to the individual and not on some glorified cartoon idea of cleaning up the topic area by acting like a hard nosed no-nonsense gunslinger type figure. Polargeo (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Also certain editors who should be dumped by wikipedia just get lumped into the topic ban. Take the wikipedia topic ban I am under for example. A permanent topic ban across all spaces of the encyclopedia encompassing hundreds and hundreds of articles for 15 editors with leave to appeal after 6 months. These 15 editors include editors who had never been previously sanctioned to editors who had been regularly blocked for all sorts of stuff. From editors who had never made a significantly poor article edit in the topic area to editors who had been involved in 10s of edit wars. Polargeo (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

In general, I am not a big fan of page protection, as I feel it fails to deal with the underlying issue at hand. 1RR is a solution, but I feel like people gaming it becomes much easier to do. However, I think that one option that might work would be to encourage patrolling administrators topic ban people for short periods of time (three days to a week at first, say) fairly liberally if they feel that the users are being too battlegroundish, are POV pushing in their editing, or are even refusing to compromise and impeding article improvement when discussing on the talk page. Thoughts on that? NW (Talk) 16:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we could consider short term topic bans. I'll add it to the list. PhilKnight (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds very good. I have no problems with individual topic bans applied correctly to individual users on either a short or long term basis. I think the important thing though is they apply to the individual and are directly proportional to dealing with the individual's transgressions. Polargeo (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

In the past, there have been complaints that the sanctions handed out at AE were not even-handed. This is easy to imagine because there is little admin time available to really do research, and the comments by other involved editors at AE are often battlegroundish and don't give much useful data to the admin. A sweeping sanction (like broad application of article 1RRs) would be a way to escape this problem. People seem to resent it less when a 1RR restriction is applied to an article than when it is applied to a person. Short-period topic bans up to a week, like those proposed above, are another way to work around the apparent randomness of the AE decisions that are made when the disputes are very confusing. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Currently there are editors who have been repeatedly under short-term topic bans for pushing points of view, trying to change the nationality of things/people/places, politicizing articles about non-political things, displaying battlefield behavior, or plain old tenacious editing. There comes a point where short term topic bans are obviously not a deterrent for disruptive behavior, as editors either continue to get topic bans *or* they manage to edit in such a way where their edits are still disruptive, yet they skirt WP rules. In essence they violate the "spirit of the law" while not actually breaking the rules, and use this technique to bait others into becoming unwilling "battlefield opponents". The problem with AE up to this point is that disruptive editors are allowed to continue their ways and nothing is ever done. I realize we want to give everyone a chance, and avoid doing anything permanent, but something has to give. The current system is too forgiving and allows editors to use WP rules to punish those they disagree with. The plethora of pro-Israeli socks is another serious problem, which could possibly be dealt with using a hard block or autoblock of the IP or IP range. People who register from those IPs who would like to edit articles on WP, would have to ask permission to be exempted from the autoblock (this is already done in some instances on wikipedia), making it much easier to track and shut down sockpuppets. I know these suggestions seem harsh, but the current system is failing horribly and the problematic editors have shown they have become quite skilled at using/twisting WP rules to accomplish their own goals.--nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 19:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Short term topic bans won't help. 1RR the whole topic area. Zero tolerance for incivility. A quick escalation of sanctions for repeat offenders. Those are the things that will help clean the topic area up and make it more hospitable to editors. I honestly don't understand why you guys are so reluctant to put your collective foot down. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Cptnono (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

In regard to option 3, I've created a template to place on article talk pages. PhilKnight (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That looks good. Perhaps add something about civility as well? I think the length of the sanctions and how they escalate should be clearly spelled out like in the NI case, starting with one week topic bans (with maybe 1 day for first offenders who have not been previously notified of the case). You guys should make it clear you're going to be strictly applying these sanctions. If it's going to be the same old AE randomness, it won't work. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is a fundamental change in the way Admins handle violations (long term bans/blocks), I stand by my earlier statement that this will ultimately do nothing. It will not solve the problem with editors disruptively editing, it'll just create another rule to be "gamed" and abused. How many times do we have to give someone a speeding ticket before saying "enough" and taking away their drivers license? How often will we allow someone to drive 82km in a 80km zone and just turn our heads? Someone with a track record of blocks, bans, or disruptive battlefield behavior is not going to change their ways; they are only going to find a new way to accomplish their agenda. Its becoming clear that an ARBPIA3 option might be the only way to make fundamental change. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 17:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Think out of the box

Frankly, I find all the options listed above to be disappointing. Most involve sanctions against individual editors, others are essentially stopgap measures intended to slow the tempo of the disputes, but not to militate for their resolution. They all attribute the problem to wrong attitudes on the part of editors with strong opinions. None of the options try to deal with the root of the problem.

What is the root of the problem? As one who has been involved, on and off, in these disputes for several years, and who, I think, enjoys tolerance if not respect from individuals on both sides of the dispute, I would like to make a few observations:

• None of the combatants in this arena is fighting for his or her point of view. Rather, they are all fighting for their own conceptions of neutrality. As an example, Jaakobou does not want to excise the praise of Gideon Levy from the article, nor does Nableezy want to excise the criticism. They only want to put the praise and criticism in proper perspective, as they see it.

• Tempers here get very short; but there is no fundamental ill will on the part of anyone. Jaakobou, for example, does not think he is gaming the system by his AE complaint against Nableezy and RolandR. I think he seriously believes (incredible as it may seem to some) that RolandR is Nableezy's meatpuppet and the the two are teamtagging against him. It is easy, in this hypercharged atmosphere, to demonize the other side.

• The increasingly vituperative confrontations that we see in this area are the inevitable result of the collaborative editing process that has been the pillar of the Wikipedia ethos. Sanctions against individuals will not put an end to the spiral of demonization, which is inherent in this process.

I would like to suggest a radical tactic as an approach to defusing the tensions which inevitably build in trying to create a single article out of violently opposing viewpoints. The tactic is to develop parallel drafts of the article. I have pushed this proposal before, but no one has dared to actually try it. The idea, described in my essay User:Ravpapa/The Politicization of Wikipedia, is to have the opposing editorial teams develop their own versions of the article in an off-article space. The versions would be governed by a set of strict rules - for example, every documented fact in one version would have to be cited also in the other version. An arbitrator would then try, through a process of negotiation, to merge the two versions into a single article.

I think this idea deserves a trial. --Ravpapa (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL, I love this idea, but two concerns: (1) How you would prevent one "team" from editing the other "team's" version? Are you just going to have edit warring on two different versions of the article? (2) In some ways this seems like it would be institutionalizing the battleground mentality, breaking up editors into "teams" that then square off in an edit battle (albeit far more constructively than the current system). Do we really want to build the battleground nature of this topic into the system? ← George ^talk 20:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

A little less out of the box

Here is another idea, which is much closer to Wikipedia's current editing model, and which I think might be an effective solution:

Create two versions of every controversial article: the published version and a draft. Only an uninvolved admin can edit the published version. Anyone can edit the draft version.

A draft version (or section of a draft version) can be promoted to the published version only when there is complete consensus as to its wording. Editing of the draft is no holds barred - everything is permitted: incivility, edit warring, team tagging, whatever. The motivation for this behavior, however, is negative - as long as there is no agreement among the editors, the draft is never seen by the general readership.

This creates an environment where there is very high motivation for true collaboration and negotiation. In the current environment, there is every motivation for an editor to edit war: even if he gets reverted after a couple of hours, his version is the version that people read for that short time. Moreover, the arguments are visible to everyone at the click of a tab. In this new environment, if the editor does not enlist consensus for his version, no one will ever read it; arguments are still visible to everyone, but are one step removed from the general readership.

Aside from the technical issues that this might present, there are other editorial issues that need to be considered before this solution can be tried: who picks the uninvolved admin, and how is the first published version of the article selected? Just to freeze an article in its current state might give an unfair advantage to a side that is currently winning the edit war.

In the long run, it would also mean a lot less work for the admin. The admin would not have to monitor the editing of the draft, and would not have to take time sanctioning nasty editors. When consensus was reached on a section, the editors involved would notify the admin and he or she would promote the section to the published version.

It would greatly increase the stability of published articles, and thus increase the credibility of the encyclopedia. I believe that the high volatility of articles on controversial topics is one of the reasons Wikipedia is considered unreliable. In the long run, it would increase the quality of our articles.

Worth a try? --Ravpapa (talk) 05:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Honorable idea, but it doesn't solve the problem of disruptive editors in the IP arena, it just relegates them to a special area until they figure out a way around the new rules. In addition, it would probably lead to numerous POV-forking under various auspices. The idea behind these proceedings (if I'm understanding everything correctly) is to try to put an effective end to the long-term disruptive editing and socking; however creating a whole new layer of administration and separate "article versions" just creates opportunities for more drama and disruption; it doesn't solve the problem. Editing on Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right, so we need to stop treating it as such. We must balance the welfare of the whole encyclopedia vs that of the individuals who have shown time and time again they either cannot/will not adhere to WP guidelines, or refuse to acknowledge their own shortcomings and POV. Tough decisions are going to have to be made if we are going to truly try to fix the situation in the IP arena, and not just allow some variation of the status quo to continue. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 05:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you, but both your and my views are mere speculation. The only way to find out if it would work is to try it.

This isn't an idea that requires a major change in Wikipedia policy in the short run. We would pick two or three sample articles - Racism and ethnic discrimination in Israel might be a good place to start - and try the idea out. If, as you suggest, the result is an increase, rather than a decrease, in rancor and disruption, we can send the idea to the scrap heap, along with the Wankel engine and Fire cupping. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

How is this better than fully protecting the pages in question, and requiring consensus for any change (which would have to be implemented by an uninvolved admin)? The current system provides for that, and I'm not sure if the result would be any different than your suggestion. ← George ^talk 07:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears that a 1RR limit seems to be gaining support. Unless administrators are willing to put their foot down and issue some long-term blocks/bans in response to 1RR, this will be nothing more than re-create the revolving door that the current AE "short term" blocks have created. It doesn't solve the problem, and probably will escalate the filings of 1RR complaints on AE, as battlefield-minded editors go over each others edits with a fine tooth comb (which is already done, as evidenced by this week's "meltdown"). Perhaps the best option is an ARBPIA3. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 13:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Admins only?

Hi all, I just commented on one of the options before I noticed that the lead says that the discussion is primarily for administrators. Where should non-administrative editors voice their thoughts on these options? ← George ^talk 20:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi George, I created this page primarily for uninvolved admins, but given your post asks some good questions, I wouldn't worry. PhilKnight (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Phil, I have some thoughts or questions on most of these options (as I've thought about this problem quite a bit), but will try to keep my comments short and focused. ← George ^talk 21:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Option 5

I dont think you will find too many knowledgeable people who will say that the topic area has gotten better since the bans placed in ARBPIA2. All that accomplished is lowering the intelligence level in many of these disputes. No matter what anybody thinks about Jay or Nishi or G-Dett or ..., these were all very smart and well read people. Instead of them we now have google-extraordinaires; people whose only redeeming quality is the ability to quickly google some phrase and stick a citation, reliable or not. They have not read the quality sources (there really should be "required reading" before editing in this subject) and only are concerned with ensuring their partisan sources stay and others are removed. Things have not gotten better as a result of that case, they have gotten worse. If all you are concerned about is edit-warring and civility then this would be the way to go. But if you care at all about the quality of the content in these articles then you should do the exact opposite. Yall should agree that you will not enforce the ARBPIA2 bans, sort of like jury nullification, ask the people banned to again edit in this area and ban any fool that gets in their way. nableezy - 15:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a collective punishment where people who are innocent get the same sanction as pov pushing editors. You have to go to the root of the problem, and that is editors who refuse to follow a npov, it is those who start the disruption together with socks who repeatedly show up to join edit wars and push a non neutral pov, perfect example is what happened recently at Tomb of Rachel:[1]. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)could you

Supreme, could you (without getting involved in accusing anyone which will just cause grief) give a bit of a hint as to what kind of POV editing was going on in Rachel's Tomb? It would help to understand the kind of problem you're highlighting.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

For example: Adding a map of Israel for a location in the West bank. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I see - that would be the kind of thing I would add to my list of things people do that deserve warnings if not immediate blocks (see below).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Enforce more than civility and consensus: what it should really mean for Arbcom and admins to put their foot down.

It seems that the current mood on the Project page is for 1RR. This would help. But it doesn't address the fundamental problem, which is editors not being interested in following a neutral point of view, and the corollary of that, the proper use of reliable sources. And it seems to rely on a version of consensus that is not WP:consensus (views must be in line with wikipedia principles to be taken seriously), but consensus as the absence of conflict. I've only been involved in this area for a few days, and quite by accident, but one thing has struck me very strongly: there has been an emphasis by the powers that be on general civility (no personal attacks, no edit-warring) and "consensus" at the expense of other principles that wikipedia follows. As a result, the qualitative activity of editors (introducing POV, misrepresenting sources, original research) is treated as something less (rather than equally) important than not calling each other names.

In this area, ARBCOM and admins should be just as strict on POV pushing, abuse of sources and original research as they try to be on civility. They absolutely must be strict about the principle that consensus is made up of opinions that rely on wikipedia policies, not on the preferences of editors per se. This requires admins who are knowledgeable in the area and who are prepared involve themselves. I got myself involved in a rather depressing AfD in this area, where lots of editors are happily defending the writings of a man who thinks Obama is a communist, and a blog on the website of a neoconservative thinktank funded by the same people who tried to frame Bill Clinton as a drug runner and murderer as reliable sources, and commending the academic sources in the article, precisely none (zero, nada etc.) of which support the article topic as notable. I'm sure the other "side" (I'm not sure who are the Sharks and who are the Jets; I must ask Sol) has done some similarly silly system-gaming, but this is the example I know. I've been involved in a few controversial AfDs and debates, but this is the first I've ever seen where the lack of interest in NPOV has been quite so brazen, with a dearth of admins and other independent editors wading in to remind people of wikipedia principles of verifiability, notability and neutrality.

I disagree with Ravpapa's suggestion of officially having two sides. If an editor in their editing pattern is pathologically incapable of understanding opposite points of view, the usual response in any other topic area is a series of warnings, blocks and bans.

In short, any editor in this area misrepresenting sources a few times should be blocked. Any editor trying to eliminate other verified points of view should be warned and than blocked. Any editor introducing clearly non-reliable sources should be warned and then blocked. And any editor who raises frivolous complaints should be warned and then blocked. No sympathy or leaway should be given to people who have cognitive difficulties understanding how others do not see Israel as a racist state, or that Palestinians employing violent resistance are not all Islamist extremists. If they can't edit properly, then we don't need them. Encyclopedians are dull people who don't take sides - we should keep it that way.

Of course, civility is important. My other suggestion is to have, for the hard of understanding, a list of statements, variations on which are all considered offensive to others, for which blocks will be immediately issued should an editor express that opinion themselves (rather than as a sourced statement in an article). A working group of uninvolved editors could compile them from suggestions, but a few suggestions would be - calling any other editor an extremist or implying that they support violence; implying that, or calling the IDF terrorists; implying or calling Palestinians in general terrorists; referring to Israel as an oppressor; arguing over who actually fired the first shot in any dispute (as opposed to presenting a due and balanced variety of accounts from sources) etc. etc. We are not here to present what we think is the trooth.

I make these arguments in the hope that we can separate the good editors and the potentially good editors from the ones who are simply here to propagandise and silence others. Lots of editors on Wikipedia go through their wiki-lives without being warned once, let alone be blocked. This is clearly not the case in this area, where around half the people voting in that AfD appear to have done time - and not just one or two blocks, but several. This situation has got to end.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It's easy enough to prove that POV pushers are repeatedly engaging in (and even defending ad nauseum) the various abuses of WP:RS. Definitely the biggest problem I've found, after incivility. Making it clear to editors they can complain about multiple cases of clear abuses and to admins that they can quickly respond with sanctions would be great.

Excessive soap boxing also should be grounds for quick sanctions, especially when its purpose is to infer negative views about other editors or just argue/bore them out of editing the article. However, defining soap boxing as being specific phrases or views is problematic. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I can see a problem with my idea of specific kinds of phrases. The wikilawyers would start to treat it as exhaustive, even if it wasn't. And then all it would take is a couple of admin sympathetic to there being an exhaustive list to throw a spanner in the works. I'm not convinced that pursuing POV abuse of RS is that easy. A central cause of POV abuse of RS is people having no intention of performing principled editing. That is, they decide what they want to see and don't want to see on wikipedia, and then use whatever sources necessary to get that version put through, and whatever lame arguments they can to have sources and information they don't like removed. Any one argument in a particular instance they put forward might seem reasonable. Presented at an ANI, it would look like a content dispute. Yet if another editor, seeking to find a consensual way forward, applies the same principles and interpretations of policy in general, all hell breaks loose, because the first group of editors were never arguing from principle in the first place. They start to argue entirely the opposite in terms of RS interpretation. (Again, in any one case, such arguments may not be tendentious.) This second editor is likely to get very frustrated, and may either leave or become uncivil (aka job done) - because the tendentious editing is difficult to prove, and very easy to be made to look like just another I/P squabble where both "sides" need to have their hands smacked in order to seem fair. A similar problem seems to exist with Gish Galloping - the presentation of arguments one after the other, with little regard for validity or consistency, in order to muddy the waters. Difficult to follow for anyone outside of the discussion and so difficult to have uninvolved input.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Some editors are too personally involved in this area, and tend to take things personally. The discussion on User_talk:Spartaz, the admin who closed the fabled AfD, is a case in point. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Option 3

I think 1/rr across the project is a wonderful idea. Admins should consider that this will create a spike in AE requests at first since there is the likelihood that it will be breached. I know they are sick of AE but when editors break the rules it needs to be handled. It is inexcusable that some editors have so many sanctions (12 is the most it looks like) so if admins simply process these efficiently then tings should go smoother.Cptnono (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Exempting reverts of new users/IPs from 1RR is begging for trouble with confusion in enforcement and I am pessimistic so assume it will open up gaming. Who is new anyways? That threshold alone will cause confusion. Cptnono (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

George's suggestion

I don't think any of the current suggestions addresses the real problem, which is that some editors in this topic area are overzealous in their support of one side or the other. When an ordinary editor is sanctioned, they change their problematic behavior. When a zealot is sanctioned, they circumvent the sanction.

Why are zealots the problem?

When a zealot gets sanctioned, they create a sock puppet to circumvent those sanctions. There is nothing more demoralizing than finding out that an editor you've been trying to work with for several weeks was topic banned two months earlier. Rampant sock puppetry leads to distrust between editors on both sides, each side fearful that the editors on the other side are part of some secret cabal trying to undermine Wikipedia. That fear destroys good faith, without which petty disputes and sarcasm quickly escalate into edit wars and personal attacks. The root cause of these flare ups is not differences of opinion, it's a distrust of "the other side".

It's okay, we have a system to catch sock puppets.

Quite frankly, it doesn't work. Sock puppets are only detected when they slip up, and they've gotten better and better at hiding. There are instructions out there on how to behave like an uninvolved editor to avoid detection as a sock or meat puppet. These editors take advantage of CheckUser data only being stored for so long. Lately there's been a rash of editors in this topic area requesting administrators wipe out any edits that reveal their IP address, making it even harder.

Sock puppetry isn't a big deal, anyways.

By itself, it may not be. The actual edits of those sock puppets are often no worse than those of your average, biased editor. But accusing another editor of being a sock puppet builds incredible animosity between editors. Editors on both sides view these accusations as an attack on their ally, regardless of whether the accusation ends up being correct or not.

Whether you love or hate Nableezy, they are exceedingly good at detecting sock puppets. But look at the commentary on Stellarkid's SPI case. From Epeefleche: "Nableezy's 'WOWEEEEE -- I GOT HIM/HER -- CAN'T WAIT TO SHARE THIS 'EVIDENCE' contribution to this discussion may, perhaps, be more illuminating as to Nableezy's desire to reach a result here that accords with his personal POV, than to anything else... This beyond baseless, meritless effort -- She is a waste of time... Good faith and civility might be thought by some to require such a check, where there could be any doubt, before making such a negative public accusation against another editor." From Jiujitsuguy: "Hey Nab are you now going to accuse me of being a sock of Epeefleche? ... Golly gee! I guess I must be a sock of Stellarkid as well. In fact, we must be all socks of each other! Get a grip." Stellarkid was subsequently found to be a sock puppet of the banned user Dajudem. To the best of my knowledge, neither of those editors apologized to Nableezy for their comments, and the sarcastic incivility just turned the temperature up a notch.

But we block sock puppets!

Poorly, as evidenced by serial sock puppeteers like NoCal100 (12 sock puppets) and Dajudem (7 sock puppets). Worse, they're probably still editing here under different names. They get harder and harder to detect, and the tools being used to stop them aren't sufficient to the task. And when they are found out, trust gives way to animosity. A handful of these serial sock puppets have incalculably degraded the cooperative atmosphere in this topic area.

So what do we do?

Long term topic bans and blocks do not work, as they just lead to more sock puppets and more distrust. Negative reinforcement, when too easy to circumvent, does not encourage good behavior, it encourages people to circumvent the system. The solution we need is positive reinforcement.

How do we achieve this? First, we place all these articles in the disputed area under a 0RR restriction. Second, we create an opt-in program that allows users to sign up for random CheckUser checks against themselves. This would just be a page where editors could sign their own names. An administrator would go through that list at random intervals (maybe once a week), running CheckUser on every name listed, to verify that none of them is a sock puppet. In exchange, editors who sign up on that list would not be bound by the 0RR restriction on those articles.

I think it's pretty simple, doesn't require any major changes to Wikipedia's policies, and will really rebuild trust among serious editors. It discourages sock puppetry, and makes circumventing topic bans or blocks a worthless endeavor. I can't count how many times both sides have accused each other of secretly trying to undermine Wikipedia. When you know the editor you're having a discussion with hasn't been banned a dozen times before for problematic behavior and ulterior motives, it makes the whole environment much less vitriolic, which in turn will keep the flames of edit warring and personal attacks down. ← George ^talk 21:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• What George talks about here is the truth, this is the real problem, I brought up something similar to PhilKnight that Arab-Israeli conflict articles should be locked down from all IPs and "normal" accounts. Georges suggestion about an opt-in program is great and will fix this. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• I disagree. Socks are indeed a problem but saying they are the problem is a bit of a stretch. That said, if there was a flag similar to autoconfirm, let's call it confirmed-for-problem-topics, which users would get only after a significant amount of edits in other areas, and which could be revoked by the admins, that would help both enforce topic bans and block all but the most determined socks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• No because socks would get caught in the opt-in program. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
• Having a flag isn't a bad idea, but how is "a significant amount of edits in other areas" a better metric than an opt-in random CheckUser screening in order to get this flag? Sock puppet guides already advise socks to edit outside the topic area for weeks or months to avoid detection upon their return, so I think your suggestion is just easier to game than an opt-in CheckUser. That said, the nice thing about this being a flag is that the flag, earned and maintained via an opt-in CheckUser, could be revoked by admins for other reasons. I also would like to see some sort of "amnesty" period for former sock puppets to come out of the woodwork without repercussions. Overzealous editors aren't going away, so we might as well try to integrate them, and channel their energies into more positive results. Stellarkid, for instance, was blocked for sock puppetry more than a year after their original one year block had expired (which was more the result of a witch hunt and making an example out of someone). I think editors like that could be allowed another chance to join the community, even if they are currently operating as sock puppets. ← George ^talk 23:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• I guess it's not technically possible, since it requires additional user access level. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry Che, which part isn't technically possible? I don't think the system could enforce 0RR, there would just be a message at the top of the edit page that "This page is limited to 0RR, except to editors with the 'clean editor' flag". That flag would be the same level as the current user rights flags like rollback, autopatrol, and confirmed. Editors without that flag who violated 0RR would face the usual punishments. ← George ^talk 23:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• 0RR is not needed, It would be better to just have the articles completely locked down for IPs and accounts without the flag.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think a full lock down is necessary, but whether it is 0RR or completely locked down might be on a page-per-page basis, based on how bad edit warring is there. I've debated between 1RR, 0RR, and a full lock down, and I'm not sure which is best. ← George ^talk 23:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
• I'm pretty sure any new flags can not be easily added for technical reasons. However I'm not an expert in wikipedia infrastructure. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• If that's the case, I'm fine with my original proposal of just using a list of people who have opted-in as well. ← George ^talk 23:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, this would require programming, which is outside the scope of what can be decided here. It think it would be a very useful tool if it was ever implemented though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

This still does not solve the problem of editors who are repeatedly banned/blocked for disruptive or battlefield behavior, nor does it help solve the issue with editors who have POV problems but fail to recognize it when it is pointed out to them by administrators. The socks are a serious problem that could be dealt with using an autoblock, since most of them come from the same range of IP addresses (Ontario, Israel, New Mexico), but it doesn't solve the other issue regarding behavior. Until then, we have a bunch of "repeat offenders" trying to find a way to accomplish their preconceived outcome by gaming and twisting established Wikipedia policy. Its like having a bunch of people guilty of running stop lights, trying to argue for traffic safety laws. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 23:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I truly think that about half of the problem behavior in this topic space is due to a lack of good faith and trust between the two sides, which is due in large part to sock puppets, meat puppets, and off-wiki coordination (or the perceived existence of such). Without any way for editors to "opt-in", to create a way to let others trust them, editors will continue their behavior, regardless of if any or all of the current options are adopted. You can put as many band-aids on the problem as you like, but none of them is large enough to cure the infection. ← George ^talk 23:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• No, this won't work. Same reason we don't checkuser RfA candidates, and don't use checkuser to prove innocence. It's too easy to evade if you know that you will be checked. T. Canens (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

How is it easy to evade? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Too easy with some technical knowledge. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe some can, but not all, see Drork and NoCal100 for example. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it easy to evade when the checks are made randomly, on a recurring basis? If you don't know if you'll be checked today, tomorrow, or three weeks from now? ← George ^talk 23:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

May be. I really would not like to discuss it deeper: WP:BEAN --ElComandanteChe (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, and it still does not address long term behavior problems. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 23:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does, These users coming back are the long term problematic users who are banned, and without getting a protection from them, they will continue to come back. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really, because you still have editors who are short-term blocked/banned repeatedly and who never learn, rather they just find new ways to circumvent WP rules to accomplish their own POV...Or they choose to turn numerous articles into battlegrounds until other editors grow tired and give up... Blocking the socks is only part of the problem, as I stated previously[2]. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 23:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

But the socks are one of the biggest problems, so to take care of them would change a lot, but we would still have the problems with the pov pushing editors, the fault is Wikipedia admins who don't do anything, for example: at Rachels Tomb: when someone ads a map of Israel for a location in the West Bank, and no admin does anything, then that editor can continue to edit Wikipedia in a non neutral manner, this is the problem, If admins banned editors who are pov pushing, then the problems would stop. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

May be I have missed something, but what is proposed to deal with socks? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 00:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Georges main post above. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Those editors who get short-term blocked/banned repeatedly, and turn WP into a battleground, do so because they are facing an enemy they suspect surrounds them in the way of sock puppets, meat puppets, and off-Wiki collaboration by "the other side". They're pushing their POV because they think the other side is as well, but they're afraid the other side is doing it better. I've read umptine comments in these disputes from both sides that make it clear that both sides suspect the other of this sort of behavior. Unless you eliminate that fear, you do nothing to solve the real problem. ← George ^talk 00:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

To quote a short green fellow, "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." Editors fear sock puppets. This fear leads to edit wars and gaming the system. Edit warring leads personal attacks. Personal attacks, and general bickering, means we all suffer. ← George ^talk 00:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thats not all of the problems. There are numerous editors who fail to see their own POV or recognize that their own viewpoints are just a different POV. Tenacious editing and battlefield behavior has little to do with thinking everyone around them is a sock/meatpuppet, and more to do with the inability to work well with those who hold different views. To say its the pro-Israeli sockmachine/meatpuppet that is the root of all the problems, is a bit shortsighted. (I'm unaware of a pro-Arab sockmachine, but maybe one exists, i'm just more familiar with the damage caused by NoCal and his compadres) Wikipedia is a privilidge not a right. If you turn wikipedia into a battleground, regardless of reason, it drives good editors away while leaving those who want to continue to battle. Editors who treat WP as their own personal battleground are a detriment to WP as a whole, not just the IP arena. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 00:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with nsaum. I really don't follow you with all this talk about fear of sockpuppets. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think these battlefield warriors exist? Do you think their goal is to subvert Wikipedia, to make their own view of reality the world's view? No. They exist because they're afraid that if they don't defend Wikipedia from the nefarious "other side", that the "other side" will subvert Wikipedia to make their view of reality the world's view. Both sides think that (just this last week Jaakobou accused RolandR of acting as Nableezy's meat puppet, not because he had IP evidence linking the two, but because he thought he saw it in the behavior he was witnessing). None of the current options presented does anything to assuage those fears. Unless you address that—whether through stopping the numerous sock puppets that run rampant in this arena in order to build an oasis for honest discussion, or in some other way—you haven't addressed the problem, you've only put yet another hurdle in front of warriors on both sides that have gotten all too good at jumping over them. ← George ^talk 00:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

But there in lies the problem. People willing to destroy Wikipedia at all costs to "defend" it from "them". If you intend to use WP as a battleground to "defend" it from "others, then you really don't belong editing here (per WP rules)...just as those who are here to push a POV at all costs, do not belong here. You can disagree with others POV without resorting to turning everything into a battleground. But unfortunately they choose to go over everything with a fine tooth comb, trying to ensure that they are still "on top". This doesnt build an encyclopedia, it builds a battleground. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 00:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. But I don't think you can stop them, because the more you try to stop them, the more they view their own behavior as "protecting" Wikipedia from you, the person trying to stop them from "protecting" it. The whole process builds bad blood. You can either try to build a situation where the two sides don't think the other is trying to harm Wikipedia (my suggestion), or you lock the whole thing down so that no one can do anything, and then nobody is building a battleground, but nobody is building an encyclopedia either. ← George ^talk 00:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, George, that the "other side" is not just I for P and P for I, it's anyone who doesn't agree with their version of events. I've seen edits sourced to the BBC, NYT and several other gold standard news sources rejected as POV.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Quite honestly, we already have rules for dealing with things like that, and these options don't do much to address lack of enforcement on those. I think administrators in general have become lax on enforcing them because of all the other crap that goes on in the topic area. I'd like to address that other crap, so we can get the engine running again, before we worry about how fuel efficient it is. ← George ^talk 00:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's an idea that's a little left field: how about all editors subject to sanctions have to apologise for and acknowledge their error before the sanction is lifted? (i.e. blocks would be a minimum length and require an open apology to be lifted). As a long-term resident of Japan, I've seen (and experienced) the impressive social-regulatory power of having to make clear apologies, even if you don't think you've done anything wrong. It's humiliating, and as a result, you're damn sure not to make the same mistake again that led to the situation. The level of mistrust and intense dislike between users would ensure such a salutory effect here. Other users would be required to accept the apology in good faith. Editors can't go back and say publicly they didn't mean it and their treatment was unfair, because that would be a violation of the conditions for the sanction being lifted. Acknowledging the judgement of the community is what a good faith editor does anyway. As I say, it may seem a bit left field, but there's a lot of vanity and pride floating around clogging things up. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It is easier to demand an apology than to deliver one. An apology loses much of its weight if it is mandated. Editors should not have to make amends if they feel a block was unjustified. I'm a pessimist and would expect non-apology apologies.Cptnono (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono - I don't mean other users get to demand them, which is what WP:Apology is about. It's that the blocking (i.e. uninvolved) admins should require an apology on the relevant talkpage as a matter of course. Yes, it is very hard to deliver an apology, and that's the point (and it can be difficult to accept as well, but necessary). Sockpuppets and block lists as long as your arm show that avoiding sanctions carries no motivational weight at all for a large number of users in this area. But given the nature of the dispute and the antipathy, an apology would far more effective in regulating behaviour. Refusal to apologise, combined with semi-protection, would mean those incapable of following this would choose to indefinitely block themselves, and have to work that bit harder with new identities and sockpuppetry. It's not the be all and end all, but I think it might have a good effect on the editing culture. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You did not address that a forced apology is not much of an apology. Also, Nableezy once apologized for being uncivil. It was part of the reason an enforcement request was withdrawn. What happened? He continued over and over again. So obviously apologies don't mean much.Cptnono (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said, it's not a perfect panacea, and the problem with Nableezy is the general one - too much tolerance of bad behaviour, which will cause any approach to fail. But it would improve the atmosphere. Actually, in nableezy's case it shows that we already value apologies as mitigating problems, so I'm not being completely crazy here. His abuse of that should have been dealt with more severely. I sense with many of the worst editors on either side a fixed, hermetic and particular world view, energised with a sense of persecution and a certain paranoia, that normal sanctions won't change their approach. It actually possibly reinforces their mindset. Having to admit their faults themselves can address this, introducing some long overdue cognitive dissonance. (Forced apologies still have meaning for most people. I've seen westerners in Japan choose to lose their jobs than apologise, and that's in a place where it's accepted that your public declarations and private opinions are often completely different - it's amazing how much egotism can get in the way of doing what's rational).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

What's the right way to address the long term behavior problems then? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with the implication of all this - that the balance between neutral and POV editors is the problem. POV editors will always exist. Most difficult areas I have seen on wikipedia have been ultimately managed by ensuring that there is a critical relative mass of editors determined to push through NPOV. This is done through increasing the number of good (preferably experienced) editors (attracting the attention of the wider community) and decreasing the number of bad ones (blocks and bans). This helps the potentially good ones realise who is actually on the side of the angels. One way of managing this is defining more clearly what counts as bad behaviour in this particular topic area. I think that a series of high level content guideline decisions need to be made for Israel/Palestine conflicts, which should not be violated. Generally worded sanctions that do not mention specific content issues are more easily evaded.— Preceding unsigned comment added by VsevolodKrolikov (talk • contribs)

Comment - I wonder if it would help if more people took an active role in asking editors who look like sockpuppets whether they are sockpuppets and asking them to stop. I mean people from the same side of the fence. For example, would this guy stop if Brewcrewer or Shuki or NMMNG etc asked them to stop ? This guy, looks like a sock to me. Would they respond honestly to questions from fellow 'pro-Israel' editors ? Sean.hoyland - talk 03:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You know that isn't how it works. People look at socking as a game and that isn't changing regardless of who asks. You are right though. Everyone needs to start reporting everyone instead of doing it when it suits their interests. Another editor here admitted to having a good idea who a sock was and not pulling the trigger since they had not pissed them off.Cptnono (talk) 03:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually don't really know how it works. People are complicated. It's a question that I genuinely don't know the answer to. I assume anyone who persistently uses sockpuppets is in some sense sociopathic to a degree. I'd really like to be proved wrong, see someone apologise for their dishonesty, explicitly agree to abide by policy in future and make a fresh start. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

What is the value of asking sockpuppets if they are sockpuppets? Is this a procedural step or do people sometimes confess?

I'm not entirely sure what the deal with socking is, I assume it's the same motivations as Griefing with some aspects of edit-warrior/crusading thrown in. Unfortunately, investigating and reporting sockpuppets requires some time invested and, given the ease of creating accounts, you could tie up opposing editors for days in trying to prove you are a sockpuppet; in the mean time you've moved on to another account or are back at work on your main account with the opposition distracted. That's been the recent trend, obvious sock puppets making a handful of edits and disappearing. If the idea ever catches on then it will be serious trouble. In a world where sockpuppets rule the wikis, the living will envy the dead. I call it the "Asockalypse". Sol (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

^{*NOTE: Sol has been banned from Wikipedia.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)}

"Asockalypse", marvelous. I guess the procedural value of asking someone if they are a sockpuppet is to give them an opportunity to say yes and provide the WP:SOCK#LEGIT-reason. It was great to see George give it so much thought and the weight I think it deserves. I can't think of a way of really dealing with it without hurting the innocent. Obviously hurting the innocent is a fine tradition in the I-P conflict so maybe we should try that e.g. NoCal socks again, someone else gets blocked for a week e.g. Jimmy Wales, doesn't matter who it is or what side they support. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Further out of the Box

Working from ideas of User:Ravpapa :

OK, this problem is extremely difficult so let's really explore way-out ideas. As I see it the problem is that there are teams and, as a somewhat biased editor there is absolutely no reason for me to rein in the extreme editors on my team. They are my storm-troopers. They fight the other team. Then I can slip in behind them and look as though I'm unbiased. I can push in quite a lot of bias with the protection of my storm-troopers. You have to find a way to persuade the moderate members on a team to hold back the extremists.

So how about if people who want to edit an article have to register for one team or the other? Then each team produces an article and the larger community chooses between the two versions. The chosen version stays set in stone for 6 months and then they go through the same process again. There is a strong motive to make the article more centerist, because the wider community will pick the more moderate article. Just try it on one article as an experiment.

The difficulty I see with this scheme is that the teams will (of course) try to game the system and pack the final selection procedure. But at the very least it should soak up one heck of a lot of their time, and give moderates a reason to pull back their own extremists instead of just passing that job along to admins.

Hey, if you don't like the idea, come up with one of your own. This really needs creative thinking, not just variants on failed methods. Dingo1729 (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

All this talk of teams is a bit worrisome and perhaps creating something from nothing. From what I see here, we have a bunch of individuals watching each others user contributions (or watchlisting a zillion articles :-s, many who have clearly taken a side, but to go as far and say they are teams or to encourage this? That would create more of a problem. --Shuki (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

My 'further out of the box' proposal would be to permit an editor one comment per 12 hours on these discussions. They are turning into a mere forum and a very hard to follow discussion, which is very hard to join into. --Shuki (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani has brought to my attention that the idea of advocacy editing was tried successfully at Shakespeare Authorship Question. I haven't actually scoped this yet, but, according to Nishidani, after a bloody edit war, the intervening admin told the two parties to write their own versions in sandboxes, and they then went through a merge process. The resulting article has (again, according to Nishidani) held up without serious disruptions.

The most important thing I have to say, though, is that we will not solve the problem by demonizing the adversaries. Assume good faith is not a mere guideline; it is a transcendent truth. Everyone on this project, from the most mild-mannered to the most militant, is working to promote a Weltanschauung that he or she sincerely, and perhaps passionately, believes in. If we accept that fact, then we must reach an inevitable conclusion: that disruptive editing practices are not the result of evil intent, but of a social dynamic built into the way Wikipedia is written.

And that further means that, if we want to eliminate edit warring, sockpuppetry and teamtagging, we must create an editing environment where those behaviors do not pay off. We have to create an editing environment where rewards for cooperation and negotiation are built into the process, and nastiness reduces the chances of a person's edits getting accepted.

Police actions are doomed to failure. Their only effect will be to turn the admins into the bad guys. And you can see the first hints of that process here. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As one who was involved in the Shakespeare authorship question experiment, I have to say I think "advocacy editing" is the wrong term. We tried to write to WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:RS. I'm sure the other side thought they were doing the same, but their bias is so much a part of their outlook it rapidly became clear to all that they really did not understand the difference between advocacy and neutrality. Even after the articles were essentially written, it took a lot of outside administrative action to have the article put in the mainspace, and I'm sure we haven't seen the last of disruption over the issue, especially since the plans are to revise the other articles to meet Wikipedia standards. You can visit the two competing versions: Version 1 Version 2 Version 2 is now essentially the mainspace article.

All that being said, there were certain immediate benefits to the experiment. For one thing, it calmed down the mainspace article talk page, which allowed those we were only in it for the drama to fade away. For another, it stabalised the page for the 8 months the two sandbox pages were being edited, no small benefit. Since the article was put into the mainspace, the page is very stable. Plans are to improve it to GA--and if possible, FA--status to stablise it even futher. I don't know whether an experiment such as this will work with this topic, but it can't hurt to try. One thing is for sure: Wikipedia is going to have to look at other alternatives for editing controversial topics; the system model is not sufficient to withstand persistent and determined POV warriors. In this case, it became distressingly obvious where most of the disruption came from and a topic ban became necessary to keep from groundhogging the situation yet again, which had been the result of all previous grievance actions. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

{edit conflict}This (think outside of the box) idea from Ravpapa is very good and puts his finger right on it. - [3]

Everything is POV, thus nothing is a FORK. 1948 War of Independence & the Nabka are TWO entirely different things. Everyone who edits this area is a partisan, one way or the other. It is endless and will continue to be endless until some new thinking is advanced. The sides should be separated and each side could edit its own view. I am confident each side can write an excellent and coherent article. I suggest reinviting Jayjg and Nishidani and any of the good and knowledgeable editors who have been previously banned. Each side could have the same tag, eg:(for the Palestinian view, see Nakba)- (for the Israeli view, see Israel's War of Independence. Both sides represented. Challenges to the other side's article can be presented in AfD's and RfC's point by point. Not on the article itself or its talk page. As it stands now, the two sides are at a particular article's talk page (pick any article), not to improve the article, but to make sure that their perspective (which is the right version of reality and 100% neutral) is heard over the other guy's. The way I see it (partisan) is that neither the Israeli view or the Jewish view of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war is fully or clearly represented. Look for instance at Nakba& some of the 150 articles that the Nabka currently figures in

• Nakba Day
• Nakba denial
• Eilabun massacre
• The Palestinian Catastrophe 1948
• List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus a redirect from List of towns and villages depopulated during Al-Nakba
• Naksa Day
• 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramla
• Arab-Palestinian of 1948
• Estimates of the Palestinian Refugee flight of 1948
• History of the Palestinian people (section Al Nakba (1947-1949))
• 1949-1956 Palestinian exodus
• Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine War
• 1948 Palestine war
• Palestinian right of return ,and
• Jewish Nakba (how ridiculous is that?)

Clearly the Palestinian view is not underrepresented. Where is the Jewish view? For Israel and the Jews, this was not a catastrophe at all but their fight for a homeland, a war of Independence, a place for sheltering the remnant of Jews left from the Holocaust, a place hopefully to live in peace, to make their own rules. To the Arabs, the Holocaust was & is something that put more unwelcome Jews in their midst; Jews that "stole" their land. Ravpapa's suggestion has merit, though I would like to see both side's views published. Facts can be challenged, but it is not POV when what you are discussing actually is a POV. We do not need extra administrative layers or a bureaucracy to determine what is acceptable. We need Palestinian-sympathetic editors (who know who they are) to stay with their articles, and Israel-sympathetic ones (you know who you are) to stay with theirs. There are two viewpoints on virtually everything in this conflict area, and both sides should be presented equally. The way it is now is untenable. Also I agree with Shuki's suggestion that discussion on the talk page should be limited, assuming that things continue as they are. On a talk page where people are there to move the article forward, based on a particular POV, this issue should disappear. Also agree with Ravpappa's post above. A police state on Wikipedia would be a sorry end to a noble experiment. 172.190.238.148 (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

^{(who is this guy? is he my sockpuppet?)} --Ravpapa (talk) 06:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

naw, just like some of your ideas and they are the only one which might actually damp down all the bad behavior. 172.129.107.222 (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I kind of like the idea of the "Palestinian view"/"Israeli view" POV split, but it's a continuation of the false binary opposition in which this editing conflict is often defined, "Israel vs. Palestine" (although many of the issues listd by the IP are indeed POV issues). The problem is more of "the rest of the world's perspective vs. parts of Israel and Jewish Virtual Library et. al.". Most of these issues(settlements, borders, legality) are relatively clear cut from the perspective of governments and international bodies. For some reason (perhaps because they are seen as politically detrimental to Israel) these views are lumped into the "pro-Palestinian" camp, even some of the views held by the Israeli governments (the West Bank as occupied), and are then "balanced" by giving undue weight to a minority perspective. That minority perspective should be represented but not to the detriment of misrepresenting the majority view. Sol (talk) 15:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

^{*NOTE: Sol has been banned from Wikipedia.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)}

To address your issues, no, it is not a "false binary opposition" on my part. The 'Israel vs the rest of the world' is a false dichotomy. True there are a lot of individuals, groups, and governments that hold "pro-Palestinian" views, more than the reverse, but the Israeli view is not the "minority" view. Israel is one half of a conflict. The David to the Goliath, with each side seeing himself as David. The rest are cheerleaders. They are essentially uninvolved. They are not in the area suffering in any way from what goes on there. There are basically two and only two views with possibly some slight variations. One is Israel's view, and those of her sympathizers, versus (essentially all) the view of the Palestinians, the Arab governments, the Muslims worldwide, many "international bodies" as you put it, many other governments as well, liberals and liberal academia. Many and most so called "human rights groups". The garden-variety Jew haters. The Stormfront gang. That voice we hear anywhere and everywhere, and loud and clear on Wikipedia. I say if you want to write that article, whatever your religion or ethnicity, you can write that view into your version of events. In your article you can write out Israel's voice entirely if you like, demonize it completely if you can get consensus for it, call it the "Zionist entity" if you like but it would still be the "Palestinian" view of something and so named, it would be perfectly acceptable. If you came and tried to edit the Israeli viewpoint, which would have its own version of the topic with its own names and naming conventions, you could be removed by consensus if they felt that you were trying to insert the other side's POV into the article. No crossing back and forth except by invitation. Later perhaps parts could be merged to come together and that would be a good thing. As it is now, we have Palestinian voices trying to define all things Jewish or Israeli, and Palestinian editors owning their own articles. The Palestinian editors (and I don't mean by this ethnicity, but rather those who accept the "Palestinian narrative," as we have been calling it lately) 172.129.107.222 (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You didn't create the binary opposition but, judging by the category encompassing both Stormfront and the ICJ etc, this is a good example of it in play. One of the biggest editwar flashpoints is geography and what should be considered and treated as part of Israel (Golan, West Bank, the settlements, E. J'Lem, etc.) The international consensus is that these post-67 occupied territories aren't part of Israel (yet). Israel may consider them thus but no one else does. Hence we should acknowledge the Israeli viewpoint without artificially representing it. Same thing with any minority/partisan POV. That's it. That's neither pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian but it gets labeled pro-Palestinian. If you wanted something from the Stormfront perspective it would probably entail something like "Israel is not a country/should be destroyed/*insert more hateful nonsense*" or just not having it on the map and there's no reason to balance around those kinds of extreme views. Sol (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

^{*NOTE: Sol has been banned from Wikipedia.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)}

" We need Palestinian-sympathetic editors (who know who they are) to stay with their articles, and Israel-sympathetic ones (you know who you are) to stay with theirs. There are two viewpoints on virtually everything in this conflict area, and both sides should be presented equally." NO. Wikipedia is not, or rather, should not be a place everything must be presented equally, and certainly not a place where there are articles that contradict each other. Some folks seem to forget that beyond the drama boards, there are many, many people who go to Wiki for information. Hopefully reliable information. They don't know about the conflicts or even the talk pages. They just want to know something. This is an encyclopedia, not a "he said, she said" opinion forum. Will each article that "belongs" to a certain "side" have a disclaimer at the top? Will it have internal links to the "other side"? Won't that be fun? A new avenue for fighting...keeping and inserting the internal links? I can imagine the precedent THAT would set for Wikipedia. And the losers would be the readers of the encyclopedia. Well that, and any reputation that Wikipedia has as a supposed encyclopedia. This outside view as been brought to you by someone who once thought to contribute to Wikipedia as an editor in other subjects, but found the POV warriors too much to handle. Them and the returning POV socks. Gingervlad (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If we were talking merely of facts and not of the narrative that carries the facts, you would be correct. But we are not presenting mere facts, but facts with spin, facts from this RS or not source, facts from this biased source or that. Now I am not saying that every single article in WP should be like this, but if an article is seemingly too controversial, too many edit warriors, too much AE etc, why not opt for each side writing their own? At the top of the article it will say for example Resolution 242(Israeli view) For the Palestinian view see Resolution 242 (Palestinian view). That way Wikipedia doesn't have to chose a side, the readers can. Presumably the articles will be fact checked, since each side is still responsible for the Wikipedia rules involving reliably sourced material. 172.129.107.222 (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I can see countless problems with this proposal. Would editors be required to declare their "camp" for each article, or as a general statement? I, for instance, am clearly recognised as pro-Palestinian; but there are some (highly contentious) articles where I frequently make parallel edits to those made by "pro-Israel" editors, while they are contested by others thought to be on "my" side. I don't want to specify, but many editors will recognise the articles I refer to. Would I be required to register (falsely) as a "pro-Israel editor" in order to edit on such articles?

And what would happen if other editors in one "team" objected to the presence of another, denying that they were "pro-Palestinian" or "pro-Israeli"? What about malicious sock-puppets affiliating to one camp in order to make articles ridiculously and extremely POV, in an attempt to discredit them? The more I think about, the more I oppose this suggestion. It would be a disaster, a minefield, and a source of heightened, rather than lowered, administrative and procedural problems. RolandR (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You aren't thinking outside of the box, Roland. Once sides have been clearly drawn in an article and it is apparently at loggerheads, reverts, edit warriors, rudeness, 3 RR or 1RR blocks etc you go to Plan B. Plan B says we divide the article into two. We will write ours, and you will write yours. Your POV is King at your article and mine is King at mine. We should each be able to write a more put-together article. Later if we can agree on things, one can fuse the two articles together. Now is not the time however. As for editors objecting to the presence of another on a particular article, I would say if the majority agrees that a particular person is a detriment to the article he should be asked not to edit it. Perhaps he could edit the other side's. If your viewpoint is entirely different from the majority of those on your "side" and it has support in mainstream sources, it should be permitted to be in the article. But that you would have to work out with your co-editors. All of this could be done without administrative interference unless someone who was asked by the majority to desist from editing continued to do so. And I would hope the administrators would back up the consensus at the article. 172.129.107.222 (talk) 03:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The point is, even though we are editing our own sides and POV, we are still responsible for the Wikipedia rules and style. This is true for both sides. So we must tell the facts as straightforwardly and honestly as possible. We would just tend to be more WP:CIVIL with each other, and actually be able to write a coherent article without spending weeks and months quibbling over a word or two, reverting all the other guy's stuff, reporting him to some board, taking up people's time with this BS, which is very upsetting to most everyone and far far away from what most people came here to do. As I have said, maybe later the two viewpoints can be fused into a fair and neutral article which does credit to both sides. In the meantime, let the reader decide. Let them look at the references and go from there. We are not here to tell the readers what their opinion should be. 172.129.107.222 (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

More than that. In my original suggestion, writers of one version would be required to include all referenced facts of the other version. They could treat those facts any way they liked - bury them in a footnote, phrase them in negative rather than positive language - but they must appear. This means that the difference between the two versions is only one of presentation, not of factual content.

It is the presentation, and not the factual content, that creates the slant in most articles. As an example of how this works, you can see my essay User:Ravpapa/The Politicization of Wikipedia.

When the factual content is identical in the two versions, it might be possible to merge them. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 07:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The dichotomy between the Israeli and the Palestinian point of views is a problem of pov-pushers. Wikipedia deals with scholars points of view based on universitary sources. That is not more difficult than that. Noisetier (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I am confused by your comment. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with what I wrote? (or simply adding something else?). --Ravpapa (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I answered mainly to the IP. I was ironic with his comments. There is not an Israeli point of view or a Palestinian point of view. The simple use of this vocabulary shows a total misunderstanding of the wikipedia concepts and rules. We don't take care any of both these points of view. They are not pertinent or admissible. We report the points of view of scholars who studied the topics that are developed in the articles. And the problems we face are indeed due to both these families of editors who are here to defend these points of view (or the interests of communities) that we don't have to take care about here. Noisetier (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Even further out of the box

1. Semi-protect everything affected.
2. New editors may not enter the topic area until they have at least 500 edits elsewhere.
3. New editors with less than 1000 edits total are subject to 1RR.
4. Editor 1RR restrictions handed out as appropriate.

Rd232 ^talk 16:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a really good suggestion and will also take care of some of the socks. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about number 3 but other than that I like it. Number 2 would cut down on flagrant socking and make a ban really hurt. Sol (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

^{*NOTE: Sol has been banned from Wikipedia.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)}

Software does not support such restrictions so admins would have tons of clean up. Since AE is already bogged down I doubt this would be successful. Cptnono (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The community would take care of it. There is no problem. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

How would the edit total allowances be implemented? The community failing to keep the topic area in check is why this is hear so an additional and uncommon burden will not be an improvement. Semiprotection is not a bad idea at all but from my experience, admins are reluctant to add it to individual articles unless there is significant levels of edit warring or vandalism. But if admins chose to do that here then it would be sweet.Cptnono (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The user without enough edits would get reported by any other user, same way 3RR works. And his edits could be reverted as they would have been "illegitimate" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

We can't even get a system in place for admins to notify editors of the arbitration. I just don't see admins being able or wanting to accept the extra task.Cptnono (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(od) There are advantages to replacing a complex task requiring admin judgement with a simple rule that any editor can explain, with reference to a note on every affected talk page linking to a more detailed explanation. I admit I haven't thought it through in any depth, it's a bit blue-sky thinking, but on the face of it I don't see enforcement of this being all that difficult, compared to a lot of other enforcement issues. Rd232 ^talk 20:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

All this is making me think that what we really need is a couple of admins to volunteer to be on "I-P patrol". If we could get a couple of fairly strict admins, preferably ones with no history in the topic area (no offense meant to anyone, I just think a clean slate would be helpful to preempt any allegations of prejudgment). That, with a Troubles-like general sanction should clean things up pretty quickly I think. I also agree that a fairly large minimum edit count would be helpful in blocking socks, as I said above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I found one two uninvolved admins who speedy deleted Itamar Ben Gvir when it was created with a line saying he was a Kahanist. They said unsourced that it violated BLP. Quite impressive since he is very proud of being a 'Kahanist' but these admins saw it superficially, and I was impressed with that. --Shuki (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This is only dealing with part of the problem, while failing to address the current battlefield behavior held by longtime editors that has led to the meltdown at AE. Behavioral problems of longterm editors need to be addressed, or this whole discussion is for naught. No one who regularly edits in the IP arena is neutral, but that is human nature. The problem is that editors need to recognize that their viewpoint is just another POV and no more valid or "correct" than anyone else here on wikipedia. Unfortunately that fails, especially when an editor on (on either side) is "convinced" that he/she holds the "neutral, npov, truth" while considering their opponents as "POV-pushing".

Allowing the community to police itself in regards to users "with not enough edits" is destined to lead to more AE drama. You are essentially allowing the "fox to guard the hen house". This would ensure that one side maintained an advantage over the other. Autoblocks for certain IP ranges (known to be used by certain sockpuppetters) would help, with users registering from those IPs needing to be exempt from the Autoblock. This is already done on WP to lock down IPs that have a high amount of vandalism from them.

The real question is, are we going to address the problem of battlefield editors who go over everything with a fine-tooth-comb to ensure it adheres to their particular beliefs? or are we going to ignore the source of the problem and allow this mess to continue. Editors who continue to rack up blocks, bans, or who display the inability to understand that they are no more "right or neutral" than anyone else, are not going to create a good encyclopedic environment -- only more battlefields and continued AE drama. I understand the desire for self-preservation amongst editors and I understand the Admins desire to take the route that is the easiest to implement, however in the end everyone (and encyclopedia itself) suffers from such decisions. Having foxes take sides in the best way to defend the henhouse, will not solve the problems with IP articles. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 23:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your fox metaphor. I've yet to hear better solution which is actually practical. Praying for better AE enforcement isn't going to achieve anything. Instituting a simple rule which reduces socking and ensures that genuine new editors have a modicum of WP experience before being exposed to the white heat I/P articles ought to be good for everyone, once it's set up and people get the hang of it. And much less reliant on admins to enforce, freeing them up to focus on the longer-term battleground editors, initially with 1RR restrictions. However, whilst I think this would be worth trying, I'm waiting for a crowd of people to turn up saying it's contrary to the founding principle of "anyone can edit". (To which I'd counter - well if I/P drives out non-battleground editors, as it's widely agreed it generally does, then really it's "any zealot can edit", so we might as well take drastic measures since the founding principle has already been perverted in this topic area.) Rd232 ^talk 00:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Fox guarding the henhouse, ie: We should not let established users in the IP arena police itself, especially when it comes to deciding which "new users" have enough of an edit history to participate in relevant articles. It just begs for more AE drama. Heck, even asking established users (some of whom are part of the problem) for input on how laws should be changed/enforced with regards to behavior they are guilty of, is fulfilling this metaphor. Perhaps ARBPIA3 would be best suited to decide how previous ARBPIA rulings (now wikilawyered & gamed to death) should be changed and/or enforced. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 01:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL, I understand the phrase, just not its applicability. Establishing whether a user has more than X edits is neither difficult nor contentious, and any attempt to chase new editors away in bad faith will be pretty obvious and be noticed by the opposing camp, making an effective deterrent to misbehaviour on this, which arises precisely because it's pretty straight forward. Rd232 ^talk 02:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with nsaum75. This suggestion just establishes a bunch of bureaucratic layers that will create more problems then it solves. And that the reason that there is so much drama has more to do with established editors than with new ones, who are easily intimidated, make mistakes and are quickly ushered out. It is the established people who are most often seen on the admin boards, not the newbies. 172.129.107.222 (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

@rd232 - You'd be surprised how many editors have been chased away by the battlefield mentality of a number of editors here - yet nothing is *ever* said. Even if someone complains about the maltreatment, it is usually summarily ignored. One side may get angry when an editor is chased off, but all is quickly forgotten when a new new round of "AE gotcha" is begun.

Speaking of metaphors, I've often thought how IP/PI issues at AE are similar to a verbal lynching: A person is reported for a real or perceived infraction...Smelling blood, a mob shows up and starts declaring how their side/pov is the victim while the other side is wrong and full of subterfuge. Editors at the AE case get caught up in the moment and start reporting each other for various infractions because, what better way to prove you are "right" than by further tarnishing someone supporting the person in the original AE case. In the end, everyone gets slapped on the wrist, told to act better, and given token punishments. In reality, everyone just goes on trying to find a new vantage-point from which to achieve their preconceived outcome, until the next opportunity rises to "silence" the other side. Its sad, and maybe I'm the only person who views it this way, but if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...well, its certainly not a dove... --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 05:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Just would like to add that administrators that edit in the topic area should not be considered "uninvolved" and should not be permitted to use their tools against other editors in the area. 172.131.53.101 (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Option 3 seems to have a rough consensus

Given there seems to be a rough consensus in favor of option 3, should I go ahead and implement this? PhilKnight (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Two people have raised objections about the reverting of new users and I hope scrapping that late addition is considered. 1/rr is a great idea, though.Cptnono (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

While it was an interesting idea, I don't consider there's a consensus to exclude new users or IPs. PhilKnight (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - in its present form. Short-sighted option that will only exasperate "gotcha", tag-team behavior in articles and at AE while discouraging new genuine editors from coming on board (adding to the "witch-hunt" atmosphere). How many times have editors been given a 1RR and their edits are gone over with a fine-tooth-comb until something is found that will "stick" and effectively silence them? Of course, there's the possibility that "everyone" will get blocked for 1RR, but given the track record of admins not making decisive actions and relenting to the badgering/wikilawyering of blocked users, this is unlikely to happen. In essence, this is not reform, but only a consensus arrived at after consulting the fox who guards the hen house. Reform needs to be made by uninvolved 3rd parties, not by those who are frequently brought up at the IP/AE boards or those who regularly "enforce" actions reported at AE "game". --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 18:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you don't understand. I don't want a re-run of the arguments. I'm asking if there's enough of a consensus to implement, and certainly wasn't asking you to reiterate your view. PhilKnight (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there the ability to open an RfC about bringing the earlier ARBPIA ruling back to ArbCOM for clarification or adjustment? --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎}

I think you could just request a clarification from ArbCom at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. PhilKnight (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

PhilKnight, if someone violates the 1rr, would any other editor be able to "nullify" (revert) the edit in violation of the 1rr without it being counted as a revert? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. PhilKnight (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• The wording of Option 3 is: "Following the example of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies for AE case, the entire set of articles could be placed under 1RR."
• Can anyone who sees the value of Option 3 spell out some of the details, for example:

1. What is the extent of the articles that will be under 1RR?
2. Should a bot be employed to place a 1RR banner on all these articles? (In the Troubles case I don't think they had a banner)
3. Are people content for the 3RR noticeboard to be the usual place to bring 1RR complaints?

If all 1RR issues have to be brought to WP:AE, that board may bog down quickly. The 3RR board has taken care of many 1RR complaints in the past. (I can provide examples if needed). A concern with articles under 1RR is 'gaming', but if the admins at WP:AN3 are made aware of the possibility, they can use reasonable judgment. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we should follow the approach taken in The Troubles, which is:

1. All articles related to the conflict.
2. They didn't, so I don't see any pressing need, but I wouldn't object.
3. I guess either noticeboard would be ok.

PhilKnight (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Further questions: There's talk of including new users in the edits that can be reversed without penalty. Is that going to be implemented? It's not a perfect solution as it could drive off some new good faith editors but without it the sockmasters will run riot. Sol (talk) 04:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

^{*NOTE: Sol has been banned from Wikipedia.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)}

I would rather see people filing reports at AE or SPI for misuse of other accounts then people breaking 1/rr and defending it by saying they were simply reverting a new user. There are already too many accusations of gaming the system. 1/rr is 1/rr. Easy and simple, right?Cptnono (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right, that does make it simpler, hopefully. If socking got to be a problem then we might need to reconvene or perhaps give Phil the option of invoking the "New Editor 1rr Exception Corollary" without re-calling, if socking becomes a problem. Sol (talk) 05:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

^{*NOTE: Sol has been banned from Wikipedia.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)}

FWIW, I agree that there seems to be some consensus for option 3. ← George ^talk 11:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree Polargeo (talk) 11:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Closing

My current intention is to close this tomorrow, so that it will have been open a week. PhilKnight (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Good call Polargeo (talk) 11:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The other problem

Now that you have fixed the topic area, perhaps some thought can be put in to fixing WP:AE. Can somebody explain why involved users should be commenting at all at AE threads? What possible purpose does it serve? Why shouldnt the format be the person bringing the request makes the request, the accused responds (or not) and uninvolved admins and only uninvolved admins discuss what to do? I would post this to WT:AE but that is redirect to the ArbCom announcement talk page. nableezy - 19:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nableezy, you could post at Template talk:Sanction enforcement request. I think your idea is certainly worth discussing. PhilKnight (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. nableezy - 20:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Scope of 1RR

For the 1RR I was assuming the topic area extended to any conflicts involving Palestinians or Israelis & hence includes Damour massacre. Is this correct? And if not, where does the topic end?--Misarxist 11:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I dont think so. The Phalangists were backed by Israel, and Israel did involved itself in the Lebanese civil war, but that specific event had no Israeli involvement and was not part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is the topic area that ARBPIA covers. That, and the related Karantina massacre, was a strictly Arab issue without Israeli involvement. The topic area covered is the Arab-Israeli conflict, not all Arab conflicts, not all Israeli conflicts. nableezy - 17:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be better if the scope was formally defined via set memberships i.e. if an article is a member of any of these categories it's within scope. In practice though it doesn't seem to be ambiguous very often. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Exposing and preventing sockpuppets

I have another option to suggest. See:

• Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 1#Sockpuppet limitation summary

For more info and discussion about the issue read the talk sections above the section I linked to.

Israel-Palestine articles are plagued by sockmasters. I believe a single sockmaster has created hundreds of sockpuppets over time to work in this area. My proposal may slow them down severely.

Of course, some truly dedicated sockmasters will find ways around this, but anything that slows down the majority of sockmasters is a good thing.

To summarize this method: An email address would be required for all new user-name registrations. All user-names using the same email address are listed in the left sidebar of all the related user pages.

The email address itself is not publicly listed in order to maintain privacy. So nothing changes concerning user anonymity. Also, this method does not penalize people with legitimate reasons to use sockpuppets. In fact, this allows them to prove that their sockpuppets are being used legitimately. For example; bots, specialized watchlists, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As much as I loathe these sockmasters, this wouldn't work because of throw away email addresses. For instance, mailinator.com. You go to that site, enter any word whatsoever into the textbox, and you can view that mailbox. You don't need to signup, or even provide a password, making creating an email address as simple as choosing any random letters/numbers; it takes literally seconds to check any email address. ← George ^talk 00:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Most registration that requires an email address also requires verification. There are various forms of verification such as clicking a link from within the verification email, or replying to the email. One way to defeat Mailinator is to require a reply from the Mailinator email address. Mailinator accounts can not send email (see their FAQ), so they would not work for this kind of verification. So Wikipedia could send a verification email to the email address that is used for registration. A reply from that email address would be required to complete Wikipedia registration. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should WP:ITN area discussions on items in the WP:ARBPIA topic area be subjected to WP:ARBPIA itself?

Recent user issues at WP:ITN show that there could be an emergence of WP:BATTLEGROUND issues that could affect the functioning of the very important WP:ITN area (including all the ITN subpages and talk pages) - which needless to say, affects the Main Page. The original RfC was closed at WT:ITN as it was felt the forum was inappropriate. This forum seems to be the best one for the purpose. This RfC asks three questions:

1. Are threads related to I-P topics at WP:ITN subjected to the WP:ARBPIA sanctions?
2. Can un-involved admins notify about the sanctions to users there involved with the I-P conflict, as they do with issues in other areas under clear WP:ARBPIA sanctions?
3. Are previously formally notified editors subjected to Arbitration Enforcement as per WP:ARBPIA for behavior at WP:ITN?

To be clear, this RfC is not about specific user behavior: any current issues with particular users - if any - should be addressed via the usual DR channels.--Cerejota (talk) 21:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm an involved admin as far as ARBPIA goes, but I'd safely venture that the answer to all three questions is "yes". --Mkativerata (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes and obviously yes. Though there is little chance of a 1RR violation at ITN. Nightw 22:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I would say that editors who are subject to discretionary sanctions (ie have been notified of the relevant case) can be sanctioned for infringing posts at ITN (or anywhere else), and users who haven't been put on notice can be notified in relation to comments at ITN. Other than that, I would like to keep ARBPIA and ITN as far apart as is physically possible (and have no issue with blocking people who deliberately politicise ITN discussions, whether covered by discretionary sanctions or not). Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 22:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

question on ArbPIA

question I wandered here from WP:ITN because of my interest in the "CEO of the week saga". What is ARBPIA? How does it impact random passersby like me? --108.132.91.68 (talk) 10:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA is a case handled by the Arbitration Committee and a set of sanctions resulting from that case, that apply to all the topic areas of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, broadly construed, intended to address a number of significant issues with editor behavior in the topic area. It provides for severe general restrictions, such as 1RR instead of 3RR, and for special handling of other violations via Arbitration Enforcement rather than other processes. --Cerejota (talk) 11:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The impact on editors is described in practical terms in the "Remedies" section of the discretionary sanctions. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

RT (TV network)

New content has been added, edit warred over a bit, and discussed at RT (TV network) that may be in violation of WP:ARBPIA. I know very little about ARBPIA and would prefer not to get involved. This is not an enforcement request, just an alert to other editors who are unlikely to be watching that article. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)