Wikipedia talk:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars

Progress report?

OK. It's been a month now. Has anything actually happened? --Folantin (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There has indeed been progress—however, I hesitate at indicating the volume of progress that has been made, and similarly any specifics, being nought but an observer of the group, and being an individual who speaks for himself, rather than the work group as a whole. I'll raise the prospect of releasing some sort of statement to the Community, perhaps on this page, regarding progress thus far. In the meanwhile, thank you for your interest. AGK (contact) 19:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"some sort of statement to the Community". Good. That would be in the interests of transparency. Thanks. --Folantin (talk) 12:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a believer in transparency, hence why I proposed it. However, as some sort of disclaimer, I would like to note that (*goes into tannoy mode*) we are currently experiencing technical difficulties, and such a release may be subject to a small delay. Best, AGK (contact) 12:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. No problem. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

As you can probably surmise, I have failed to garner enough attention (let alone support) to push through this proposal. Anthøny 23:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Login

I can't log in. I can't even request a new password; in both situations I just get "Error". Any ideas? Daniel (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, since yesterday, all special pages have been down the dunny. I tried too. :s ~ Riana ⁂ 09:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a bug report made by a user, by since it's Saturday, this might take a bit. Maxim_(talk) 11:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Riana's right—the special pages are buggered. Daniel, I still have access—is there anything you need to see? AGK (contact) 12:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I made a note on the Main Page. (the actual one). I tried to hide some revisions, but sadly I forgot that Special:Log and Special:Undelete doesn't work. And I'm not tell you how to delete the Main Page, don't get any ideas. ;-) Maxim_(talk) 12:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea Maxim, I just noticed that. I can log-in, but that's probably because I was logged in with a remember-session cookie set before the troubles arose; nevertheless, I can't do anything else, bar view plain old pages. For the record, I've also inserted a site notice—it makes for higher visibility, and thus lower numbers of confused Work Groupers and Observers :) AGK (contact) 12:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I delete the Main Page, (in the process I disable the protection from deletion) and AGK of all people say "good idea, Maxim". :-p Maxim_(talk) 12:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, somebody else has managed to delete the Special:- prefix, so the lynch mob has their sights set on them—luckily for you ;P Does anybody know how long we're looking at until the problems are fixed? AGK (contact) 12:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Until the devs fix it, and it might take a while as it's Saturday in most places. Maxim_(talk) 12:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

A message at the top of the page says to check WT:WORKGROUP on EN, but that didn't lead anywhere, so I set it up as a redirect here to this page that we're on right now. --Elonka 23:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Good thinking, Elonka. I've also set up WP:WORKGROUP to lead to the project page—previously we only had WP:WORKINGGROUP. I won't add any more, however: we've got a fair number of redirects now :) AGK (contact) 23:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

bugzilla:13289 if you're interested in watching the progress of this bug, btw. ~Kylu (u|t) 08:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

All, the site is back up and running. AGK (contact) 19:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A question

Hi. i have a small question. is there any way to still apply to be involved in any way with this group? I have a few ideas which i would like to gradually offer. I didn't know about this group until just now. sorry to bother you. appreciate any help. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

We're trying to be pretty flexible, so I don't see why a qualified individual can't become a part of the group. You're best bet is to email arbcom-l (at) lists.wikimedia.org, and you might also want to get in touch with User:FT2, who's heading a lot of the operations from ArbCom's side. AGK § 20:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

hi. thanks for your help. I'll try that. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, mostly, does the group intend to inform those who don't have access to the wg wiki of any progress reports, or summaries of what's going on, what's being discussed. etc.? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently pushing for a proposal to post on-Wiki "minutes", or mini-status reports, of what's been happening, but it's receiving little attention, which is a little disheartening. Despite that, I'm unwilling to give any mention of what exactly has been going on, until a consensus is present amongst the WG members with regards to what information is to be communicated to the "outside world". I'll keep you posted. AGK § 16:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding Anthony. I understand a possible reluctance between WG members to say too much - it is a sensitive subject matter, etc. etc. (and I would ask for an observer status, except I don't really have the time, so it would feel like a waste.) Perhaps now that the issue has been raised here, if others will weigh in, other WG members may see more of a "want" for information. But yes, I will respect their consensus, and I'm in no hurry. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Along those lines, it has been about a month since I applied. Soon afterwards I was informed that there was an early positive reception on the group wiki, and I have not been able to receive any updates since then - perhaps somebody could look into it and see if there is any consensus / need for further discussion? Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall a mention of your name, yes. However, I'm an observer myself, so applications to the group are something which I tend not to get too involved in. Nevertheless, I'll have a look through for your application, and try and push for a consensus either way. Similar to my response to DHMO, above, I'll keep you posted ;) AGK § 13:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that will be much appreciated.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Brief update, discussion is ongoing. Anthøny 12:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to support Piotrus inclusion in this group; I found his input in the Czech and Slovak related discussions helpful, and the group seems to be missing any representation from our little wiki corner. I speak as the member and co-founder of the WikiProject Czech Republic and WikiProject Slovakia. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

For some time I had followed the Palestinian controversies and contributed some to the discussion there--there was a familiar feeling of polarization and entrenchment. Not to mention once being brave (or naive) enough to try to settle the Jogaila versus Jagiełło naming issue! Then there's Transnistria et al. The issue being addressed is certainly endemic. I would enthusiastically support including Piotrus in the group to expand constructive discourse to central and eastern Europe and the Baltics. I only recognize a very small number of the current membership. I somehow managed to miss the announcement of this group, otherwise I would have applied myself. —PētersV (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I too would support Piotrus' membership in this working group. He has shown himself a devoted administrator and a sterling article-writer, both of which oblige him to respect our neutrality policies. In the very heated area where he tends to operate (Poland/Lithuania/Belarus/Russia/Ukraine/Germany), he has managed to remain an unscathed beacon of impartiality in waters that often sully others with the taint of partisanship. Thus I am quite convinced he would make a worthy addition to this group. Biruitorul (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

While I support Piotrus' membership in this working group, I won't hold my breath. I sent an email via both User:FT2 and arbcom-l requesting observer status a month ago, and I didn't even get the courtesy of a reply. Martintg (talk) 10:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Martin, your application is also being considered. Please accept my apologies for a lack of reply from the AC list—obviously, I have no control over that, but I can assure you that your application is being discussed by the group, and a reply will be made public as soon as consensus is clear. In the meanwhile, thank you for your patience. Regards, Anthøny 21:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me try to succinctly describe my long experience with Piotrus. This is really a long time story.

As I'm graduate in humanities (Lithuanian history), so I supposed that I'm able to put something worthy into this project. I do not go into fields, I do not have a slightest idea about. But oh my, how much was I wrong. You can see, thet every single article about Lithuanian people before born before 1918 turns into a batllefield, every single Lithuanian-Polish encounter turns to a massive search for references most popular of them "who is guilty".

As a matter of fact I do avoid Piotrus (and 2 or three of his friends) as much as possible, to the point I've almost completely ceased editing two times. After some attempts to find a way to cooperate I've failed every single time. After my edits were reverted and my provided references were assigned as "not reliable", I've began to discuss things on talk pages. It didn't help, as the discussions tend to end into a kickstand without a possibility to find compromise.

I did try to stop editing articles and turned to categorizing them, later I've participated creating WikiProject Lithuania. Well, this turned out to be a bad idea, because it was used as a new way to track all Lithuania related articles, and "correct" them in the same manner. The same happened with my contributions list. See reaction to my latest activity, and here, [1] Now I'm forever stuck on talk pages, and short edits correcting obvious mistakes, as most of Lithuanian editors are, because a single improvement in articles costs weeks. I do not mind them having their opinion, but well, I do insist, that mine opinion (referenced) should be heard also.

I do not want to go into further dispute who began it, how did it aggravate, I just want to note, that it is a tremendous waste of time and energy.

Please note, that I did not participate in any RFC, mediations and all that stuff involving Piotrus, but this did not save me from being accused on various occasions, being called troll by Piotrus (including behind my back at IRC), accused of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry.

The numerous diff's form my last editing encounters will be provided on request. (in a day or two, because of my RL workload).--Lokyz (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As an user with both Polish and Czech national/ethnic experience I found Piotrus many times very polite and respectful to views of other ethnic or even minority groups. He always tried to know stances of all involved groups before making some decision or judgement. He's a cool guy, very reasonable in editing controversial articles, therefore I can only recommend him for this working group. It would only benefit from Piotrus' inclusion. - Darwinek (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum to resolve the historical (borne of the inter-war occupation of Vilnius) Polish-Lithuanian conflict. The Poles did clearly wish to establish a buffer; when they hesitated to leave Latgale (southeastern Latvia), the Latvian army presented them with an ultimatum to leave or be attacked, putting a damper on relations (non-Baltic source).

   I have found my editorial interactions with Piotrus as uniformly constructive. I have not dealt with Lokyz much, however, most recently, on the Holocaust in Nazi-Occupied Lithuania article I have found his contentions and contributions well-referenced and well-informed.

   I would suggest to all parties that if there is a line to be drawn between "nationalists" it rightly belongs between eastern and central Europe and the Baltics on the one hand and those who cling to Soviet historiography and the glorious liberation of Eastern Europe,... (conveniently ignoring Stalin's invasions of eastern Poland, the Baltics, et al. prior to the Great Patriotic War) on the other. However, we must not descend to labels of nationalism or nationalistic/ethnic "bias" amongst ourselves, otherwise we will simply tear down our own house that we are living in. —PētersV (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

For Polish representation I would like to nominate User:Elonka. Novickas (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Elonka is already a member of the working group, and is actively contributing. Check out the members list for further details. Regards, Anthøny 23:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the info. Novickas (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I did to deserve your recommendation Novickas, but thanks. And anyone that has suggestions on how to address the conflicts, you are welcome to post here or at my talkpage. :) --Elonka 23:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Process was: search for alternate Polish representation at the Wikiproject Poland page; click on first person; discover that said first person is newly minted admin; decide that since threshold of adminship has been rising, person must be good. Best wishes, Novickas (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Elonka is an American with Polish roots not Polish Novickas. From my past experience regarding her behaviour I don't judge her to be a neutral nor appropriate observer, and in fact she was in conflict with many Polish editors by attacking Polish editors as whole[2] however the group in itself was constructed in very obscure form and from controversial(to say the least) members(surprisingly I found that it was another controversial member Irpen that defended Elonka in the above mediation concerning her remarks towards Polish community). For now that's it, however this issue requires more throughout analysis and comment which I shall post in the future. Certainly as the matters are, there is a taint that will make taking this group seriously a bit difficult by Wikipedians who experienced behaviour of editors like Elonka or Irpen in disputes involving ethnic and cultural differences--Molobo (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Molobo, I'd almost forgotten that name.  :) Interesting that you would bring up that discussion from 2006. I went through all my comments there, and though I was still a relatively new editor at the time, I don't see anything that I'm ashamed of. In fact, I'm still proud of the way that I, a new editor, held my own against an admin. I especially enjoyed reading my musings on the differences between the Wikipedia admins, and administrators in multiplayer games. I learned quite a bit about wiki-culture from that particular dispute.  :) If anyone wants to read it (it's quite lengthy) please also be aware that Molobo linked only the archive, and the main (more recent) page is here.[3] --Elonka 03:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Elonka has my full support as the member of this group, and I am sure her input there is useful. Also for the record, I should note I do not wish to be seen as a "Polish-only representative". and hence I very much appreciate the diverse support from CE/EE community above.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

New members

For the public record, Bastique and HG have been granted observer status on the cultural edit warring working group, and now have active accounts on the group wiki. Discussion is ongoing with regards to the additional requests to join. Regards, Anthøny 17:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is finalising with regards to current Requests to join. The Work group is also awaiting the sending-through of a number of other requests that were sent to Arbcom-l, through to the Working group, where they will be discussed accordingly. Anthøny 13:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Incivility

A frequent problem in topics discussed on ethnic and cultural issues is the incivility towards other editors, which leads to nonproductive arguing and tensions. Perhaps and advisable measure would be to set-up a board where incivility would be harshly treated and offenders subject to short term blocks. Thus would allow to create more productice atmosphere and improve quality of Wikipedia.--Molobo (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately perceptions of "incivility" are one-sided. I've been pilloried for minor comments while those not of Baltic or central/eastern European heritage or allegiance appear to be free to call anyone from the Baltics, Ukraine, et al. happy Jew murderers, the majority eager for German rifles to slaughter Jews, etc. and to make the most offensive and vituperative comments with complete impunity, the most recent example I ran across here. Wikipedia has already made its choice. —PētersV (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, there has to be some basis for deciding when incivility exists, and its degree. Otherwise, there would be no basis for enforcing any policies regarding it. Life.temp (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree there needs to be a basis. And it should be far less subjective than it is now.

• For example, if someone labels me (personally) someone who would be happy for a rifle to kill Jews, that is clearly uncivil. If someone labels (the majority of) my ethnicity as happy for a rifle to kill Jews, that is an opinion. I would suggest the latter is also uncivil. That is not the case today.
• If I make a comment on an editorial situation being "schmutz", I should be able to do so without it being twisted into a personal and vicious attack on all editors involved. I have been accused of multiple "vicious" attacks for doing no more than pointing out what behaviors might be reasonably and empirically inferred by an outside observer.

Definitions of "incivility" and denouncements thereof are based far more on the intersections of warring editorial camps than anything that has been codified as guidelines for upright editorial conduct. Your mileage may vary, of course. —PētersV (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Another month goes by

OK, it's a month since I last asked and there's still no sign of any progress report...--Folantin (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. In somewhat related news, at least one of the members, Ioeth, has been inactive since mid-February ([4]). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As a response to Piotrus, Ioeth has been active on the Working Group's wiki site. Anthøny 18:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Has he been active since mid-February? Some users, like me, were worried that his inactivity on en Wikipedia may indicate some real life problems. We would be happy if he would post to his userpage that he is ok, just on some wikibreak.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll drop a note on Irpen's WGwiki talk page, highlighting this thread and the concerns related. But yes, Irpen has very much been active, and has been making edits recently (April 3 was the last, it appears). Anthøny 20:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Nonono, we are not talking about Irpen, but User:Ioeth.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I'm getting confused between the two and their similar names :) In that case, the last edit made by Ioeth was on February 18. Anthøny 19:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

All's fine now, at least we know he is all right.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Flashpoints

For those who are watching this page, we could use some help in data-gathering. What we're looking for right now isn't specific examples of disputes, but very high-level "birds-eye view" analyses of the common patterns in disputes. For example, what are the "flashpoints" that cause an article to suddenly "blow up" and become unstable? These are elements that we've come up with so far. Could folks look at these and think about disputes you've seen, and whether or not they fall into one of these categories? If there's something we've missed, please bring it up, thanks.

• Incivility (somebody gets reverted or attacked, or feels that they were attacked), and people go into "Mastodon" mode
• Someone tries to add information from a controversial source
• Someone tries to remove information, saying that a source is controversial
• WP:UNDUE problems, as something gets moved around and there's disagreement about what is a "majority" view, or which "minority" views are important enough to include
• Localization issues, as someone changes the name of a city or a monarch or something to an "English" name v. it's local name v. it's "common" name
• Someone adds original research
• Someone adds information from a reliable source, but interprets it in a controversial way
• Someone violates WP:OWN, and persistently reverts good faith changes by other editors (even if they do it in a civil way)
• Someone is Tendentious, and persistently violates policies, but other editors don't want to take the time to "build a case" and file the paperwork to have them dealt with.

Does that pretty much cover everything? Or what other broad categories can be added? --Elonka 08:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this summary, although I would change localization to naming and mention ownership of historic figures, per Copernicus. Novickas (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

News of another debate - plus comment Some of us are having an open debate about national and ethnic edit wars here [5]. Everybody is invited to contribute. Most of the solutions we have come up with simply involve enforcing existing policies properly [6]. As far as your question is concerned, I think these articles "blow up" because all too many editors in these areas are here for a fight not to add unbiased content. In other words, they bring their own dynamite. An exceptionally common example of this phenomenon is the "travelling circus" (described here [7]). Cracking down on those (as a clear violation of WP:POINT) might get us somewhere. --Folantin (talk) 09:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I have added it to my watchlist. I think I'll stay out of the discussion though, as I like the idea of two groups working on this independently. It'll be interesting to see if we come up with similar solutions.  :) --Elonka 09:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As I noted below, there are some academic studies of this issue. Sorting through Category:Wikipedia essays would also be useful - it has long been on my 'to do' lists, alas, I barely have time to maintain WP:ACST. I will agree with Folantin, though: we have enough essays and such, what it all boils down to is people not following policies and our inability to make them do so. My personal "favorite" is users who see themselves as unbiased and neutral, refusing to acknowledge that they have a POV of their own (usually ethnic/national) that needs to be moderated in order to reach a consensus. Such righteous editors are a source of many, if not most, of the largest "ethnic and cultural edit war" I have seen.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

To me, the worst thing is any time an editor, sometime well-intentioned, sometimes not, claims they are trying to just repesent the "objective truth." Sometimes people think that doing so will resolve a dispute, when actually it often worsens it. what is the truth? usually there are two equally valid views of a specific issue. At the very least, each side has its own legitimate grievances and historical viewpoints. the best articles on such conflicts are those which consciously try to cover both sides of a conflict factually, instead of assuming that Wikipedia has to present some viewpoint which resolves the conflict intriniscally. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The worst case is when "NPOV" is hijacked to mean "represent all opinions equally" not "represent all interpretations of the same set of reputably documented events/facts equally." —PētersV (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be, basically, WP:UNDUE issue?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No, because if a million people have an "opinion" or a government has a "version" then any other "opinion" is no more or less worthy, and any other position of another government is merely another "version." Reputably sourced events and facts disappear from the equation. "All governments lie, push their POV,..." ergo all is POV regardless of facts. And to be "NPOV" one must represent all "POV"s. —PētersV (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. On "objective truth"... the purpose of an encyclopedic article is to bind all reputable sources into a cohesive narrative. All narrative is subjective. Any editor I have encountered who has strenuously pushed "objectivity" has just taken their POV opinion (not even editorial position), declared it to be "objective" and then used the mantle of "objectivity" to push their agenda. Editors proven to be paid shills of illegitimate regimes have pounded their chests on Wikipedia proclaiming their objectivity. —PētersV (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Other important flashpoint

It has been noted by several editors (I am sure others will be able to provide many links) and even Jimbo Wales himself that a serious problem is the usage of historic resources from XIX century. Particularly XIX century sources from countries that talk about those countries conquests are problematic. Imperial German, Tsarist Russia, Soviet and Nazi sources about their enemies and conquests are seen as problematic by many editors.--Molobo (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have suggested the appropriate changes to the RS but the last time I looked at the page (about half a year ago) it was in the middle of so many conflicts, including a faction that wanted to delete the policy entirely, it was changing on a daily basis, so editing it was rather useless :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Some further thoughts

May I contribute a few observations from my experience? One is that seems to me to be only tangentially addressed in the summary list above is contention over what precisely constitutes a “reliable source” for a particular article. I don’t mean the situation where a source is attacked as controversial in its own right, but rather those in which a particular source is deemed by one side in a dispute as “not reliable enough.” This can be an approach employed by POV-pushers, but in my experience is more often an honest disagreement by good-faith editors. This is less a problem with academic, formally peer-reviewed sources than it is with what I might call sources of “middle reliability” which are known to have internal editorial standards such as newspapers, news journals, and topical magazines or other publications oriented toward the general public.

The addition or removal of information from a “controversial” source is always problematic (and they are the flip sides of the same “flashpoint”, not two separate ones). I would hope that WP:SLR’s use of “qualified sources” would draw close study by this group. Controversial sources can be extremely reliable sources for some purposes (such as the representation of one party’s POV and their critiques of their opponents claims/views) while being semi-reliable or unreliable for other citation purposes. I strongly feel this innovation of identifying “qualified sources” is something that should be further and more broadly developed on Wikipedia.

Another particular flash point is the misuse of infoboxes for (unconscious or calculated) POV-pushing. Because infoboxes lack sufficient space to include context, they have become magnets for POV-pushers. Those editors who make good-faith changes can often be successfully encourage to make their (sourced) point within the article and in context instead; however, some extensive meat-puppetry can be encountered where the POV-pushing is an intentional abuse. While such situations often give rise to suggestions of removing the infobox altogether, that approach goes against the efforts of the constructive editors to elevate the quality of the article to higher standards such as GA and FA, where their absence is counted against the article.

A final area that truly needs further development relates to the issue of “truth”. The subject has long been cavalierly handled (at best) and repeated attempts to encourage explicit and clear explanation of why – and the value of – Wikipedia advocates verifiability over “truth” within WP:V get squeezed out and neutered to the point of there being no useful guidance to a new editor upset over the issue. Currently, “verifiability, not truth” is addressed solely as a matter of “the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia”. Not only is there no discussion of why this should be so, but it doesn’t even inform editors that the pursuit of “truth” is discouraged and rates getting the editor censured for being disruptive when they’re only trying to do their best to make Wikipedia articles the best. (Furthermore, “WP:NOTTRUTH” is only a redirect to WP:V itself, not to an explanation of the why’s and why-not’s.) Not having this issue clearly discussed has caused more than a few frustrated editors to leave the project. It really is worth addressing, and not just because it offers a way to reduce the frequency of one type of disruptive conflict.

I hope these comments help to further advance this group’s efforts. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Data request: ANI

We'd like to get some quantifiable data from places where disputes are reported. For example, we have years of archives of ANI available. Does there exist anywhere a summary of what kinds of things are reported at ANI? For example, how many reports are overflows of content disputes (especially ethnic disputes), how many are urgent calls to deal with serious policy violations, how many are user conduct issues, how many are bad faith requests, how many are calls for review of admin behavior, etc. Or if such a report doesn't exist yet, would anyone be willing to try and make one? Again, we're not looking for specifics, we're looking for the broad patterns, at places like ANI and RfAr. Thanks, Elonka 08:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"For example, we have years of archives of ANI available". I doubt if you'll get anybody to sift through all that lot, especially given the search facility doesn't seem to work any more. What usually happens is admins dismiss anything on ANI that doesn't concern civility as a "content dispute". In the worst cases, we have nationally biased admins stepping in to support obvious trolls [8]. In the best, all too rare cases, we have a few dynamic admins who are prepared to take action to protect our content against edit warriors [9]. We need more admins with low tolerance thresholds for this kind of nonsense who are prepared to enforce policies like WP:SOAPBOX, WP:POINT, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:UNDUE etc. --Folantin (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(NB: The Arbitration Enforcement board might be a better place to look. Most of the stuff there is about national and ethnic edit wars. That's the place where admins with an interest in resolving these disputes tend to go. It's also far more compact if you want to get some kind of an overview). --Folantin (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody will shift through the ANI archives, but a good deal of the stuff that's come up at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard is nationalism-related, though by no means all. If you want to look through that, Elonka, go ahead. Certainly a lot fewer archives :) 81.99.113.232 (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sure sooner or later academics will shift through that data and produce interesting papers. Perhaps the group would suggest adding related studies to meta:Wikimedia Foundation Research Goals; this is certainly a proposal I'd be pushing for if I could.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There are some academic articles dealing with related issues, including conflict on Wikipedia (for example, Kittur et al. 2007, Viégas et al. 2004, Auray et al. 2007, Pfeil et al. 2006, to name just a few). I have spend considerable amount of time preparing WP:ACST to help identify useful studies. I'd be happy to offer more advice - which is one of the reason I requested a membership over a month ago.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 11:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that candidates, should already have wide acknowledgment and trust from community before even asking for membership or observer status. Otherwise any working group's efforts and results will be compromised. M.K. (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"Acknowledgment and trust" are subjective. There are those who would take exception to the working group's current membership. JFD (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with M.K. on this one, the membership of highly controversial editors involved in cultural wars and obscure process of election undermines the credibility and mission of the group. I shall elaborate on problems with that later in more detail.--Molobo (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Eyeballing the last two archives of WP:RS/N and the current page, it seems 50 out of 162 sections deal with religious/national conflict articles. This is an underestimation of the actual time, since those sections are also on the average considerably larger, as there is less good-faith discussion and less willingness to come to a resolution based on outside opinion. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"Outside opinion" is problematic. It often only fans the flames instead of quenching them as outside usually means ignorance of major facts or issues which may seem like nuances but which are major differentiators by the time you get to a final interpretation. Any mediation/reconciliation has to be done by someone fairly, if not intimately, with events at that time and, in most cases, at least decades of prior history. I'm doing my best in one little Wikicorner in such a role, and someone who isn't intimately familiar with Baltic and Eastern European history would not even know where to start. —PētersV (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is usually focused on the applicability of sources rather than fine points of interpretation, and there I think a less local view is usually helpful. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

On "balance", there is at least one member whom I would like to see "balanced" by someone generally holding an opposite editorial viewpoint in the Baltic and Central/Eastern European realm. I concur that unless the working group has a balance of members that mirrors the balance of editors in the larger community, then the working group will have no credibility. —PētersV (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediators-to-editors ratio

From the world of education. When I was in elementary school the student-teacher ratio was about 35:1; when my kids were, the ratio was about 22:1. There was a tremendous difference in the amount of conflict and in the speed with which conflicts were resolved. This personal observation is supported by the 1978 Safe School Study Report to the Congress: "there is a relationship between smaller class size and lower levels of violence and vandalism."[10]. (Hope no one is offended by the analogy.) No reference for this, but you'd imagine that the less homogeneous the student body, the more oversight is needed to prevent and resolve conflicts. And no place is less homogeneous than WP.

But since there are a host of non-ethnic conflicts here as well, you get into resource allocation issues. How to enlist more trusted community members in a more structured way? (I would argue that structure is crucial). Send invites to all admins? Currently the conflicts are addressed at a number of places, as Elonka has mentioned - naming conventions, reliable sources, conduct problems, etc. A more centralized noticeboard? Novickas (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, mediators are helpful and badly needed. But it is also a shame we have to waste resources on dispute resolution, and contributing to non-article space, instead of writing articles. Bottom line is that mediators - understanding teachers - help, but they should only be an addition to enforcing or existing rules and policies. Unruly schools and not improved with addition of few counselors who will try to speak nicely with the gang leaders, they are improved by enforcing the rules that make the kids behave - and sending the gang leaders and members to a special institution, putting an end to the disruption they were causing in the normal school.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Disputes among established editors can't be dealt with that way. So we have about 1,500 admins; how many editors who have made, say, over 100 edits? Novickas (talk) 13:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? Experience gives one no immunity from our rules like civility, the last time I checked. Of course, you are right - that's only the theory, since experienced users can wikilawyer their way from most accusations and usually have enough friends to generate support against any community consensus against them. This is indeed something that we should address.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Precisely my thoughts, however we have quite new and good example then current candidate to workgroup not only behind the back called dedicated editors "trolls", but then was blocked for violation of WP policies, used off-wiki techniques to contact his friend in order to receive unblock, moreover threating to desysop blocking admin. Indeed, how much publicly declared words are differ from off-wiki. Having troubles to understand how such editors could help solving ethnic and cultural edit wars. M.K. (talk) 09:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Status reports: coming soon

Just an update, I'm pushing through a proposal to have posted on enwiki, updates on what's happening on the WG wiki. This is in response to some comments on this page, that folks are getting curious as to our progress :) I am still awaiting final approval from the rest of the members, but I'm aiming for the status reports to be here within a week or two.

Additionally, I'd like to confirm that the various Requests to Join are still being processed, and haven't been forgotten ;) Apologies to all those that are being left to wait, but our time is somewhat spread pretty thin at the moment :-) More to come soon, folks. Cheers, Anthøny 00:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Anthony, thank you for the effort put into keeping us up-to-date here, this is much appreciated.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As you can probably guess, the levels of activities on the WG wiki meant that my attempts to garner consensus for this proposals were in vain. Anthøny 15:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Will workgroup wiki archives be open?

I wonder if workgroup wiki archives will be made open at some point, to aid researchers/curious editors/etc.? A big strength of wikis is transparency, and the fact that workgroup discussions are not transparent is slightly worrisome to me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I do share your concerns, hence my efforts for on-Wiki updates, but I do, by-and-large, believe that the WG's private status is for the best. I won't go into the reasons why, as I don't think it would be prudent at this point, but I would imagine that, well after the thing is done and dusted, the wiki may (may) be opened to public reading. That's a long way off, however, and at the moment, is a moot point. It's an interesting one, however, and a point that I can imagine I will be addressing at a (much) later stage. Anthøny 02:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I can appreciate the current privacy, allowing the group to work without concern for on-wiki comments, but once the group is done, I don't see why the archives could not be opened - this could only serve to generate more positive commentary, and spurr future efforts to solve this problem.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I agree with you here, Piotrus, and I'd imagine, when things are done-and-dusted, the wiki will be opened for global read access. There's not much juicy material, though ;) Anthøny 09:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

An update

As a reminder, new applications to join the working group are still welcome. Relevant information on what is hoped for in candidates is available on this page. If you have previously applied, perhaps directly to the Arbitration Committee via their mailing list, and have thus far not received confirmation as to your application being received, I would encourage you to refile it.

Future applications can be emailed directly to any working group member. I have personally received a number; any re-sends of applications previously filed with the Committee, as well as any further expressions of interest, are more than welcome in my inbox. For information on emailing me via both on- and off-Wiki mediums, check out this page.

The working group has a preliminary deadline to report back in roughly one month's time, so I would imagine that many work group members are contributing with a view to "wrapping up". Having said that, perhaps now more than ever is an appropriate time for "fresh blood", particularly in an observer status; if you believe you have something to contribute to the working group, please do get in touch.

Although it is obviously not my place to reveal discussions taking place on the work group wiki, I will note that a number of candidates are undergoing discussion. If you have previously filed an application, and wish to know whether you are being considered, you are welcome to contact me or any other member/observer. Once again, any new candidates, and old candidates that have not yet received a confirmation, please (re-)send to any working group member.

Finally, a note that the "status reports" are still in the making. Hopefully, they will come soon enough to be useful. More on this soon.

Thanks, Anthøny 22:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible case study

One of the work group members, inquired about flash points and edit wars. Recently there was quite heavy flash point on Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz, additionally see here for deeper insight. Perhaps this will be useful as case study. Cheers, M.K. (talk) 10:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The above comment itself can be seen as part of the case study. In particular, see this thread at Folantin's alternative discussion, bullet point 7.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Confused the boards? In any case, I was inquired by a work group member (and subsequent edits) about cases and promised to deliver insight. Newest incident quite interesting example. M.K. (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"I'm amazed at some of the junk allowed to remain undeleted on talk pages". And I was even more amazed when an admin re-added junk, and even threatened to block the user who had removed it. That "Anti-Semitism in Poland" case needs to be studied. -- Matthead  Discuß   23:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

A view from the trenches

Just discovered this working group. How nice.

First with the introductions. I'm an editor working within the Military History scope of articles, specifically on the articles dealing with the Eastern Front during the Second World War. I have a degree from an Australian university half of which was economic history. I have had some 20 years of research in the area (though never published).

So far, since commencing on my project to expand the range of articles on the subject, and to expand existing articles, I have encountered opposition at every turn from what I can only call "national pride" mentality. Naturally this is not unusual, and I am certainly not lacking in the pride for the history of the Australian forces, but here it has gone way over the top.

I will not rehash the issues that I encountered, the second of which ended with my 24 hour block and a name on the infamous Eastern Europe block list I was not aware of, not surprisingly for incivility when I was protesting somewhat forcefully the use of Google hits as a substitution to reading books in justifying a certain name of an article title.

My suggestion to solving this issue is rather simple, and is already in part supported by the Wikipedia policy on Verifiability, and that is, that anything and everything Wikipedia presented to the reader must be well referenced to reputable sources that directly support the claims being made. In all five cases that I had come into an editing conflict, I found that the greatest issue was lack of, or misuse of sources. In fact I am currently involved in just such a dispute. Quite simply the criteria for the sourcing of statements in articles related to this contentious region has to be much tighter then elsewhere.

Good luck on your deliberations--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If you think there are problems that might be solved by better sourcing, you should take a look at this idea. Arbcom has a proposed remedy in one of their cases that would create a Sourcing Adjudication Board. Regular editors can give their opinion on the issue here on the Talk page of the Arbcom case. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing issues should also be brought up at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Additional assistance may be available at WP:DE. --Elonka 15:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue is somewhat broader, which is that those who have a positive self-image regarding their Eastern European hereditary/native country X are automatically assumed to contend everything based on "POV opinion," and authors of hereditary/native country X are condemned of some original-sin sort of "bias" based solely on their surname. I'm always glad to discuss "opposing" sources. The problem is, rarely are they ever produced, only endless accusations of "tendentious" (a code word for I denounce you and your stinking POV) editing.

   In my own neck of the woods, there are scads of editors arguing, for example, that the Baltics were not occupied for 50 years, no occupation can last 50 years, "you can't occupy what belongs to you," etc. (The Russian WP article on the occupation of Latvia is a cornucopia of Soviet-era lies and post-Soviet Russian governmental empty posturing.) Yet, when I ask for a single substantive fact which supports the Russian Duma's proclamation reminding Latvia it joined the Soviet Union legally according to international law--therefore, and only therefore, no occupation--there's only dead silence. Instead, editors who advertise themselves as having advanced degrees in international law are more than happy to inform me that my ignorance is "legendary." —PētersV (talk) 22:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Google searches should be OUTLAWED as a basis for contending ANYTHING on WP. I completely agree with mrg3105 in that regard. Searching the "books" or "scholar" version of Google (those are positioned as more "authoriative"(!) searches) is a completely unacceptable substitute for a serious discussion of reputable, expert sources. I don't even participate in article discussions before having read a real book by a real expert. But on Wikipedia, reading a whole book on a topic by an expert is considered a waste of time when you can just do a "Google" and get all the "salient" facts, voila! —PētersV (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The moral is, if you build an encyclopedia on only what you can find for free and settle editorial differences based on arguing "popularity" using internet searches, you get what you paid for: more useless than useful. I'll put the Weltschmerz away now, I'm not expecting any improvement. —PētersV (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I do completely endorse mrg3105 and PētersV view on GHits. It's rather annoying to deal with people who do not take into account what's written on the next (or previous) page (or even a next sentence), and insted search for citation to support their biases.--Lokyz (talk) 09:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, all the "remedies" Wikipedia is working on have not come soon enough for me. I will leave Wikipedia after this travesty of justice, common sense, facts and pure adulteration of Wikipedia policies. And to whoever is reading this with administrator "powers", I don't care if you think its uncivil of me to say so. I don't care--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't give up so easily. Perhaps I and others who don't agree require more education. In the case you link to (the USSR's invasion of Manchuria), Glantz names a number of large invasions as strategic offensive operations which are not commonly referred to as operations (or strategic, or offensive). For example, we don't call Hitler's attack on the USSR "Barbarossa Strategic Offensive Operation." (And I'm not convinced, doing a quick look, that "Battle of the Dnieper" wasn't a better title than "Lower Dnieper strategic offensive operation.") Other U.S. authors on military history do call it simply an invasion (e.g., Missing Intentions: Japanese Intelligence and the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria, 1945 by Edward J. Drea U.S. Army Military History Institute -- apologies for using Google to find it!) You might consider leaving the title as invasion, then expanding its characterization as a "strategic offensive operation" citing some other examples from Glantz for context. But that discussion can continue in its proper place. In the case you cite, you simply appear to have run into a hurdle during the course of a wider range of renaming articles to conform to Glantz's terminology. —PētersV (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? So easily? Virtually every article in the range of Soviet operations I had tried to correct ended up in a futile "discussion" between me citing sources and others voting on what they "feel" is a better name that the "average" reader they "think" can remember! Any operation can be referred to by its proper name or its codename. This is a 20th century approach. In the earlier periods of warfare when histories were written after the fact, the invasions, campaigns and battles were coined in memoirs and reports written by officers who participated in them. This is found in the original documents known as primary sources by researchers. Did I ever suggest "Barbarossa Strategic Offensive Operation"? How other people call anything is irrelevant for a reference work. So what if New York is called The Big Apple in German? The United States is far more often referred to simply as America. There has never been a country called Germany. As a reference work there is a certain responsibility to get the name of the encyclopaedic entry, the article title, right so the content of the article matches the entry. I know about Drea, but that is just a book title. I'll give you a worse one. Christopher Donnelly is a respected military author with many books published. One of them is Red Banner: The Soviet Military system in peace and war. On page 80 he says, "The Manchurian Campaign, as the Russians call it, is considered important because in it the Soviet forces, attacking on converging axes, achieved total surprise and in the course of less than three weeks defeated the Japanese force only slighter smaller in men...". I can find no source in Russian that has ever called the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation, sometimes abbreviated to Manchurian Operation, as "Manchurian Campaign". This is because what he didn't know I suspect is that the word Campaign is almost never used in Russian to refer to military events unless it is a foreign historical event that uses the name because in Russian, "kampaniya" is also a word for "a gathering of companions". So, just like Glantz used a made up operation name August Storm, Donnelly, writing for Jane's no less, and not to be outdone, made up a "Manchurian Campaign" (no citations given). Its called sloppy writing. I will not consider leaving the title as "invasion" Invasions have a very different connotation, and I have already been told that the Yassy-Kishinev Strategic Offensive Operation was a "Soviet invasion of Rumania"! Will Operation Bagration be renamed as Soviet invasion of Poland (1944) if enough Wikipedia editors vote on it? There is a principle involved, and if the Soviet invasion of Manchuria stays, I will write about it elsewhere. The point is, CONSENSUS, is how one deals with other editors in the process of teasing out the content of the article, NOT how one applies their feelings and opinions to the ARTICLE STANDARDS mandated by Wikipedia policies on citing sources, excluding original research, etc.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This move request, now settled, is an example of the system working. Glantz, working from Soviet sources, uses Manchurian strategic offensive operation, because his sources (in Russian) do. (He also uses Great Patriotic War, for the same reason; should we move World War II?) But Glantz is (and Google Books. as distinct from raw Google, is one way to show this) the only source to do so.

On the other hand, even Glantz refers to the event as a whole as the Soviet invasion. I suspect that Mrg3105 does not understand the distinction between an Operation and a battle: Operation Sealion, strictly speaking, includes only German forces, because the German High Command does not control what the British do; the Battle of Britain includes both sides. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. —PētersV (talk) 00:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(db)It is disingenuous to suggest the move is "settled" where the move was never made for reasons of sources, but because it "looked lousy". Where else do you find research on Soviet military operations, but in Russian sources?! The use of Great Patriotic War in relation to the Second World War was discussed and settled long ago, and has little to do with the issue of reliable sources. Glantz may be the only source that uses the correct name, but his are also the only books that describe the entire operation! Not one of the 239 sources you cited actually says anything more than a cursory mention of the date and place! None can be used for the article citations! Glantz does refer to the event as "Soviet invasion" ONCE in a book titled The Soviet Strategic Offensive in Manchuria, 1945! This appears as a header on EVERY page! I suspect you have no idea what either "operation" or a "battle" mean because they are not interchangeable and synonymous. Operation Sealion (in English) is a code name or cryptonym, and not a battle, even if it had been executed. The confusion arises in English where the same word is used in different sense of meanings. I sense that you purposely obfuscate the issues because of your pursuit of English purity agenda where everything needs to be reduced to 19th century usage--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If I were writing the definitive book on the subject, I would certainly consult the Japanese archives and the contemporary accounts, including both English and Chinese evidence. Glantz has certainly provided a great help towards this; he is the first scholar (not subject to ideological and national security censorship) to have access to the Soviet archives. But he has not changed what anglophones call the events of August 1945; I do not see that he intended to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• The assertion that there can be a correct name, not supported by the majority of English-speakers, or of scholarship, is the fundamental problem. We English-speakers decide correct English by usage; there is no Academy to decide such things for us. We Wikipedians enforce our policies by consensus; there is no other judge. I regret seeing (necessarily futile) objections to this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, and "we" are from which Royal Family? Unless you refer to yourself as we, I do not see that there is any definitive rule anywhere that says the name of things are decided by ether plurality of use, or consensus of Wikipedians in the real world. That is neither the purpose, nor policy of Wikipedia. However, that is just beyond the point.

There exist in the English language a term taxonomy. This term is applied to a diverse range of subjects in diverse disciplines of academia that is used to identify differences between subjects, and to systematically assign them values within the larger context and hierarchy of the area of study they are found in. This is universal in application. It is just as applicable to the military history. I can only suggest you familiarise yourself with it.

As it happens Glantz is an academic. Exactly how many of the writers found to use "invasion of Manchuria" can make that claim?

"We English-speakers" encompass an awful lot of people that "We Wikipedians" should dictate what is called what, in this case by agreement of half-dozen! I did not see the English speakers of the world consulted at all. In fact it took a Rumanian speaker to do the GoogleBooks search, and another Rumanian to rename the article! Given that the name looked "lousy" to an American, I would suggest that your theory of who decides what is at least subjective, and at worst highly misguided. ::In any case, I can certainly say that consensus does not provide for making decisions on what things are called in Wikipedia. You may wish to read that particular policy more closely--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Four months

OK, it's been four months now and there's been no sign of anything, not even a progress report. Is the "working group" working? --Folantin (talk) 09:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see how many of group members are active (and have posted on working group wiki for more than a few days). Also, a trend of edits per day would be interesting to see if the group has stalled or not.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 11:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've heard reliable rumours that business has been a little slack at the wiki lately. According to the terms on the front page here, they have another two months before they absolutely have to present something concrete. --Folantin (talk) 11:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It comes and goes, and some work is being done here on EN, not in the WG Wiki. For example, I've been aggressively gaining familiarity with different levels of ethnic disputes, focused mainly in Eastern/Central Europe, but also Sunni/Shia disputes, Sri Lankan issues, and Turkey-related issues. Also, some discussions at the Working Group have already led to concrete changes here on EN:

• Overhaul of WP:DE
• New page at Wikipedia:New admin school/Dealing with disputes (with other guidelines in the works)
• (IMHO) successful resolution of one small set of ethnic disputes, at User:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. We are looking at writing up more structured guidelines for other such reconciliation projects / cooperation boards in other ethnic/cultural areas.

There are other projects going on too, but those are the ones with which I am most familiar. My next question though, is that in terms of "progress", what are people most interested in seeing? I don't think that there's anything that the WG can do to "wave a magic wand" and make ethnic disputes go away. But is there some hot spot in particular that people were most pinning their hopes onto the WG for? If so, definitely let us know, so we can make sure it gets included in what we're reviewing. --Elonka 15:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we'd be looking for some action along the lines proposed in the conclusions here [11]. For instance, there was quite a lot of enthusiasm for an Ethnic and National Edit Wars Noticeboard (however you want to phrase that). --Folantin (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I still can't get a concrete consensus on issuing status reports, regarding what exactly we're doing. I'm considering by-passing the group, and getting approval from the arbcom to provide the community with updates: five months in, we really need an update for them. Anthøny 15:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be good. Thanks. --Folantin (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Folantin, if you think you've got consensus for a "Cultural and ethnic conflict edit wars board" (or whatever you want to call it), I'd say go ahead and start it. You don't need WG approval. I personally think it's a great idea, so if it were up to me, I'd say proceed. --Elonka 16:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Five months

And no report. --Folantin (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The final report is being compiled, Folantin, on the private wiki, and will be delivered on or after the six month mark. That should detail what we've discussed, and our recommendations for the future. Our approach seems to have yielded a focus on more general reflections on edit warring, rather than the generation of specific, remedial courses of action (as I'd been expecting). Watch this space, I suppose. Anthøny 21:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I wonder, how many of the projects members are still active and are hoping with the draft? I will bet there is at least one who has not been active ever. And I am also pretty sure that data will not be made available. Ah, the beauties of non-transparency... PS. To be clear, I have nothing but respect for the active project members like Anthony. I do however am increasingly convinced that the entire "privacy" experiment resulted in worse, not better, performance, than average (fewer eyes to catch the bugs...).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head, Piotrus. I'm going to speak specifically here, as I don't feel silence is the best policy: we're down to one or two edits every couple of days (with periods of silence punctuating the activity on an increasingly regular basis). I've been out of the country to month, so I've been inactive, but I'm renewing my previous efforts to get an arbitrator to process the outstanding requests to join. Unlike previously, however, and further to my previous experience with getting an arbitrator's time, I can't promise anything firm. :( Anthøny 22:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Anthony. For the record, after four months of waiting for any news of the status my application, and after receiving reassurances from one member of the task force that due to past personal conflicts that person will make sure I never join the task force, and after (constructively, I hope) contributing to Folantin's sideproject discussions, my desire to join the task force has mostly vaned. PS. Again, I in no way blame any members of the task force for it (well, maybe with one obvious exception :>). It is just a simple illustration of the iron law of oligarchy: even the most idealistic projects are likely to get hijacked by inefficient, self-interested oligarchies, and lack of transparency makes it only much quicker.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to your original query, Piotrus, regarding how many and who has been active: it may be possible to release statistics on the levels of activities at the WG wiki, after we are "done and dusted" with regards to the final report. I'm not sure whether it's fair to do so, of course, as it may dump blame on folks who were inactive for a variety of reasons (additionally, certain members didn't "sign up" for the group, but were simply enrolled (granted, they did agree to join) in it)... Further input would be needed before such a proposal was approved. Anthøny 15:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrapping up

The working group on ethnic and cultural edit warring will terminate its operations in four days' time, on 6 August, 2008. The group is currently completing the development of a "final report", which will be delivered to the Arbitration Committee (per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Working group) shortly. I do hope that this report will be made available to the english wikipedia community at the same time, or at least shortly after the Committee has had time to "digest" and, if necessary, act upon our report. Only time will tell, of course.

I would like to personally like to thank the folks who have been visiting this page, getting involved and poking for updates: it still irks me, that we haven't managed to get a status report out to you folks in the six months we've been active... But, we didn't expect to achieve everything. I can assure you that progress has been made, although we have certainly been hampered by a low volume of participation at certain junctures of our activities. Such is the way of volunteer-driven projects, however.

Further information to come,

Anthøny 15:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

While the committee provided the impetus for the creation of this group and its goals, I'm not sure I see why the final report should be provided only to them. Was that a component of its charter, so to speak, that its outcome would be confidential to the committee and released only at their discretion? Avruch ^T 21:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Whaaat... I missed that. The report will be confidential?? My. What. A. Total. Waste. Of. Time. I am lost for words. Confusion lifted, all's good :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As a member of the group, I would have to say that I've heard nothing about the report having to be confidential. Our (current) plan is to announce it publicly tomorrow. --Elonka 18:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Nor have I, although the phrasing of my above comment, "delivered to the Arbitration Committee", may have been interpreted to mean 'delivered exclusively (and privately) to the Committeee'. This is not the case; I believe the current intention is to post the final version of the report on the English Wikipedia. If anybody is interested, the draft is available at Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars/Draft report. Anthøny 18:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was this: I do hope that this report will be made available to the english wikipedia community at the same time, or at least shortly after the Committee has had time to "digest" and, if necessary, act upon our report. Only time will tell, of course. Perhaps I misinterpreted your meaning there. Avruch ^T 22:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologise if it was indeed my fault (although I don't think it was here), and hope that things are now set straight. ;) Anthøny 22:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Related discussion

A Request for Comment has been launched on my own administrative conduct, as regards my judgment in imposing discretionary sanctions, and managing articles in a state of dispute. Since this is directly related to some experiments that I was running, in experiment with new methods of dispute resolution, I invite anyone here who wishes to offer an opinion, to do so: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka. --Elonka 18:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this a clear violation of WP:CANVASS, but I won't remove further, as this page seems to be exempt from Wikipedia policies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I recommend that you actually read WP:CANVASS. --Elonka 21:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Although I was initially opposed to this posting, this RfC does involve some of the work conducted by the Working Group. I'd say its relevant to post here. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it, exactly; the question of whether Elonka is properly applying the remedies suggested by the group (whether or not suggested by Elonka), which seems the primary focus of the RfC, is different from the question of whether the remedies can be properly applied, which is part of the function of the group. But I'll concede the point. I don't think I'll return to this page, unless the 0RR question is properly brought up somewhere.

Maybe I'll get back to the slew of articles on spacecraft navigation, and see if I can get them into shape. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Just my two pence on the canvassing complaints: I see no problem in Elonka's posting here, and view the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment to be entirely relevant to the working group. The comments about canvassing are a little off-the-mark, if I may say so. Anthøny 18:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Final report

The final report is now live, at Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars/2008 report. --Elonka 19:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality enforcement: a proposal

There's a proposal here that might be of interest to you. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

left comments in support. We need a better system, and I think that at least moves us toward a better tool kit. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Use_of_.22disputed_territories.22.2C_.22occupied_territories.22_and_related_terminology_in_the_context_of_the_Arab-Israeli_dispute

Hi, I'm not sure whether people are still active here, but you may be interested in this request for Arbcom to get involved relatively early in a content dispute. Comments welcome at the request page.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Historic designation of the Palestine region

Please comment at Historic designation of the Palestine region. Chesdovi (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

A better place to post about this would be at WP:ECCN. --Elonka 21:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this project still alive?

Asking for a friend. :-) --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)