Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration

Note

This talk page is only for the discussion of how to organize WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Please use: Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues to LIST Current Articles Issues. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues to DISCUSS Current Articles Issues.

Project Talk Page Guidelines

• About Moderators: Our discussions are moderated and incivility and other problematic postings will be deleted. Moderators will move any Current Article Issues topics posted here to that section. They also will archive resolved or dated discussions.
• Moderators will be chosen by: 1) Nomination by a project member and 2) Consensus of members, which means that there are no reasonable objections. NOMINATIONS OR VOLUNTEERS WELCOME!
• The following members have been appointed as moderators: HG, Carolmooredc

To Do List

• Decide what to do about Article methods and Article workshop which haven't been used, at least until they are made more workable and/or used
• What to do about articles of disputed relevance like Islamophobia, Islamic terrorism, Al-Qaeda

---

---

Possible issues with three new main page sections

Looking carefully at these, I thought there might be some minor concerns, especially with last one, since they were not passed by this page first. Others have an opinion?

• New Finding Common ground section: The additional language is fine, but setting up a new page - Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Articles_We_Edit - that could be used to cherry pick articles may or may not be problematic. Possible solution to that??
• Wikipedians_interested_in_welcoming_other_users_to_this_project: Really should be part of Members statements and there is only one person on the list. If others want to join it, then perhaps it's not a problem. I guess I should join myself ;-) though I have been avoiding the issue a lot lately except on a few pages where already invested a lot of time.
• Relevant_articles_and_categories_for_our_project: First, it duplicates the new "Articles We Edit" page and of course has the same problems. So at very least these should be merged. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should merge the 2 sections about articles we like. As the person who started the page "Articles We Edit", I'd also like to mention that articles about seemingly unrelated topics may actually be key to getting this collaboration working. For example, Al-Azhar Mosque (an article on which several IPCOLL editors have worked together) is in Egypt, and "science" articles about the flora, fauna and geology of the area are probably within the scope of IPCOLL. I don't see how the articles would be cherry-picked if all editors are welcome to contribute to the list. Or, perhaps IPCOLL could have a "Collaboration of the Month"/"Collaboration of the Year" to encourage its editors to focus their efforts on working together, and encourage suggestions about articles and topics?

Also, the columns in the Members table would definitely be a bit narrow if we ask members to add more information such as a commitment to welcoming new users. My own concern with the Members table is that requiring editors to express their commitment to the project in Table format intimidates all but the most experienced. It's certainly an unusual way for a WikiProject to have Users sign up. For example, the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign encourages people to add a short statement after their names, which I think would accomplish much the same as this Table. Anyway, I think the visuals and format of this WikiProject need work in general. --AFriedman (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting.

• Agree on unrelated topics, just want to make sure what should be included (i.e., where there was successful collaboration) is clear so people don't start adding articles where there actually is a strong POV for whatever reason. So maybe a section called something like "Articles where there has been successful collaboration" would be a good name for the merged sections. Of course given drift in any article over time as editors come and go, it might be better to make it a short term section as you suggest. Longer than a month - a year? And cross fingers it doesn't get gutted in interim? Or maybe link to the version that was really good when people where happy with it - which gives people who suspect a POV has crept in a chance to go back and look? Sooner the better for changing that, if you want to go for it. Otherwise getting a second agreement on a fairly obvious point, I'll do it :-)
• I don't see example in Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign. But I agree tables can be frustrating even after using them a few times. However, I think we'd have to get more input before changing it, given all the people who were comfortable with that format. Maybe an intro telling people what info to add and then format like this:

1. User: abcxyz Roles: ( include text) Pledges: (include text if relevant) Comments: ( include text)
2. User: defxyz Roles: ( include text) Pledges: (include text if relevant) Comments: ( include text)
3. etc

• Re: Wikipedians interested in welcoming other users to this project - why not advertise it on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues and encourage people to list themselves. I myself still ambivalent until I actually start doing it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with making the collaborations "collaborations of the year." Perhaps there could be several articles per year listed as collaborations, and about a variety of topics? --AFriedman (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"Recent Collaborations" would be better since it doesn't infer that some are better than others, and allows for possibility a nice collaborative set of edits that lasted six months won't be permanently gutted in the seventh. In any case, we should do something to correct current messiness. Unfortunately for wikipedia (if not rest of my life), it's become a fairly low priority with me of late. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

We need a hit list

Hey all. I know this is going to be a bit of an extreme suggestion, so feel free to shout it down, but I wanted to know if anyone would second my proposal for an "Extremist Hit List". The basic idea is this; I think the real issue plaguing I/P articles on wikipedia are extremists on both sides of the debate. There is always going to be disagreement, but problems arise when people start shouting and demonstrating no willingness to compromise. I suggest extremists of this nature are directly oppossed to the spirit of IPCOLL's mission. As such, I think we should make some effort to identify them, so that they might be neutralized/opposed. I suggest making a list with 2 categories - Editors who in IPCOLL's opinion cannot edit I/P articles with NPOV and a slightly lesser Editors who in IPCOLL's opinion have difficulty editting I/P articles with NPOV. If through consensus we put editors in the first category, we should actively watch thier edit historys and be ready to pursue topic-bans if appropriate. I know this might sound a bit cabal like, but I'm really desperate to find means of bringing down the tone of the debate on wikipedia. NickCT (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about a hit list, but I certainly do believe that we need to be able to identify the editors who might be eligible for one. I have recently suggested that we have a venue for small slights and problems, so that we can have more eyes on them and hopefully resolve them before they have chance to escalate. This could then serve as the basis for seeing if there are repeat issues or mannerisms viewed as problematic by the community. Unomi (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I've seen the likes of that on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism--discussions about particular editors who may be POV pushers. In my view, many of these are overreactions to Users whose edits, as far as the encyclopedia is concerned, are "hit or miss"--but that is what collaborative editing is for. Furthermore, they add a certain unpleasantness to WP Judaism that I think would be even more undesirable over here, given that these articles are even more contentious. A "small slights" noticeboard for general Wikipedia is a good idea, but if we make a "hit list" part of IPCOLL I am concerned this would be yet another source of disagreement, as not everyone would agree about whether particular people go there. --AFriedman (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles recommends how to deal with contentious editors through established processes. While it is less than perfect, and sometimes innocent editors are punished with guilty ones, it is the procedure we are using now. CarolMooreDC (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the current processes is that it is unsuitable for minor things. Lets say that you believe that another editor is ignoring your argument without providing a rationale or is misrepresenting your actions. Currently WQA is the only place to take such single instance issues, afaik. In the course of waiting to collect enough evidence to be able to reasonably open an RFAE too much disruption and tit-for-tat behavior could have transpired to make it possible for the AE admin to be able to make a clear judgement. I strongly believe that we need a place for perceived infractions where the result is not sanctions but simple community admonishment. We could easily have editors among us who disagree on what constitutes desirable behavior and if so, we should try to modify it as soon as possible. Unomi (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

We need to close ranks

Following on from my thoughts above; would it be possible to restrict who can join this project? I think editors should be able to demonstrate some degree of neutrality and willingness to compromise to be able to join. Otherwise being a member of the project is sort of meaningless. I suggest we ask editors who want to join to "Provide examples of several edits/comments where you demonstrate NPOV or willingness to compromise" then poll on whether that editor should be allowed to join. Of the editors I'm familiar with on the current member list, I don't see anyone yet who I don't think wold be able to pass this test. Again, I know this suggestion may be a bit radical. Feel free to shout it down. NickCT (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Everyone has a POV. IMO, IPCOLL (like almost any other WikiProject) works best when editors with different POVs find a common place to stand. These articles just get more POV pushers than articles about other topics, which is why so many people are too frustrated to join IPCOLL in the first place. In addition, the extremists may have a tendency to push the moderates apart and shatter the co-operative spirit some of us are trying to create. I've been on IPCOLL for some months now, and the main problem tends to be a few editors who don't listen to other people and engage in edit warring and disruptive editing. In my experience, these editors are eventually blocked by admins after many warnings for their behavior, or quit out of frustration. Whether or not they've signed up for IPCOLL is a moot point, IMO--the damage tends to be caused by their editing of articles and Talk pages, not their editing of IPCOLL. But I agree with you that asking people for "examples of several edits/comments where you demonstrate NPOV or willingness to compromise" might be a good idea. It helps people get to know one another in a way that would make them appreciate each other. Your post makes me wonder: In its overall goal, is IPCOLL actually a category-specific subproject of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign? --AFriedman (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"these editors are eventually blocked by admins after many warnings for their behavior" - Some of them yes, but I think I can point to some examples of accounts that seem to exist solely to POV-push in an uncivil manner.

"moderates apart and shatter the co-operative spirit some of us are trying to create" - Couldn't agree more.

"not their editing of IPCOLL" - I guess what I'm trying to suggest here, is that we might be able to create a group, where members can lay claim to some degree of NPOV by virtue of the fact that they belong to the group. I think we made somekind of process for vetting potential members of IPCOLL would make. If this is something you think sounds viable, I will sandbox a "potential membership page" for review. What I'm curious about is whether there is precedent for people setting up exclusive groups on wikipedia?

Re Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign - I think IPCOLL's goal is to prevent hate rather than spread peace and love. Perhaps these goals are ultimately the same. NickCT (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

A few things:

• "accounts that seem to exist solely to POV-push in an uncivil manner"--the ones that come to my mind were allowed to continue editing for a time, but eventually got blocked after the admins realized what game those editors were playing or how they had a pattern of just not knowing how to behave. It can take time to realize what someone is up to and what someone is all about. BTW, most of the people in question didn't end up doing very much damage to articles, even if some of them may have built up bad energy amongst other editors of those articles. And I'm also talking about editors that had nothing to do with IPCOLL but were working on other parts of the encyclopedia. Do you know of any "bad" editors that no one seems to be taking action against?
  
• "a group, where members can lay claim to some degree of NPOV by virtue of the fact that they belong to the group." Why not make it positive--e.g., "meritorious editors of IPCOLL" who have distinguished themselves by their willingness to cross the aisle, rather than negative? I think there is everything to gain and nothing to lose by doing things that way.
• "whether there is precedent for people setting up exclusive groups on wikipedia?" All administrative positions involve some type of vetting, e.g., there are elections for custodianship where people who have worked with these editors comment on how they've behaved. I've voted and commented in some of these elections, and actually, I'm up for election right now as a custodian of our sister project Wikiversity. Have you been involved with selecting any of our administrators? IMO, that might be something to look at re: identification of IPCOLL's best editors.
• "Re Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign - I think IPCOLL's goal is to prevent hate rather than spread peace and love. Perhaps these goals are ultimately the same." I agree that they are ultimately the same. IMO, the best thing we can do to prevent hatred is to make as potent a bomb of WikiLove as we can and drop it right in the middle of Israel-Palestine. Why stop at "prevent hate" if we can just as easily aim for something much better? --AFriedman (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Self-selecting and insular groups are often frowned upon, and I think for good reason. I think that we as a whole just need to highlight and seek to modify behavior which is problematic. The biggest problem, as I see it, with "bad" editors is that they can sometimes succeed in setting off a domino effect where people respond in kind and makes it difficult for admins and other editors to pinpoint who started and who is continuing disruption. I would like to see IPCOLL being both a wikilove campaign and also a force for behavior modification when necessary. Unomi (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to define who is and isn't contentious, since we all have different sensitivity levels on different topics. I've certainly been very contentious on issues of interest to me while being quite moderate on others where others are battling it out.

Obviously editors do post to these talk pages to continue their battles in an uncollaborative fashion, but unless it becomes disruptive to these talk pages, not much we can/should? As a moderator I've asked others to take long contentious debates back to original article talk pages once or twice. Again best to seek sanctions under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. Singling people out - much as I'd like to do it myself in a few cases - too controversial and disruptive of the project. CarolMooreDC (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, imagine if we had a WQA style board where we can nip these things in the bud? It wouldn't be a one sided singling out, it would simply be a way for us as a community to agree on what behavior is and isn't acceptable as it happens. Unomi (talk) 09:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that's what Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues is for - to get other editors to come on over and help correct the problem. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Which would be same on list you suggest. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Templates section

Looking at WikiProject banner section, I realized the "promotional language" I wrote up last year was so confusing I couldn't understand it. Also, it looks like there are two templates and I just realized there is another one - an actual warning about sanctions - which someone just used on a page and which should be included. (See here.) Maybe we do need a promotional language section, but will have to make it more user friendly than previous language. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Reward for good editors?

I've been a little bit involved in the editing spree at Gaza flotilla raid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and I must say, I'm impressed by how many editors really are there to improve the article, not just push one or the other opinion. I noticed in particular Ai 00 (talk · contribs), ValenShephard (talk · contribs), and ReneJohnsen (talk · contribs), but there are several others. (As a disclaimer, I didn't look at all their contributions.) What do people think; should we give such good editors some reward, like the Sri Lanka Hope Award? I would like to "Ac-Cent-Tchu-Ate the Positive". — Sebastian 18:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I followed the edits some more, and I now found a couple edits by the above editors that I do not approve of: [1], [2], [3]. However, by and large their edits are still good; it is really hard to always keep a cool head in a hot article like this. See also my comment below. — Sebastian 21:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd second the giving of some kind of award. Perhaps we should generate an IPColl Barnstar? Whatever we do, I'd suggest that User:Nosfartu get one! NickCT (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Nosfartu certainly cares about the article! I also now would add Zuchinni one (talk · contribs). Also, per what I said above, I think we should also honor those who are partisan, but by and large do a good job of keeping their edits neutral. The following editors come to mind: Prodego (talk · contribs) (but [4] against community decision Talk:Gaza flotilla raid/Archive_2#Activists or passengers?) and Licory (talk · contribs) (but [5] - edit warring over attribution). — Sebastian 21:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Seb, I reviewed the edits you offered looking at them, here's my opinion.

Ai 00 (talk · contribs) - 1 - This seemed like a mostly NPOV edit, offering POVs from both sides. Poor english though. 2 -I agree this is a most awkward edit. Poorly worded at best. At worst an attempt to insert somekind of POV material (though I can't figure out what).

ValenShephard (talk · contribs) - 1 - This seems relatively harmless, though I can certainly see how this could raise POV concerns.

I've reviewed some of Zuchinni one (talk · contribs)'s contribs and can see no reason to object to his nomination. NickCT (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

An award or barnster could be a source of contention in such an already contentious area, as even above discussion shows. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely 100% with carolmooredc. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"Completely 100%"? As oppossed to completely 99%? (chuckle) - Ok. Perhaps true. However, it would be nice if a bipartisan body such as ours did something ot acknowledge editors who did good neutral work on contentious I/P issues. NickCT (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course the I/P conflict is contentious; we all know that. That's precisely why we're here! "The purpose of this collaboration project is to create a more hospitable editing environment for Category:Israeli–Palestinian conflict related topics". I believe that if we're serious about creating a hospitable editing environment, we have to show support for those who actively contribute to it, and not allow a vague fear to discourage us from our purpose.

Is there anything specific you are afraid of? The only thing you mention, the discussion between NickCT and me, does not contain anything that even remotely makes me afraid. — Sebastian 21:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: Other than the edit conflict I just experienced. :-)— Sebastian 21:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself! (and edit conflicts of course) NickCT (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! I'd like to add another benefit I see in a project award: An award will appear on a user page and advertizes our project to exactly those people who we want to recruit per our purpose (a). — Sebastian 21:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think somekind of image similar to this would be appropriate for a barnstar. NickCT (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if they have copyright on that one. How about this one: ? (The disadvantage of that is that it's already widely used here.) — Sebastian 02:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

1)What does the text say?, 2) In keeping with traditional practices on wikipedia, do you think we could potentially build it into somekind of barnstar? NickCT (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>Oops, just noticed all these replies. Anyway, maybe if people are nominated on either this talk page or the articles one and then there being no objections they get one. g. :-) But do Barnsters usually need group approval, or is it flexible?
The problem is more that editors might be really good on 6 article and then there's that one article that pushes their buttons and they end up with people coming by and objecting. (And there are people like me who would prefer not to be nominated because we might have been good on one article, but we may have been naughty on others, even if never sanctioned, and would prefer not to hear the criticism from the partisan peanut gallery.)
As for the image, I'd suggest a dove with the flags small and not touching. I suppose it could be a trial project, but I'm not enthusiastic. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Or just make it a purely private thing, announce it from time to time on this and/or the articles issues talk page so it's not official, and then any contention is segregated to the individual's talk page where it can be quickly deleted/archived. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

@CarolMoore - Re "But do Barnsters usually need group approval, or is it flexible?" - Flexible. But I think there is value in some semi-official IPCOLL barnstar. People can where it as a badge of bipartisanship in this issue. Currently, I don't think anything like that exists.

If you have another suggestion for artwork, do you think you could link to it or offer it? NickCT (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not put together a short and specific proposal here for comment and then run it by Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues where there are more (and more contentious] editors, just to see what happens. Meanwhile a much better wikicommons image of flags. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that the same image Sebastian suggested? We need to adapt it to a barnstar before putting the proposal forth. I'd agree there should definately be somekind of poll before we move forward with it. NickCT (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, same image. I think I read it all in draft form and missed it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Sorry, I've been absent for a while. I still would like to go ahead with this soon. Carol, I am grateful to the people in this world who do good things without talking about them (and I won't comment on the good things I've seen from you), but people are different. I think most people appreciate getting a barnstar for something they spent a lot of effort on. And if that barnstar results from an open, public discussion between people of both sides of a conflict, can it get any better than that?! If people disagree with a proposal then they need to speak up at this very page. This is the hub of the project; if some people don't watch it, it's their decision. If they grumble about that, no neutral editor will take them seriously. I understand your concern about the occasional pushed button, but a barnstar is not a sanctification; we're all human and may make mistakes. For me, that's just one reason why we need barnstars: To strengthen the good in people. If someone does 5 good deeds, and never hears even a "thank you", then the temptation to do something nasty becomes harder to resist. At least I'm wired that way, and I think I'm not alone.

As for the graphic: I looked at the usage, and (contrary to what I said) it's not widely used, but it has been claimed by supporters of the two-state solution. If that is a problem, we could just use some nice graphic variant of the words "سلام - שלום". — Sebastian 18:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote above: Why not put together a short and specific proposal here for comment and then run it by Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues where there are more (and more contentious] editors, just to see what happens. Also, the following editors are your proposal or did I miss something above? CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the proposal! I read your suggestion, and I when I wrote "This is the hub of the project; if some people don't watch it, it's their decision", it was meant as a reply. Moreover, more people are watching this page (80) than the current article issues page (48), and it doesn't belong on that page because barnstars are no current article issues. — Sebastian 03:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, not clear where proposal begins. Could you put it in a box or otherwise more clearly demarc it? Also, I was thinking in terms of language that could be inserted in the actual WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration mainpage with explanation and instructions and the graphic. Also, I was just guessing at how many people watching and did not know there's a page to read how many are tracking an article. How does one find it? CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. As for the language on the main page, how about something like WP:SLR#Sri Lanka Reconciliation Award? Would you also like to keep a list, as we did there? — Sebastian 03:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Cease fire?

Radical idea: what if all willing regular editors in the I-P area pledge the following: for the next month, ending at midnight July 17 GMT, all editors refrain from:

1. Opening arbcom cases against other I-P editors or commenting negatively in an arbcase about them
2. Requesting AE enforcement against other I-P editors
3. Filing 3rr against other I-P editors (very polite warnings okay)
4. Posting complaints on any admin board against other I-P editors
5. Insulting other I-P editors, or reporting same to WQA

and make a good faith effort to:

1. Adhere to voluntary 1rr (except true vandalism and outright BLP vios) on all articles, broadly construed, in the topic area.
2. Give a heartfelt, sincere olive branch to at least one editor who has wronged you/you may have wronged in the past (you don't have to specify which!).

It seems to me that there is a knee-jerk reaction in the air to simply ban everyone who makes good contributions to this area, on both "sides." It's a horrible idea, but showing we can work in peace might help put a graphite rod in that emotional response to our editing. What say you all? After a month, if it's been too painful to go without, everyone can go back to WP:BATTLEing. (PS: I notified everyone I could think of off the top of my head, but please feel free to notify more people if you can think of anyone else.) IronDuke 23:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sounds like a good idea, sign me up

1. I'll try. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
2. Well done for trying to cool things down IronDuke.     ←   ZScarpia   20:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
3. As nom, so to speak. IronDuke 02:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No thanks: here's why

1. I think that as draft it would be harmful, for the reasons I reflect below. Limit activity by disruptive editors? Worth considering. Limit activity by non-disruptive editors? Harmful to the project (though I imagine it might gain some traction with editors previously found to be disruptive--It will be interesting to note, therefore, how the "previously blocked for Arab/Pal-Israel conflict edit violations" editors vote). This rec, unfortunately, bolsters disruptive editors, while hamstringing non-disruptive editors.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
2. Really, you must be kidding. What you propose is basically that the POV-warriors have a free reign because what you propose is not enforce normal editing. What about
   1. if all editors ever blocked for edit warring etc stop editing for a month and will only comment on the talk pages?
   2. if editors within the same side of the dispute would actually control their own, instead of piling up on each other against the other side.

   -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

General discussion

• Comment. We have a definitional issue. Which is, how does one define who is a "regular editor in the I-P area." Furthermore, why would we wish to chill continued input from helpful editors in that area?

How about we change that to something along the lines of "Editors who have been sanctioned for violations in the I-P area, which sanctions have not been reversed as unfounded". Or, "Editors who have been subjected to topic bans in the I-P area, which bans have not been reversed as unfounded".

I think we want to distinguish between editors who have edited disruptively in the area, and editors who have simply edited in the area (whose continued input should be encouraged).--Epeefleche (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I totally understand where you're coming from, but I don't want to make any such distinction. WP will not asplode merely because a disruptive editor is watched a bit less closely. I don't want to get too bogged down in rigid definitions; I'm not looking for another opportunity to fuss and nitpick. I think if we all really adhere to the spirit of this, good will come of it. IronDuke 00:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Well then, I certainly can't support the rec. I can see the project being improved by limiting further disruption by disruptive editors.

At the same time, I see the project being hurt--and hurt needlessly--by limiting the contributions of non-disruptive editors. As your suggestion would have that effect, I believe it would be deleterious to the project.

In short, the projected is bettered by non-disruptive editors opening arbcom cases against disruptive I-P editors and commenting in an arbcase about them, requesting AE enforcement against disruptive I-P editors, filing 3rr against disruptive I-P editors, posting complaints against disruptive I-P editors, reporting disruptive editors to WQA, etc. This suggestion is IMHO analogous to Obama saying "let's try a month with good law-abiding citizens not reporting suspicions of terrorism to Homeland Security -- wouldn't that be a nifty way to address terrorism?" That's somehow not intuitive to me.

I can't support a harmful suggestion (though I imagine my emendation would not be supported by disruptive editors either).--Epeefleche (talk) 01:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—I think it would be more helpful if the editors in question just stayed away from controversial articles, or at least from making controversial edits (any edit that they believe might potentially be reverted for any reason). In any case, I don't like to think that I'm "at war" with another Wikipedian and need a "ceasefire", but if this wording will help your initiative, then I support, because anything that reduces the amount of time wasted on mutual dirt-throwing is positive, IMO. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The editors in question = all of us. I'm not talking about good actors versus bad actors, just an across the board chilling out of all the regulars. It may not ultimately do good, but I can't see harm -- and it just might lead to something positive. IronDuke 01:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, I support the idea in principle, but it's not helpful that editors who were never problematic to begin with are dragged into an agreement which would place them on a list with many problematic editors (i.e. Epeefleche has a point). Personally, I believe that everyone in I–P should adhere to voluntary 1RR anyway. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 02:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

@Kim. No, I am not kidding. Assuming you aren't either, I'd like to cast a wider net than what you propose in point 1 and as far as point 2 goes, I'd agree with it, but I think that's harder to get accomplished (and generally a more amorphous concept). Thanks for weighing in. IronDuke 23:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

@1: Well, my points were not part of your proposal. What the proposal misses is the sequence of trouble:

1. An editor tries to push their POV
2. The editor resorts to bad behaviour to get his way
3. Fellow POV editor pile up, coordinate off wiki etc.
4. Editor goes to far
5. Enforcement comes in play.

What you want us to believe is that we shoudl all stop with point 5, and the other will TRY to behave better. The point you are missing is simple, point 5 would not be reached if point 4 would not be reached.

@2: It is easy. Make a list of editors, look who is pro either side and who is neutral. Make a enforcement page for each group, and give the editors within each group 24 hours to respond to an incident related to their own. If no response, escalate it to the general enforcement. Really, it is the POV-warriors that are the problem, not the resonable editors. if the POV-warriors are sick of being hammered by the enforcement, MAYBE they could take some lessons in respectful, neutral and reliable source based editing. Really, the best thing for these articles would a a total no nonsense policy. One violation, you are flagged. Two you are topic banned. No excuses. I guarantee you, within a month, all the editing in the area would be smooth as you can imagine. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that is brilliant. nableezy - 01:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Kim van der Linde first suggestion is excellent. And I agree it's a great idea for the more self-controlled "Pov" editors to educate and/or pressure the less self controlled ones and I'm always glad to see it when it does happen on a talk page or else where. But it's important to make it clear the alternatives are not POV or Neutral. Frankly hardly anyone has the nerve to go near these articles unless they have a strong opinion. Also, let's recognize the strength of the POV differs among editors. Additionally, each editor may have a stronger POV on one kind of article or issue than another. The bottom line is behavior and honest adherence to policy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there is more than POV and neutral. But as you indicate, many do have a strong POV, and if you do not have one, you will be tagged with one on both sides (being labelled an anti-Semite and a Zionist on the same day was very hilarious). It is indeed all about behaviour, and if the well-behaved editors control the editors with the same slant, we will have substantial less issues.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

@Kim. No, I don't think I am missing the point. Your point five is the only point in your list I mean to address, as the other ones are really not addressable. I'd like to see less use of the wiki-enforcement mechanisms used as "gotcha" against editors who have a differing POV. I'm not trying to rein in POV, because it simply cannot be done. Virtually everyone who edits intelligently on this issue has a POV. That's a dirty word here, but it doesn't have to be. It's sort of like hating gasoline, because gasoline can explode. While gas is dangerous, it can also be very useful, when channeled appropriately. And your idea for self-policing is nice in theory, but would never work. Indeed, if it did work, it wouldn't be necessary, if you follow me. Just a few of the issues: a lot of editors would be reluctant to pick a "side" (or does someone just decide that?), and what constitutes an "incident," and who makes that call? And what is a "violation?" If I add a source that could support an Israeli position, and someone deletes it because it's an op-Ed and they don't think that's a good enough source, do I get punished? Do they? Does everyone involved? And really, this is the whole point for me is not to add more draconian punishments, but to get away from the punishment model as much as possible, which is why I am asking IP editors, for a month, not to sic the law on each other, among other things. I still think it's a good idea. IronDuke 02:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, ceasing the enforcement because the other aspects are so difficult to address is basically giving the POV-pushers a free rein to do what they do best, POV-pushing, edit-warring etc.

As for the bigger issue, all the reasons you give me for not doing a self-control group idea are exactly why it should be done. Really, I want to see a pro-Palestinian editor tell another pro-Palestinian that the op-ed article is really not worth the paper it was written on. The problem is that it is now the pro-Israel editor who slams the pro-Palestinian editor. If you suggest that there are not enough good editors who actually know the above mentioned points, even more reason to start the POV-peer control now. The problem is that the dicusssions are not about content, but about the (perceived) POV of the editor one that editor addresses behavioural problems of an editor. What we need is to discuss content, not editors. And to do that, you have to kill the main source of discussing the editors, namely that editors with a different POV need to address behavioural issues. To achieve that, you need to focus the enforcement to the same POV-peer group. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This part is an excellent idea, it is so good that I may have made it. I dont think identifying the "side" would be a problem, we all know each other, the bigger problem is whether or not people will be willing to call out their own "side" in a public forum. But this suffers the same flaw as most good ideas, it doesnt have a chance of happening. I think ID has an idea here, but I think a less severe implementation should be adopted. I think we should start practicing a form of jury nullification, well not really cause we aint the jury, but anyway, we refuse to report some of the stupider "violations". If you, as an opposing editor, do not find any fault with the actual content of a supposed "violation", dont report it even if it is a clear cut violation of the topic ban. I wont comment on my own last AE, but I will for Gilabrand's. We shouldnt be looking for other people's "violations", and we shouldnt be bringing up edits that no reasonable person could object to. This edit shouldnt have been reported, this either. The ones she was actually sanctioned for could have just been handled on her talk page. When there are real problems AE can and probably should be used, but most of the recent ones have not been about anything real. nableezy - 05:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

In general, calling people out really happens best on an article talk page because most people are too busy to go to a new article and figure out all the issues, unless they just are lockstep on a certain POV. However, I still think we need sanctions and the threat of them because how else are those of us who at least control selves by not constantly reverting others supposed to defend Wikipedia Policy? These sanctions are there for a reason. I know from experience they are the best control on fanatical POV warriors, besides having 6 against one on a talk page, which doesn't happen too often. And on occassion they keep me from drifting into 3RR which I easily would do if I didn't know people were watching. Or maybe Iron Duke is encouraging me to keep reverting others til I get my way instead of usually letting the stronger POV warrior win on questionable reverts and going to noticeboards and whining about it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would go even a bit further. It is very easy to pick out the editors who we do not want here, because they will selectively target the opposite side for violations. Editors who really want to make wikipedia work do not make such a distinction. They will look at the bare facts and act accordingly, without regard to who it is. To me, each and every editor who is selectivbe should be banned from WP for violating the spirit of the project for their own personal POV. Having a POV is okay, but enforcing it by gaming the rules, that is not. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

To me the big problem remains a lack of gutsy admins willing to jump in and explain to editors why their behavior is bad, especially if the offender is one of those who soapbox constantly about bigotry - in terms general enough to avoid sanctions for WP:personal attack, but broad enough to scare people away from explaining why the offender should stop their bad behavior, especially reverts of WP:RS. Big problem I've seen here over the years. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear to the last two comments above. We need bolder admins for sure. Perhaps one of you two ought to request. I'll lend my weight to it. NickCT (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No thanks, I have been stalked, treatened etc enough over this project, I will use my admin tools elesewhere. And my experience is one of the major reasons I suggest POV-peer group editors enforce wikipedia rules, and not anybody else. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Be bolder! Whoever admins over these things is going to be stalked/threatened, but someone has to do it. I certainly think a "POV-peer group" is a nice idea, but frankly, I haven't seen anything like that work well on WP. NickCT (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anyone be given a "free rein" to do anything. What I am suggesting is that using WP enforcement as a tool to further POV struggles does way more harm than good. I think WP IP topics could last for a month without editors trying to get each other banned, and that the project as a whole would be better off without it. If anything egregious pops up, presumably neutral, fair admins could deal with it. IronDuke 02:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

One problem is there are different articles with different parties pulling various things, sometimes things that need to be sanctioned, sometimes threatening undue sanctions. So it's hard to act in such a general fashion.

Back to POV peer group pressure, if it were to be done, WikiProject Palestine and ISrael Talk Pages might be the place to start, with an on going section called "Let's practice being good editors" or something with one sentence requests like: "USER:BLAHBLAH could you control the WP:SOAPBOX and WP:TAGGING on article SOMETHING AOBUT ISRAEL PALESTINE. Thanks for your help Signed USER:SOANDSO" CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

What you all are suggesting aren't necessarily bad ideas, but they are far more ambitious than what I am proposing. If my proposal does not catch on -- and it looks very much like it won't -- I am nearly certain these other proposals will fail as well. IronDuke 23:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, how well did you expect this to go over? But if we are going for tame, how about this. Nobody among the regulars, besides the initial filer of the complaint and obviously the subject, makes any comments at all at any AE thread. Take the "teams" and make them silent "cheerleaders". While I am a fan of comedy, seeing the same people arguing the opposite logic in two sections at the same time isnt making me laugh as much as it had in the past. NMMNG and Huldra were right at one of the AE threads brought against me, there is a remarkable consistency in the people arguing for and against a ban. We dont need people lobbying for or against bans; if there is a legitimate issue the evidence laid out will show it, and all the me toos in the world wont be needed. Having a bunch of people saying lynch him and the others crying bloody murder doesnt do much but further deepen any rifts between editors that after any ban expires will have to work together again. The team mentality is the biggest issue. Even on the silliest issues, most of us would rather not respond to poll or discussion instead of support the position of the "other side". Maybe if some of the vitriol that remains from the arguing on AE or AN/I or wherever was removed we could be more collegial and be able to work together. nableezy - 00:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I didn't have a firm idea of whether it would go over well or not. I guess I hoped, since it's time-limited, that people could stop using enforcement as a weapon for just a little while and, further, that this cooperation could lay the groundwork for further cooperation. That was my hope. As to your idea, I like it. IronDuke 15:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• I will say that we could use guidelines that lead to repercussions when editors, as Nab points out, argue precisely the opposite logic on the same issues --- depending on whether it meets their POV in any particular case. That's fairly poor form, IMHO, and happens way too often.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • That last proposal would be a disaster! Far from resolving anything, it would be likely to lead to meta-debates about whether or not a particular comment was counter to another comment by the same editor, with editors arguing (sometimes inconsistently) both ways on this. It would just add an extra level of potential dispute; please don't take this one any further. RolandR (talk) 10:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I have to agree with Roland here (much as it pains me to type those words ;)). Trying to parse whether an argument is or is not consistent is a recipe for, well, Roland puts it best -- a debate about the debate we're having. IronDuke 15:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasnt saying that we should start enforcing consistency in arguments, I was just saying that on AE specifically we often see people arguing for a ban using the opposite argument that same user has in the past, and sometimes at the same time in a separate section, made against a ban. My solution would be to eliminate that by not having anybody arguing for or against a ban except the person filing the complaint and the subject of the complaint. nableezy - 15:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

really, the only way the endless disputes are going to be resolved is when the resonable editors who edit based on content only and are willing to discuss, negotiate and concede when appropriately become the people who dominate these pages. To keep talking about which side does what wrong, that doesn't work, it just keeps the negative going. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with this, and yet, I feel it's too ambitious for where we are at present. I think if we take baby steps now, we can take larger steps later. IronDuke 17:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the start is easy. Youi know many of the regulars of your side, and you know who is okay and who goes over the edge. Start talkking with the regulars that are ok. Find someone to do so for the other side and start making a group. That is step one. Once you have those, you can start talking with each other. Next step, make the within-peer group boards, and everybody sighned up for either group deals with those signed up on those boards. Everybody who chooses to stay away from the groups is fair game for normal enforcement. If it works, it will be very soon that everybody wants to join. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm confused now. What do you mean by "fair game for normal enforcement?" Also, I have a feeling a number of editors (probably a majority) will not want to be lumped into one side or the other. Would you want to be part of the "pro-Palestinian" side? IronDuke 20:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the problem is the drama that comes with cross-partisan enforcement. So, you reduce that drama with peer-enforcement. As for me being grouped, go ahead. I have been called a zionist and a anti-semite at the same day, so I really don't care. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what Nableezy says above, in both my two recent AE filings, the same group of editors attacked me in a harassing manner and defended the editors up for AE at both requests. WP:Mind your own business should apply there. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't look at ArbEnforcment pages much, but obviously it is annoying to see partisans going at it and I wonder why it's even allowed. They bring up all sorts of charges, usually against the complainant, whose goal may be to stop such complaints. The fact both sides often are punished may stem from Arbitrators frustration with this. And it discourages people making legit complaints because of fear of being sanctioned too. (It has me, anyway.)

Also, just to nitpick, let's not be too simplistic on editors motivations. It's not just pro-Israel and pro-Palestine viewpoints motivating editing. There also is a "pro-America" view of those who may be working on Israel lobby-related or, say U.S.S. Liberty, or Rachel Corrie, like articles. Then there is the "stop WP:UNDUE on charges of antisemitism in BLPs" viewpoint. And there is just - "OMG, what an obnoxious violation of policy that must be fixed" and months of wrangling to try to fix it just out of shear stubborness. And there may be other views that bring people to various articles or sets of articles. I know I've got 4 or 5 motivations that differ depending on the article and which keep me getting involved though frankly there are other dozens of other topics I would have preferred working on over last couple years. CarolMooreDC (talk) 07:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Battleground returning? Please no.

Two issues here: Nableezy and terminology. Nableezy has just returned from a topic ban and we are now being threatened with a return to the battleground which has certainly calmed down over the past two months in his absence. Instead of taking the opportunity to make constructive edits on Palestinian / Arab pages, some of his first edits today return to the exact same attitude of jumping on the 'Israeli' pages at Katzrin, Ariel University Center of Samaria, Mevo'ot Yerich, Tzofim and Tekoa, Gush Etzion, with rehashes of claims that have never been finalized with a community consensus. He (and SupremeDeliciousness jumping in as well) claim UNDUE, but the real mature issue is whether the political term is used before the municipal description on these and similar localities and associated pages, about 200+ articles. I have suggested over the past several months a status quo 'ceasefire', since the alternating wording ratio currently seems half:half, until such a consensus can be reached across the I-P project by reasonable members of the community. --Shuki (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Hmmm. Maybe we need someone to start working on limitations of those who have been topic banned from this area. It does seem that most problems emanate from such individuals. Slowing them down would also encourage productive editors, who would not otherwise be dismayed by the edits they confront. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with that. nableezy - 22:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your good wishes, and look forward to your support in the future. I saw an approach akin to that applied in a recent article. The results were overwhelmingly successful, as in the absence of the formerly-banned editors, the remaining editors were notably collaborative.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, the issue is whether or not the terminology used by the overwhelming majority of sources is placed before what a fringe sized minority use in its place. And I am working on a draft RFC for this topic and will make no more changes for the time being. nableezy - 22:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

And to that end, I started Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Israeli settlements nableezy - 23:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Shuki's assessment even though it might have been a little premature to foster his transition back into the topic area. An RfC on if "settlement" or "city" should be mentioned first in articles and the gross over politicization of something like Tourism in Israel show that he simply cannot function collaboratively. This behavior sucks.Cptnono (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, over politicization is someone who ads regions in the Palestinian territories and in Syria and presents them as if they are in Israel. You are complaining about someone adding reality, the international view, the npov. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Start writing letters to Lonely Planet, Frommer's, and Fodor's if you do not like how the topic is covered in the industry. That is a conversation better left at the article (even though things such as layout are ignored) while I am simply saying that Nableezy's return has rocked the boat. Your not doing so hot yourself with your refusal to contribute anything related to tourism over there even though that is the topic.Cptnono (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the topic there is Tourism in Israel. East Jerusalem, the Golan Height, the West Bank and Gaza are not in Israel. And so the circle starts again... RolandR (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

If editors addressed why the sources lump them together instead of arguing their own interpretation of intl law over there the circle might not be one anymore. Just like if editors stopped causing trouble over something as trivial as what label is applied first to where people live (settlement or town?) improvement could actually be made to those articles.Cptnono (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It isn't our own interpretation Sherlock. And I really dont care what you think about me or my ability "to function collaboratively". And unless you would like me to provide a critique of your editing in the topic area kindly refrain from doing so for me. nableezy - 23:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

If your only way of handling this criticism (not started by me) is by deflecting then maybe a good idea is an RfC on you if you do not adjust how you conduct yourself here. There are legitimate reasons for people to continue to bring you up. Maybe it is time to take a look at yourself and try to understand where they are coming from. Or we can all just pout about it.Cptnono (talk) 03:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Feel free. I am not so vain as to constantly "look at myself", but I sometimes do pause for a bit of self-reflection. One of the things I have thought about is why "people continue to bring [me] up". And then I realize who is "bringing me up" and that it is always the same people with the same views on the same topic. And I feel much the same about the editor who started this section as I do about you, so it being opened by that user gives me no reason to pay it any mind. I dont want to waste me time dealing with you, so if there is something actually content related feel free to raise it. As it stands now a few users are whining that they aren't getting their way and it is all because of the oh-so-evil Nableezy. Ah well, dems the breaks. nableezy - 03:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Like usual, only his critics are the problem and not Nableezy. Shuki hit the nail on the head, and it looks like Nableezy is content battling and not collaborating. Real shame.Cptnono (talk) 04:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the humanity! I already said I really dont care what you (or Shuki) has to say about my editing. So if you would like to open an RfC on me feel free. If you would like to open an AE thread on me feel free. Other than that, to use a phrase so often used by a certain group of editors, comment on content, not on editors. nableezy - 04:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Er... this is not an article and content was brought up. Your content is the problem. Please see the content in the conversation related to Katzrin, Ariel University Center of Samaria, Mevo'ot Yerich, Tzofim and Tekoa, Gush Etzion, and Tourism in Israel. And the purpose of this project is "The purpose of this collaboration project is to create a more hospitable editing environment for Category:Israeli–Palestinian conflict related topics". I have asked you and other editors to take a look at what you are doing in an attempt to get the topic on track. You take offense to it it looks like but that wasn't the intent.Cptnono (talk) 04:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Er you apparently dont understand what I am saying. I'll type slower this time. Shuki has long opposed using the language that sources use to describe the illegal colonies Israel has established in the occupied territories. As this affects many pages I opened a centralized RFC on the issue. You apparently think that is "battleground" behavior. But since I dont care what you think about me, we'll skip that part. Next, there is a discussion about the article Tourism in Israel, with a number of users pretending that the Golan, East Jerusalem and the West Bank are in Israel. I attempted to rectify that falsehood. You apparently think that is "battleground" behavior. But since I dont care what you think about me, we'll skip that part. You now are insisting in casting aspersions about my editing in general. That is not the purpose of this page. If you wish to discuss a specific editor there are places you can do that. An RFC is an option, as are ANI or AE. If you wish to do that feel free. It is obvious that certain users that have been frustrated in their attempts to present minority views as fact or completely disregarding other POVs take issue with me. It is equally obvious that I dont care what these users think. So if there is something you wish to accomplish on this page about my editing chances are you wont be successful. If you just wish to cry about how terrible I am I request you do it on a page that is better suited to handle such inanity. If you wish to discuss my editing behavior in general WP:RFC/U is thataway. If you wish to discuss a specific incident WP:ANI is thataway. If you wish to request that I be sanctioned for some fault under ARBPIA WP:AE is thataway. None of those places are here. Not so warm regards, and feel free to have the last word, I aint paying any more attention to this section, nableezy - 05:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC) (after ec) I dont take offense to this, that would require that I care. I thought I made it clear that I dont care what you think about me. Bye. nableezy - 05:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, let's not mess with the facts here. You came out of the topic ban making those controversial changes, and only when you were caught, did you open the RfC. And you should care about what other's think since this is a collaboration project and we all should be working together, not against each other. --Shuki (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Settlers organizing Wikipedia editors

Hi, I noticed this article and thought to bring it up here as a heads-up. Apparently some settler groups are arranging courses on how to edit wikipedia from a "Zionist" POV. We may therefore be expecting some new contributors to I-P area articles. New editors are a positive opportunity for the project to the extent that they comply with policy, but there appears in this case also a risk that there will be a spike in edit-warring. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 08:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If the CAMERA article can note their organizing people to edit wikipedia (see here), why not a note in the Israeli settlement or some other as/more relevant article?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally, now that we have a mechanism for reviewing edits before they go live, I would like to see a load of IP and other battleground articles protecting by this mechanism so that people who arrive with an agenda of POV-pushing can't just turn up and cause trouble.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the article Dailycare. These kind of shinanigans are so disturbing. I sincerely that moderates on both sides of the I/P issue can come together to stymie these peoples' efforts.

I second CarolMooreDC to note this in some relevant article. NickCT (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, now that we have two examples from WP:RS sources maybe there needs to be a new section in the Wikipedia article itself. Have any other groups tried this sort of thing to the extent it was noticed by WP:RS?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is the Guardian's (RS) report, dated today, on the same issue. I agree mention on e.g. the Israeli settlement and Wikipedia pages may be a good idea. --Dailycare (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion here about it also: [6] I have posted a link to a "Wikipedia Course Booklet", if someone speaks hebrew, please translate it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a great idea. ""The idea is not to make Wikipedia rightist but for it to include our point of view" sounds harmless enough. I hope they make their position known on the talk page, read the guidelines and policies, and aren't edit warriors. I think it would be hilarious if they ended up doing a good job.Cptnono (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If they had said "The idea is not to make Wikipedia rightist but for it to comply with policy" it would be a great idea. They didn't say that. In practice their statement means "we want our point of view included and we don't give a crap about anything else, it's someone else's problem". It's like dropping litter. It doesn't take many people to turn a place into a shithole. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Touché. I'm worried about this crap: "The entry on Jewish family," she said. "The first sentence will be that the Jewish family is the ultimate response to the Western crisis of isolation and lack of affection." We'll see though.Cptnono (talk) 05:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I also laughed when I read that. Right now Jewish family isn't an article, but a redirect to Judaism. Still, I added it to my watchlist anyway.

As you said, Cptnono, we'll see what comes of this. Editors with a genuine interest in improving the project are always welcome, whatever their personal POV. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

At least it's nice to see someone proud of their culture and a quick scan of Wikipedia's coverage of family/kinship systems around the world suggests that there's approximately no coverage. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your reply, and it should be clear to everyone that some of the posts above are not appropriate. Ridiculing an editor who wants to write about family values is just lame and ignorant, and a clear violation of WP:AGF to boot. — Sebastian 23:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Peter above, that a mechanism has existed on a trial basis, but am unsure where that review trial now stands. I am of the opinion that it seemed to work as planned, but was little engaged personally because most articles covered were of little interest or outside my knowledge to make a proper judgment. Wider 'review' coverage for I/P articles might help to moderate/monitor changes as they occur. Wiki needs experienced moderating editors on both sides, per Carol above, and thanks to Delicious for bringing it out. I have no problem with including their specific point of view, properly ref'd and worded among other povs, but am less than optimistic that many newbies thus motivated, will understand or agree with that balance. Time will tell. Regards,CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian has an article on this now. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that link! This sounds actually very good; obviously, they learned their lesson and are now instructing people to work constructively: "The idea, says Shaked and her colleauges, is not to storm in, cause havoc and get booted out – the Wikipedia editing community is sensitive, consensus-based and it takes time to build trust." This promises to jibe well with WP:NPOV. According to the {{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing of our project, we need to help these new editors. This is a historic chance for a productive dialog which we should be grateful for. — Sebastian 14:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No, this does not sound good. It sounds like they are going to do exactly the same thing, and have learned to game the system effectively. This makes it a bigger problem, which will cause more disruption than if we could just quickly boot them. I love how he says in this video "We want to make it balanced and Zionist in nature..." -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the difference in our views is largely like the proverbial question whether a glass is half full or half empty. It depends on what you expect. (“You” meaning anyone, not you specifically.) If you expect extremists to just vanish, then you’d be disappointed. Realistically, as long as the Israel-Palestine is going on in the real world, it will bring people here who feel very strongly about their point of view. If you just want Wikipedia to be a stable encyclopedia, then any such newcomers will make that goal harder. Part of my motivation for participating here goes beyond that: I see Wikipedia, and projects like this in particular, as good tools to help create a common ground between people in difficult situations in the real world. Yes, Wikipedia’s policies have loopholes, and I see your concern of them being abused, but by and large, they have worked pretty well, and I am confident they will also help us now. I’m not blind to the problems you mention, but I’m using my own variant of AGF. — Sebastian 23:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Just thought it might be useful to collect all of the articles I've found on this in one spot, for quick & easy access:

• Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups, Guardian
• Wikipedia Editing for Zionists, NY Times "The Lede"
• Course: Zionist Editing on Wikipedia Youtube video interview with group in question
• Zionist Internet Struggle to Hit Wikipedia
• Blog of one of the organizers)

... and I would like to point out any editors who aren't aware of the old CAMERA scandal to WP:CAMERA.-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, from experience a lot of us know that once they get serious opposition many lose it and start yelling "antisemite" and it's all down hill for cooperative editing by them from there on. (And don't forget to report it to Arbitration enforcement the first time and every time it happens.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

IPCOLL IRC Channel

This was just added to the main page. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration#IRC_Channel Any thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• unomi set it up on our initiative. We think it will be a good forum to further the work on I/P articles. Shoplifter (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)