Wikipedia talk:Neutrality enforcement

• See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria/Proposed_decision#Suggestion:_NPOV_enforcement
• Wikipedia talk:Neutrality enforcement/Archive 1

Alternative proposal

Obviously the intention behind this policy is commendable, but will it really help? I'm not sure that trying to enforce "neutrality" in editing is going to be a viable solution.

I've been giving this dilemma some thought myself over the last couple of days, and my feeling is that wikipedia needs to find a way to get tougher on POV-pushers. And we need to do this across the board, not just on I/P articles. The fact is that wikipedia just has no effective way of dealing with POV-pushing at the moment, the result of which is that articles on controversial topics are often atrociously bad. In fact sometimes I'm in such despair over this problem that I find myself contemplating quitting the project altogether. And I have little doubt that we have already lost many valued contributors for the same reason, and will continue to do so if the problem is not addressed.

So, while I don't pretend to have come up with a definitive proposal, I would like to suggest that we start to formally recognize somewhere in our dispute resolution processes the phenomenon of the POV-pusher, and to implement some sort of policy by which they can be relatively readily identified and weeded out.

Aspects we might look at are:

• Does the user edit largely in one particular topic area? (ie SP account).
• Is the topic area a contentious one?
• Do the user's edits show a consistent pattern of favouring one side of the dispute?
• Does the user frequently add sources of dubious or inferior reliability, and edit war to restore them in spite of having their questionable nature pointed out in talk page discussion?
• Does the user remove reliably sourced information without due cause?
• Does the user show an inability to compromise to reach mutually agreeable solutions?
• Does the user engage in frequent wikilawyering, filibustering or gaming of the system instead of engaging with the issues at hand?
• Does the user demonstrate excessive or chronic hostility to those who disagree with his views?
• Does the user disengage from discussion and continue to edit war when he cannot persuade others of his POV?
• Does the user edit against consensus?
• Does the user utilize talk pages to soapbox about the topic?

...these are just some of the signs of the typical POV-pusher, perhaps other users could suggest some additional or alternative ones. My basic point however, is that it really shouldn't be that difficult for us to be able to identify POV-pushers, without taking sides or adjudicating content disputes.

I just feel that the phenomenon of POV-pushing is destroying this encyclopedia, and until we find a means of dealing effectively with it, wikipedia is always going to remain very much a substandard resource in contentious topic areas. Gatoclass (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Filibustering on talk
• Frequent additions of POV, merge, or fact tags

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I added filibustering to the list above. Not so sure about the tagging suggestion, my general view is that tagging never does any harm as it only alerts readers to the fact that something is contested. If there was a pattern of frivolously adding tags, that might however be addressable. Gatoclass (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

As I say below, good suggestions. However, it seems fact and other tags are better than just deleting unsourced material or questionable material that might be verifiable But then quick deletions of WP:RS material for fairly subjective reasons without putting any tag on it is another problem. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The refusal of the community to address the damage caused by POV pushing is an old issue; see e.g., Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. As Gatoclass mentions this is one of the main reasons why Wikipedia articles on anything remotely controversial suck so badly: they have 23 citations and fact tags for the most obvious and trivial points; the writing style is fragmented and incoherent because the articles never become stable enough for serious copyediting; etc etc. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Other alternatives

There may also be other alternatives we might be able consider as well. I have sometimes thought, for example, that perhaps what we should do is have a panel of respected, independent users to adjudicate content disputes in contentious topic areas. Anyone could apply to have their content dispute adjudicated, but if the panel rejects their position and supports the opposite POV, the person who loses the dispute is banned from editing in the topic area in question for a set period of time. Users who frequently lose such disputes could be banned for longer periods, or indef banned if necessary. This would ensure that frivolous content disputes would not reach the panel, and that users who were continually making specious arguments were gradually weeded out from the topic area in question.

The panel itself could be subject to periodic review, or perhaps rotated on a regular basis. Gatoclass (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean internal or external editors ? Ceedjee (talk) 08:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. There are just wikipedia editors, aren't there? Gatoclass (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. My mistake. Ceedjee (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, "internal" and "external"? I'm afraid you've lost me there. Gatoclass (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Gatoclass are you thinking of something along the lines of Wikipedia:Third opinion on steroids? --PBS (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it that way. Third opinion is only one person, and it could be anyone. I was thinking more along the lines of a panel of three or perhaps more uninvolved users respected for the quality of their work. Gatoclass (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought a moment you suggested we contact external scholars.

In my mind, the issue is more the content than the behaviour. Ceedjee (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Merging all the proposals

When I saw the IPCOOL project appearing, I was convinced it could be used to solve these content disputes. They could be centralized and easily adressed by users. I personnally tried several times to bring questions there, even before the dispute appears. Nevertheless, it didn't evolve in that direction and this function has even been rejected.
But it could and in taking into account all the proposal (initial ones, Ravpapa, Both of Gatoclass and the critics too) : we need objective criteria to see what is neutral and what is not, we need to convince people bto stop developing one pov and write for the enemy too, we need to get rid of crazy article, ... But uninvolved editors fear a group takes the control of a topic (wp:own), that the idea is useless (content is not the problem, it would be behaviour), that what exists is enough, ... I think we could simply, and spontaneously (in the pure wiki spirit), create something such as the "IPCOOL Content Board" that could centralize the content disputes
Let's discuss later how to create this and how to organise this.
The idea is that *each content dispute* should be adressed there first.
The advantages are that ICB :

• would know the contributor(s) who come and the topic (the main problem of the Arbcom who decided to shoot at spot due to that);
• would gather people who are interested by the topic;
• would built a memory, preventing the same questions to come ever and ever again;
• would give a place where all editors know they could adress their problem;
• ...

If fear in the current discussion, we are seeking to be "recognized" by the community. I think wikipedia doens't work that way. Let's create the "stuff" and if it works and if it proves to be efficient, neutral, respected by all parties, then it will get the recognition.
For what concerns the power to implement sanctions : in practice, don't under-evaluate the social pressure of being recognized by the group or not (the ICB will, if recognized, draw the lines). In practice, if sanctions are really required and if the ICB, with "a group a allegedly respected editors" complains on the WP:AN/I, it should be supported by the sysops if it uses that "last solution" wisely.
Ceedjee (talk) 08:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

CAMERA campaign; question for proposer; better enforcement of current policies

Question for “SlimVirgin”:
My first concern on reading this is the 2008 attempt by the pro-Israel group CAMERA to recruit pro-Israel editors, including as stealth administrators in order to “ensure accuracy and fairness” by sanctioning editors who extremely pro-Israel editors consider biased!

As an email on the CAMERA-related “isra-pedia” email list said: There is in wikipedia the ability by an administrator to set significant limits on other editor. in 90% of the cases sanction placed b one administrator are not chalanged at all. they stick. In the issue of Israeli-palestine articles there is now additional restrictions that can be placed by an administrator AS LONG AS HE IS AN "uninvolved administrator". You can read a copy of this whole document here.

There was quite a bit of discussion of this, including on various high level wikipedia email lists. I believe the Isra-pedia mailing list was shut down, but it is likely that the effort continues more surreptiously.

As it happens, this document mentioned SlimVirgin saying: There was a time that {[User:Jayjg]]) he and another user called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki!U~er:Sli~Virgin were the two most important and infuential editors in wikipedia. Both have added many subjects but also edited israel related articles and took a lot of heat about it.

I’d certainly like to hear from SlimVirgin her thoughts about the author's reference to her, since I assume it was not authorized. And in general her views on stealth pro-Israel partisans posing as “uninvolved administrators” to drive out editors who challenge their bias.

Solutions (will add any more I think of):
1. Need for better behavioral enforcement, including as proposed by User:Gatoclass directly above. Even if it means Wikipedia has to hire some truly non-involved admins to take on the hard cases in this and other contentious areas.

• Better enforcement of Wikipedia:Incivility#Engaging_in_incivility, especially insults and name-calling (especially constant subtle and gross allegations of anti-Semitism)
• Have a talk page box that links to policies and recourse on incivility, edit warring and other behavioral issues so that even new people can get up to speed quickly.

2. Need for better reviews, comments on and, when necessary, deletion of grossly inappropriate material in articles where editors have complained of obviously serious POV problems - if necessary again by paid people. This is especially true for Biographies where critics of Israel are routinely labeled anti-Semites using “WP:RS” from the thousands of paid pro-Israel partisans.

3. Fundraising mechanism for hiring such people. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Very informative. In the above message, here's a more direct link to the CAMERA wiki and a link to the section in it Wikipedia campaign. See also [1]. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for link/reminder the story is part of the CAMERA article. Renamed section header to make it clear that's part of my comment. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A week later, I'm still waiting to see if User:Slim Virgin who proposed this and has been the main editor of the proposal has any comment on the CAMERA issue, since obviously clarifying it would put to rest any questions about her own neutrality. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Content dispute resolution

Support finding ways to encourage writing for the enemy that don't involve coercion

The nugget idea that SlimVirgin is espousing, essentially adopting a more writing-for-the-enemy approach, would certainly help in many intransigent topic areas. I’m not keen on the idea of doing it through "neutrality enforcement" though, piling on more committees and policies. Couldn’t editors simply encourage and challenge each other in a less formalized way to write for the other side? Coming from the business world, and from a particularly regulated industry to boot, my observation is that while a certain level of policy and process is necessary, there comes a point of diminishing returns if a task becomes overwhelmed and bogged down by too many policies, committees, layers of bureaucracy. Better to provide incentives that draw people into doing things of their own initiative rather than through coercion or via policing. If more individual editors would voluntarily take upon themselves the commitment to 1) make it a habit to purposefully write for the other side in a neutral tone, and 2) offer positive reinforcement through encouragement, respect and recognition of peers on the other side who do the same, it could catch on and grow in influence and move the community toward valuing cooperative writing rather than strong arming each other in polarized power struggles. It may even become addictive for those who practice fairly articulating the other side, once awareness sets in that such exercises not only produce better articles and make us better editor/writers, but also make us better people. --MPerel 09:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Many editors in the I/P area would simply be fired by companies for failing to comply with corporate policies. The unfortunate reality in my view is that the behavior of many editors borders on the psychopathological. We need a process that can efficiently deal with agenda driven editing in the I/P area and stop it in it's tracks. Neutrality isn't an inevitable emergent property of I/P articles. Many articles seem to fall off the path to neutrality and get stuck long before they reach that destination. Gatoclass highlighted some specific and measurable metrics that could be used in practice to identify problematic editors. Even if we just focused on the 3 below and took rapid/decisive action when an editor is clearly misbehaving it would help enormously. So much time is wasted clearing up the damage done by these kinds of editors who are often just passing by articles making ninja edits.

• Do the user's edits show a consistent pattern of favouring one side of the dispute?
• Does the user frequently add sources of dubious or inferior reliability, and edit war to restore them in spite of having their questionable nature pointed out in talk page discussion?
• Does the user remove reliably sourced information without due cause?

Sean.hoyland - talk 09:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with the "consistent pattern of favouring one side of the dispute" unless the editor is allowed to explain their behavior. For example, over time I have gone to a number of biographies where people have recently been criticized for their negative views on Israel because I know I'll find all sorts of unsourced, poorly sourced, WP:Undue coatrack negative material which I go in and clean up, noisily pointing out what policies are being violated. That certainly would be a consistent pattern of favouring people who criticize Israel, but it also would be neutral editing.

And of course there is the simple fact that many editors have lots of knowledge of one side or the other and relatively little of the other and don't want to have to spend hours boning up just to avoid punishment. This scares away such editors. As I've said elsewhere, on this topic there are lots of editors willing to share opposite views and that's what will produce neutrality - with a little help from more editors/admins willing to check out articles posted on the NPOV noticeboard. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, so do I to be honest. Many aspects of the actual implementation of a policy like this would be very difficult if not impossible in practice. I'm not sure things can get much worse so it's got to be worth a try. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 03:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if my tentative proposal above is workable either. But regardless of that, I do think we are going to have to try something - maybe a number of things - until we find some sort of system that works more effectively. The current dispute resolution system just isn't doing the job. Gatoclass (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A perfect example is an edit I just did (adding info about a controversial column written by the subject of a bio) which could be interpreted as either very pro-Jewish or very anti-Jewish. The fact that it was attacked by anti-semites who were not reliable sources who could be quoted to show the controversy and praised by Jews in WP:RS made it more confusing as to what the POV of the editor might be. Then I found a snide headline to a reprint of the column by Norman Finkelstein which at least gave some context to one view on the controversy. After 1/2 hour I just got tired of looking for WP:RS who mention that lots of fringe groups went crazy over the column or made any serious comment. So I'll give it a rest for now and see what others came up with. When you are doing free work, you can't expect perfection from just one individual! CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: "NPOV is for content, not editors"

I noticed in section #No above, the claim that "NPOV is for content, not editors. If an article is slanted in one direction, then 'POV pushing' in the other direction is actually beneficial." I think that view is mistaken, and I think it may well be near the heart of the problem here.

From my observations, only unbiased editors produce unbiased articles. Biased editors never produce unbiased articles, even then the numbers on each side balance each other out perfectly. When two editors with opposing biases edit the same article, the result is not an unbiased article but a disruptive edit war and an unstable article that swings wildly from bias to bias. The only times I have seen a biased editor make a positive difference to an article is when they have complained bitterly about a bias in the article, and an unbiased editor has responded by fixing the problem. Without an unbiased editor to filter the claims and counter-claims of the biased parties, there is no hope of improving the article.

In reckon the core principle behind this proposal is that neutrality should apply to editors too—if you are not committed to editing in a neutral fashion, then you're not welcome to edit at all. I don't know about the proposed implementation, but if I'm right about the core principle, then I think it is heading in the right direction.

Hesperian 04:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Another consideration here is that even when it's possible to balance out two sets of biases to create an unbiased article, that doesn't make it a good article. It's very easy to end up with a donut-shaped article that conveys the extreme positions of its editors without including all the interesting material in the middle that doesn't clearly support any one agenda. So I do think the goal of this proposal is correct; my doubts (noted above) are about whether it'll do enough towards that goal to outweigh the down-sides. --GenericBob (talk) 05:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

My view is that there is no such thing as an "unbiased" editor. We all have our individual biases, our political views and so on which colour our perceptions, regardless of whether or not we have previously taken an interest in a particular topic.

I think what the problem boils down to is what you're here for. If you're here to try and write a great encyclopedia, you will be able to compensate for your own bias by listening to other POVs and adjusting your contributions accordingly. But if you're only here to promote an agenda, any useful contribution you make will be purely coincidental. Gatoclass (talk) 08:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That is what I ought to have said instead of "biased" and "unbiased" editor. It is hard to be brief and still get these things right. Hesperian 11:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

For any sensible editor, having someone start yelling POV on talk page and put POV tags on the article usually is enough to make them be more careful in their editing. I myself tend to lose it the most on those past occasions when I'm dealing with groups of editors who will not allow some WP:RS fact that might make someone/thing they like look just a little bad while demanding that barely WP:RS facts be included in full detail for someone/thing they don't like. It was only after about 1 yr 8 mos of wikiediting I (a normally fairly assertive person) had the nerve to start going to Noticeboards and even complain about some of these POV pushers. Too often noticeboard posts attract MORE POV pushers and complaints to Admins (even about insults, revert warriors etc) are ignored or dealt with with only a mild warning - including because the admin will quickly find herself/himself under attack by all the POV pushers friends. This whole discussion is irrelevant without a thorough discussion of TagTeaming and Harassment of admins. One of the reasons I think we need some paid admins who are getting money to put up with the grief that volunteers more quickly burn out on. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the intent here.

There fundamentally is no thing as an unbiased editor. There are unbiased edits, and there are people who help articles become unbiased. But no living, breathing human being is unbiased.

I mean, seriously, if you look at the user pages of a lot of editors they have userboxes in support of Hamas/Hezbollah/Al-Queda, they have memorials for Rachael Corrie, they have pictures of the murderous dictorial psycopath Che, and so on => But these people have made positive contributions to Wikipedia even though they mostly stick to one side in their edits, because they respect the NPOV article principle. The Squicks (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

May be unnecessary at the moment

Is there a real problem right now? The Israel-related articles that I follow have been rather quiet lately. One of the more vocal editors in this area is taking a wikibreak, and in his absence, not much seems to be happening. What's the current problem? --John Nagle (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I wish I could believe the problems are not going to recur, but having been here 3 years, one sees the same problems recurring again and again, albeit with different players. Gatoclass (talk) 08:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It is impossible to know if they are the same players or different players. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at this in the Hezbollah article from the 8th to 10th May. This is typical of the kind of street fighting nonsense that goes on all over the place. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sean, I noticed that from May 8-10 there were only 2 small messages on the Talk page, a sign of edit warring on both sides of the issue. Perhaps it would help if you discussed in more detail your reasons for your reversions on the Talk page and tried to get a discussion going? P.S. I'm only mentioning you since you are here. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

One more thing that I'm curious about, and I'm glad that you mentioned a specific article. Let's get to the heart of the matter. Overall, in your opinion, is the Hezbollah article a violation of NPOV? And if so, which POV does it favor? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's avoid article specifics or I'll bring up Gilad Atzmon where only an OTRS from Atzmon himself stopped the madness. However, the craziness does seem to be cyclical, in part driven by Israel's recent actions. And there are a few key abusive editors whose talk pages reflect constant complaints (some more valid than others, but all symptomatic of edit warring) from a number of editors on a number of articles. They should be blocked frequently and even banned IMHO. Others will go crazy for a while on some article and then go back to good editing. (I've done it a few times myself, though usually in response to working on too many of those articles at a time with same tag team playing same games.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Carol, I'm glad you brought up a specific article too. Overall, in your opinion, is the Gilad Atzmon article a violation of NPOV? And if so, which POV does it favor? Also, if you are familiar with the Hezbollah article, could you answer the same questions for that article too? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually what I brought up was the process issue - that only an OTRS stopped the madness. I don't know enough about the topic/article you mention to comment on it and don't have time to learn. But If you want a comment on a specific article you can go to a notice board including WP:NPOVN or ask people at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Carol, Would you (or anyone else) care to answer those questions for any specific article that you are familiar with, regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

(<---)Bob, the heart of the matter is not just whether or not the end result is NPOV but also the crazy amount of time it takes to keep it that way in the face of people who are only here to push a POV. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

WAS, If it's any consolation to you, if such editors exist, they are using up crazy amounts of their time too. And that isn't the heart of the matter in my opinion. The heart of the matter is Wikipedia content. That's why I was asking the above questions. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

But what I think you are looking for is WP:Soapbox which I'm sure most of us could engage in ad nauseum. But in the end, on wikipedia what matters is what you can source and what the preponderance of the reliable sources say. Of course, over time those may change, one way or the other. Maybe if we had a mathematical formula we could use that to help structure articles, if we can find a computer that will spit all those out for us :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

When I started this section, I wasn't aware of what had been going on at Judea and Samaria. I now agree that there's been a big problem over there. But Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria seems to be dealing with that issue. --John Nagle (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The final decision of the arbitration proceedings given by the above link Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria has just been reached a few hours ago. Perhaps this is an indication that the present system is working in this subject area. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I was afraid to even peek at that article/conflict, but (as my intuition only tells me) when the relatively innocent and the quite guilty get equally slammed, it certainly makes everyone feel like they better stay on their best behavior!! I've been on my best last couple months since finally seeing a couple contentious editors get spanked, knowing my occasional misbehaviors also might be punished if I'm not a good girl! CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I just read through the arbitration. ArbCom finally dropped the hammer on the usual suspects. No more "admonishments" - permanent topic bans. That's further than I would have gone, but I can't say ArbCom was wrong. Ought to quiet things down, though. --John Nagle (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's the notice that was sent out to the subjects of the action.

RFAR/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs), G-Dett (talk · contribs), MeteorMaker (talk · contribs), Nickhh (talk · contribs), Nishidani (talk · contribs), NoCal100 (talk · contribs), and Pedrito (talk · contribs) are prohibited from editing any Arab-Israeli conflict-related article/talk page or discussing on the dispute anywhere else on the project. Jayjg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is also prohibited from editing in the area of conflict, and he is stripped of his status as a functionary and any and all associated privileged access, including the CheckUser and Oversight tools and the checkuser-l, oversight-l, and functionaries-en mailing lists. Jayjg is also thanked for his years of service.

After six months, these editors may individually ask the Arbitration Committee to lift their editing restrictions after demonstrating commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and ability to work constructively with other editors. However, restrictions may be temporarily suspended for the exclusive purpose of participating in the discussion of draft guidelines for this area.

In the meantime, the community is strongly urged to pursue current discussions to come to a definitive consensus on the preferred current and historical names of the region that is the source of conflict in this case. Note that this must be consistent with current Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, a neutral point of view, and naming conventions. This decision will be appended onto this case within two months from the close of the case.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Bob, since you asked, if you look at how the edit warring has continued in the Hezbollah article despite efforts to take it to talk you will have the answer to your question "Perhaps it would help if you discussed in more detail your reasons for your reversions on the Talk page and tried to get a discussion going?". Talking at times like that seems like arranging a safety at work meeting with people who are illegally logging a forest. I'm not a great fan of sanctioning people on the basis of edit warring because it addresses a symptom rather than the root cause. The root cause and the identity of the arsonist is usually lost in the fire. When someone starts a fire someone has to put it out. Firefighting isn't called water warring and if there is one thing Wikipedia isn't short of it's firestarters.

Regarding, whether the Hezbollah article is globally neutral, I don't know. I don't see it as relevant when the issues are behavioral e.g. the local removal of sourced content and the local insertion of material that doesn't comply with WP:V = just vandalism. I like to look at nature for solutions. Social insects find it necessary to assign a considerable amount of their costly resources and limited behavioral spectrum to dealing with misbehaving fellow workers. I think there's a lesson for us here. When there is a complex collaborative task it can be more effective to focus on the small scale actions of individuals rather than concern ourselves with global aspects such as whether the nest looks pretty. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Re "...if you look at how the edit warring has continued in the Hezbollah article despite efforts to take it to talk you will have the answer to your question 'Perhaps it would help if you discussed in more detail your reasons for your reversions on the Talk page and tried to get a discussion going?' ". -

Actually, your last discussion on the Hezbollah talk page appears to have been productive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hezbollah#Operation_Smokescreen

Maybe your further participation there might help.

2. Re a) "I'm not a great fan of sanctioning people on the basis of edit warring because it addresses a symptom rather than the root cause." and b) "When there is a complex collaborative task it can be more effective to focus on the small scale actions of individuals..." -

It seems like ArbCom's focusing on edit warring is consistent with your latter idea re "complex collaborative task" etc. You might note that ArbCom was mainly ruling on process rather than article content. They only mentioned article content in their suggestion to come to a consensus on naming, but article content wasn't given as a reason for their actions against those editors, as I recall.

3. Re "Regarding, whether the Hezbollah article is globally neutral, I don't know." -

Is that because you haven't considered it or because you considered it but can't tell? If it's the latter, then that sounds like your honest impression is that it is NPOV.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Yes, things may calm down for a while thanks to Peter Cohen's efforts although I'm sceptical whether it will last unless there are mechanisms in place to support and stabilise consensus once attained. I sometimes wonder whether potentially contentious related statements that appear in multiple articles should be treated more like precious lego bricks. You know the kind of statements I mean, statements that talk about the occupation status of the Gaza Strip, the legality of barriers/housing developments etc etc. There are so many them. I wonder whether those kind of statements that lead to so much edit warring and wasted effort should be centrally managed with a centralised consensus process. The agreed statements could then be deployed in the appropriate articles like precious building blocks and protected by armed guards who gently point people towards the centralised discussion page or shoot them depending on their behavior.

2. I'd rather not comment on the actions of ArbCom other than to say that rapidly dealing with editors who don't follow existing guidelines and who can tigger sustained edit warring in an article with a simple drive by edit seems more surgical to me.

3. It's mostly because I can't tell. Usually when I think something is neutral someone says something that I hadn't considered. Consequently I don't have much confidence in my assessment of neutrality. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

RFAR - Reactions

This arbitration resolution is in effect the implementation of policies advocated on this talk page.

I ask: is this really what we want? Eight editors - among them some of the most knowledgeable, cogent and productive in this arena - have been banned indefinitely. The substantive issues raised in the arbitration case remain unresolved: "The community is strongly urged to pursue current discussions to come to a definitive consensus," bla bla bla, writes the closing arbitrator. It is not unlikely that other editors, faced with the same unreconcilable disagreements, will either continue the war, or will simply raise their hands in fear or desperation.

Is this what we want?

At the risk of being a nudnik, I would like to propose an experiment, based on my previous suggestion (oy, not again - my essay User:Ravpapa/The Politicization of Wikipedia). Let's take one of the more contentious articles - for example, Exodus from Lydda or The Gaza War - and let's create two subarticles (Exodus from Lydda/ProPal and Exodus from Lydda/ProIsr). Let's open these subarticles to editing by the "Judea and Samaria 8", according to the strict rules laid down in my essay. Let's see if we can then come up with a stable, agreed-upon version, or at least twin versions, of this article. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Why bother with the drama? How about we do nothing for a while, edit lightly, and just see what happens? --John Nagle (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

While I avoided even looking at that dispute, just looking at who's who, I'm sure some editors were more guilty than others of various abuses and would like to think that the arbitrators had used some sort of weighting system (adding up reverts, insults, crappy sources, truly questionable behaviors and given them numbers for each editor) than just said - well, a,b,c,d definitely have misbehaved but e,f,g have been half as bad and complained too much about a,b,c,d so let's zap them too so we don't look biased.

The larger issue is that on the world stage some of these issues are largely settled (if not in the narrow partisan halls of national power), just like the issues of Hitler's value to Germany or Pol Pot's to Cambodia, the viability of the Soviet Union, the rightness of So. African apartheid, the validity of the justifications for the invasion of Iraq (hopefully), etc. have been settled. And wikipedia as a community has to take a stand, even if partisans of the group which is now looked up negatively scream their heads off.

Certainly the idea that Israel gets to keep much of the West Bank and demand the world call it Judea and Samaria is one of those issues (said without ever reading the article admittedly). (Articles about Israelis or Christian Zionists who actually call it that being an exception.) And even the right of return is supported by the same UN that created Israel in the first place. So let's admit that partisan politics is at work here to deny what is largely agreed upon wideworld, including among the hundreds of millions of English speakers who don't live in US/Britain/Canada/Australia.

Should the Obama administration actually change some facts on the ground, and reach a solution that will satisfy or pacify the largest partisans, many of them actually may leave wikipedia, figuring that they've lost (or gained) as much as they are going to so editing here doesn't change the political climate. Time will tell. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Your WP:Soapbox bores me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this is the one place we are allowed to soapbox if it is specific to the proposal - i.e., should wikipedia enforce neutrality and what is the consensus of what is truly neutral? Obviously world opinion - and english speaking opinion - as expressed in a variety of WP:RS shapes the view of editors and admins as to what is truly neutral. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

So if I read you correctly, you know why ArbCom decided they way the did without actually reading the case, and you know what the dispute is about, despite not reading the actual articles, and when taking both of those things into consideradtion, what you bring to the discussion of this propsal is that your political opinion is correct and neutral, and all editors should start editing with that in mind? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

NMMNG, setting aside your inappropriately adversarial approach, I think you have missed Carol's core point. There is a genuine and recurring problem of partisan editors manufacturing controversies that simply don't exist in the real world. We don't allow this kind of thing to degrade our coverage of Evolution subjects and we shouldn't allow it to degrade our coverage of Israel-Palestine related subjects. We need to acknowledge that and deal with it. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course these things happen in the real world. The only difference is that in the real world you stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalalala I can't hear you" when you don't want to talk about it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm how ironic. See denial. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note that in the ArbCom decision, the phrase that was applied to all of those editors was "repeated and extensive edit-warring".

An effect of the ArbCom decision may be laying the ground work for a productive resolution of the dispute using Wikipedia principles, eliminating editors who would have disrupted that process with edit warring, and discouraging other editors from edit warring.

In the meantime, the community is strongly urged to pursue current discussions to come to a definitive consensus on the preferred current and historical names of the region that is the source of conflict in this case. Note that this must be consistent with current Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, a neutral point of view, and naming conventions. This decision will be appended onto this case within two months from the close of the case.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Are the sides always equally deserving of respect?

Apart from the practical issues raised above, this "test marketing" exercise has chosen a subject area that causes it to make a questionable assumption, that the sides to a bitter dispute are equally deserving of respect. In the case of Israeli-Palestinian issues, that may be a reasonable assumption. But what if the dispute is creationists vs supporters of the theory of evolution? More starkly, what if one side is Holocaust deniers? Or violent racists? If the Neutrality Enforcement experiment were to succeed in managing Israeli-Palestinian issues, there would be a huge temptation to broaden its scope without examining its assumptions, simply because it would have become "consensus". --Philcha (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

People always deserve respect. However do states and militaries and wicked policies? When much of the world community calls actions by a state against civilians under its control such as ethnic cleansing, land confiscation, defacto apartheid and war crimes (the latter mostly by the state but also by some of those who fight back against that state), the actions of the aggressor state may prove to be far less worthy of respect. As far as all those states that could theoretically destroy much of Jewish Israel with coventional weapons if it chose, I think we all know the Samson Option of Israel's nuclear program dissuades them, and motivates the US to provide military aid. As for Nuclear program of Iran, unlike Israel which hasn't even signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) - not to mention officially admitted having its 200 plus nuclear weapons, Iran has pretty much complied the last few years with NPT and insists repeatedly they don't want a nuclear weapon. And now President Obama has warned Israel not to attack Iran.Haaretz Antiwar.com

The consensus against Israel is becoming stronger and stronger, largely because of its own actions, and despite constant accusations of antisemitism and threats to careers and livlihoods of critics of Israel (both of which thankfully are banned on wikipedia). That is more explicitly the consensus of neutrality towards which English-speakers worldwide are coming.

Thus I will ask, what is the neutrality base point from which wikipedia should proceed? CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Your political view, of course! I mean, it's obvious you are so right and your opponents are so wrong, why shouldn't that be the base point for wikipedia? The best neutrality is being anti-Israel. There's an obvious worldwide consensus on that. I suggest we vote on it right now and solve the whole mess once and for all. Shall we ban views CarolMooreDC doesn't like? All in favor...No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support - well you did ask. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 07:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see what you'd like "neutrality enforcement" to look like. Sadly, I'm not surprised. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Come on, I was kidding. I'd like neutrality enforcement to look more like rapid intervention to stop partisan vandalism and by that I mean just stopping removal of sourced content and enforcing WP:V compliance would help enormously. A kind of 3 strikes and you're out approach and I don't care which side the editor favours. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Really? So you would advocate banning CarolMooreDC if she posted The consensus against Israel is becoming stronger and stronger, on some other talk page (like that at Talk:Gaza War)? The Squicks (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Squicks, assuming you are addressing me, no, I wouldn't advocate banning anyone for expressing an opinion on a talk page unless it broke the existing rules. I think the system in place to deal with serious talk page problems works for the most part although banning vowels would speed things up. I would advocate banning (or let's say suspending) someone if for example they removed reliably sourced information several (pick a number, say 3) times in a day in the same or different articles and were unable to justify the removal when asked. Similarly I would advocate suspending someone if they inserted material that didn't comply with WP:V several times in a day in the same or different articles and were unable to justify their actions. So, I don't have a problem with people having opinions and expressing those opinions. I don't even have a problem with people robotically following the agenda of partisan sites such as CAMERA if it improves an article. I just think rapidly dealing with partisan vandalism would help lay the foundations for a more stable editing environment and encourage talk rather than war. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

bnnng vwls wld spd thngs p? --Philcha (talk) 08:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes or restrict people on talk pages to only using phrases found in the later works of Sam Beckett such as "Fail better". I don't recall him peppering his text with terms such as blood libel so that in itself may help considerably. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a fun idea. You might also like to check out the possibilities in List of ships (The Culture) :-) Philcha (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Philcha, this is the famous finger-in-the-dyke argument: behind the I-P combatants, there is a horde of fringe nutsos waiting for their chance to get into the Wikipedia. Raelians, Nam Myōhō Renge Kyō Buddhists, the Front for the liberation of Easter Island. In other words, we can try this approach, but let's pray it fails. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as the Wikipedia is concerned, perhaps it's not a matter of respect but rather the weight that should be given to a particular side of an issue. The number and reliability of the sources of information for each side, may be the best determiner for how much weight each side should be given in the Wikipedia.

But in practice, the number of editor-hours that are involved in the presentation of information seems to be a strong influence on the amount of space that is given to a side of an issue or subject in the Wikipedia. For example, in an area of science, the article on the controversial topic of Cold fusion is comparable in size to the article on the mainstream topic of Nuclear fusion, although in the article on the more general topic of nuclear fusion, the sub-topic of cold fusion is given very little weight.

This brings to mind another aspect. Having POV can motivate an editor to work hard at contributing to the Wikipedia. An article that comes to mind is Gaza war. I think it is a remarkable article because quite a bit of material has been brought together, and very quickly. A good achievement by all the editors that worked on it. But in spite of the biases of individual editors, the article seems to be overall reasonably NPOV, at least the beginning which I suspect is what is looked at by most readers. (Maybe others here have a different impression about the overall NPOV of the article?)

Perhaps having POV editors working feverishly at the beginning to bring material into an article and then having NPOV editors coming in to clean it up is a useful pragmatic approach to these type of articles? If you excuse what might be considered a little self-aggrandizemnent and self-righteousness on my part, I had such an experience with a little article called Roof knocking. Editors were battling and I responded to a notice at WP:NORN. I did some battling at first with editors on both sides, but I think that the editors eventually realized that although I wasn't allied with their POV, I also wasn't allied with the POV of their opponents, and they resigned themselves to an NPOV article. The article seems to have stabilized with NPOV, in my opinion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You touch on a really important point. Most of the most virulent arguments over the wording of articles are completely irrelevant to the average reader. The typical Wikipedia reader - say a high school student writing a term paper - reads an article about neighborhoods surrounding Jerusalem. The article refers to the neighborhoods as "settlements". Does this make even the slightest impression on this teenaged reader? Is this reader aware of the mountains of argument that went into the selection of this word? Certainly not. It does not inform his opinion of the subject, and in his term paper he will use this word or that in complete innocence of the political implications.

This is true of almost all the most virulent arguments in the I-P arena. A housewife in Sandusky Ohio will call her salad Israeli or Arabic, and will pronounce chickpea paste like rich Midwestern soil (Humus). All this arguing is for ourselves, not for our readers and not for the Wikipedia. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Au contraire. The poorly paid media tends to go to whatever comes up first on google, which tends to be wikipedia, and their being lazy at the very least sources presented there will be used by them, even if they see obvious bias in an article. That's why deletion of WP:RS material can be such a big deal and is fought over so much. And there are tens of millions of college graduates and other educated people in this country who know the difference between colonialism and self-determination, state terrorism and "revolutionary" terrorism. The government school system may have dumbed many English speakers down, but the internet is smartening up a lot of people. And they'll know gross bias when they see it. I came here to edit on other subjects of greater interest, but the bias in a few articles, especially bios, was so bad that I could not help but get involved. So I'd appreciate it if Wikipedia found a way to enforce current rules so I could spend my limited time on topics I prefer instead of getting dragged back into partisan politics of regressive territorial patriarchal religions. (Last 5 words were soapbox-y.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

According people respect and respecting one's right to one's opinion should not be confused with believing that "balance" is a balance in the representation of opinion regardless of factual/historical validity, that is, failing to separate opinion from what can be objectively constituted from reliable scholarly sources. PetersV       TALK 00:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course when mainstream scholars and reporters who are too critical of Israel are driven out of jobs by organized partisan campaigns, that too effects the balance. Luckily at this point most of those individuals' opinions still WP:RS on wikipedia. Of course in those countries like Canada and Britain where there are hate crimes and group defamation laws, people have to be careful even in some of the facts the assemble, which certainly affects the scholastic/media balance too, even if such people are sometimes quoted here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

So? It's not like anti-Israeli partisan campigners don't practice smear campaigns against balanced political moderates. Look at all of the venom that people like Edward Said spewed upon advocates of the Oslo Peace process and of the two state solution in general. The Squicks (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between individual's writings and organized political groups's campaigns with millions of dollars, hundreds of staffers and thousands of volunteers at their disposal, not to mention the ear of much of the media and congress. [[Later note: talking about OFF-wikipedia pro-Israel staffers and volunteers, not wikipedia ones.]CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You're talking about the anti-Israel campaigners, of which you are a member, right? Millions of dollars? Check. Hundreds of staffers? Check. Thousands of volunteers? That's just on wikipedia. Don't get me started on the media...
How easy it is to play this stupid soapbox game. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

<backdent>
In my old age I'm adopting a "little tolerance" attitude towards those who insult me or other editors. Please read Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging_in_incivility and Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts. Your user name doesn't much suggest civility. By the way in case it wasn't clear I was talking about Off-wikipedia volunteers and staffers, which clarified above. I don't deny there are thousands of volunteers working for the Palestinian cause, but I doubt there are even 20% as many staffers of think tanks, advocacy groups, "community" groups, etc. And such outside political efforts on the media and public discourse obviously bias what is considered "mainstream" even on wikipedia - one of the problems with this proposal, which is what I am addressing? CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

How shall I put this in a civil way? You SOAPBOX so much it's hard to see what point you're trying to make about the actual proposal. Unless you're proposing someone cut staff or something. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

When will this proposal be closed?

It seems this proposal as is is pretty unpopular and the originator has not posted either here or on the main page since May 9th. (She also did not answer my very relevant question about being mentioned by the CAMERA campaign.) So at what point can we consider this closed and stop watching the page?? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You can unwatch it whenever you want to. In the mean time, I'd say there are many people, myself included, who would like to see something like this in effect. This proposal is highly popular, both amongst those who don't want it, and those who do. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok I'll take out unpopular, though I think as written it is misleading and unpopular as currently stated. But only so I can hopefully get more substantive answers to two questions:

• Can anyone edit the proposal? People come up with ideas but they don't seem to go anywhere.
• Who decides when there is consensus and when can the topic be considered closed? Thanks CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Good questions. Strictly speaking, we shouldn't be editing the proposed policy itself, but should be making suggestions on this page. The relevant guidelines can be found here. With that in mind, I think that we currently have neither consensus to promote or to fail, but I do think the primary author needs to engage once more and consider the various threads on this page and make any changes that may appear useful. However, any uninvolved editor can close this. It also occurs to me that since this is proposed as a trial proposal, that even if consensus falls in favor of the policy, we would not simply promote it. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it can be further refined in response to comments, and then considered further. As for a trial, there would be practical considerations as to whether ArbCom are willing to appoint a panel; some talk here has suggested a possible lack of enthusiasm. But I think that it is fair to conclude that the proposal fails in its present form, because it is clear that sufficiently many concerns have been raised that one cannot argue that there is a consensus for implementation. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, please note this excerpt[2] from Wikipedia policy WP:PG :

"A failed proposal is one for which consensus for acceptance has not developed after a reasonable time period. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral or unclear on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal has likewise failed. It is considered bad form to hide this fact, e.g. by removing the tag. Making small changes will not change this fact, nor will repetitive arguments. Generally, it is wiser to rewrite a failed proposal from scratch and start in a different direction."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It is also important to point out that given the concept AND the contentious area to which it is intended to apply, discerning consensus here will probably be impossible one way or the other. Glancing over this talk page, it appears to me that the proposed policy has some traction amongst those who spend a lot of time actually trying to enforce neutrality, while the proposal is universally unpopular amongst those who are passionately involved in one side of one topic or another that involves some element of heated nationalist/ethnic/ideological conflict. Like the art of determining consensus, the issue that this proposal intends to resolve is not the determination of what is neutral, but rather, what is not neutral. Wikipedia has a lot of really bad articles on really good subjects which will always be really bad articles so long as the community refuses to step up to the plate and recognize that while we should remain the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, we are definitely not the encyclopedia that anyone can edit in whatever manner they wish. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus for this proposal has not developed and appears unlikely to improve, in my opinion. Perhaps it's time to tag it with {{Failed}}. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Not just yet. I invited the editor who created this to weight in again. Give him 48 hours. If nothing comes of it, someone can tag it as failed. I'll probably resurrect it in a new form shortly thereafter. Wikipedia is a joke until we get some kind of reform in place. Otherwise, we're at the whim of angry teenagers. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

48 hours is fine with me, but in fairness, I want to point out that the proposal is unpopular with me, and I've not been involved in the disputed pages, and I have zero interest in pushing any kind of "nationalist/ethnic/ideological" or other POV at them or elsewhere. Nor am I angry, nor am I a teenager! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether and how to develop

Hi Hibernian, I got your note, thanks. I've been bogged down somewhat in writing an article for the last few days, and I'm really not sure how best to develop this. As it stands, it doesn't seem to have enough support to push it through, but sufficient numbers do seem to like the idea enough to do something with it.

I think the title was part of the problem, as people interpreted it as an attempt to determine content (NPOV), rather than as a behavioral thing (enforcing writing for the enemy). SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Something that's been bothering me I just wrote at Wikipedia_talk:Writing_for_the_enemy: To assume another editor or a reader is an enemy does not assume good faith. Plus saying word enemy brings up visceral negative reaction making it more difficult. However, "opponent" makes it sound more like the intellectual battle editing wikipedia often is and is a more respectful term which is more likely to get people thinking in positive terms. Thoughts?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Writing for the enemy is an old WP idea, strongly supported by Jimbo. The "enemy" is not the other editor, but the opposite set of ideas from the ones you subscribe to yourself.

The bottom line is that we have a number of editors who do nothing on WP but push a pro-Israeli or pro-Pal line. It's not just that they want to add material to articles that exclusively reflects their POV -- that happens all over WP. It's that (among other things) they want to remove anything that gives readers a three-dimensional view. That is, we are dealing with active censorship. The community is tired of it, the ArbCom is tired of it. The latter has strongly ruled to that effect more than once and has given admins some additional powers to deal with it, but it remains a problem. The point is: is there a response from the community that would help to deal with this? Is there a kernel of an idea in this proposal that we could develop? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess I should bring the "writing for the opponent" proposal to Jimbo! ;-)

I agree that people constantly removing relevant WP:RS material for POV reasons is a big problem. (Simple example: constant deletion of "militant Zionist" as description for Irgun in Rahm Emanuel article, despite literally dozens of editors adding that (or worse) as a description. The behavioral problem there was an organized tag team of both Obama and Israel supporters and a disorganized opposition. Yet proving tag team would have been quite difficult.)

This is a simple issue that could easily be solved by a committee. Most are much more complicated involving a lot of study of sources and issues, which often need a lot of background on the issue to properly understand, weight and NPOV wise; some committee members might do the work; others wouldn't.

An active band of NPOV editors on the NPOV noticeboard (or BLPN in this case?) still could solved the problem in the example. (Let's not start on the agony of going to a Noticeboard for an NPOV opinion and bringing in more partisans who are worse than the ones one originally had problems with!!)

However, here's an idea for a committee that might be less problematic: A committee of editors/admins troll the noticeboards (or receive individual messages) for articles having problems and individually opine authoritatively, with only regular admin power of sanctions under current WP:ARBPIA. They could have their own email list to share knotty issues. Of course, even if they were very knowledgeable and NPOV they'd probably get a lot of flak/harassment from the more organized tag team people. Another relevant issue. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Re "The behavioral problem there was an organized tag team ..." -

For information re tag teams, see WP:TAGTEAM. Note that tag teams aren't just related to NPOV. For example, here's an excerpt from the previous link regarding a possible goal of a tag team.

Support of a team member. Tag team members may support anything that another member does, without question. Some team members may have absolutely no knowledge of the actual topic being discussed, they are just interested in supporting their friend against perceived adversaries.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Drawing on ideas from Mperel and Gatoclass:

How about we start a page somewhere containing the signatures of editors who frequently edit in the I/P arena, and who are willing to commit to Writing for the Enemy, or to forcing NPOV on themselves (or however we want to put it)? That is, we make the idea of "neutrality enforcement" an entirely voluntary thing, but with a pro-active, visible profile? We could create a userbox too -- this editor is committed to etc etc. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. This is quite different from your original proposal. How would you feel about closing the original proposal, and writing up this new proposal and submitting it? --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

We wouldn't need a proposal for such a page, I don't think. It would just be a question of creating it, and waiting for people to sign up; or do you think a proposal of some kind would be a good idea? As for this proposal, perhaps we could see what others think of this new suggestion first? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You could close your original proposal and start the new page with something quick and simple, and leave a message here with a link to the new page and its talk page for further discussion. Also, you could leave messages for the new discussion at the talk pages of the various policy pages, like you did for your original proposal. Just a suggestion. It's up to you. Good luck. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration#Members already allows people working on the issue to list themselves and put in a "pledge" and that one could be added. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

A new suggestion

I suggested earlier that perhaps we could establish a set of criteria by which we could identify and weed out POV-pushers from contentious topic areas, but in trying to formulate those criteria, it quickly became evident that there would still be a substantial degree of subjectivity involved. I still can't help thinking though that there ought to be some relatively straightforward means of identifying problem users. Perhaps as a start, we might be able to focus on one or two relatively simple issues.

• Firstly, it seems to me that one frequent source of problems is the addition of information cited to sources of dubious reliability. Now, I do feel we already have some reasonably objective criteria on this wikiproject about what does and does not constitute a reliable source, so why don't we just try using that as a yardstick? In my experience, good editors do not employ substandard sources to support their editing, so they should be in no danger of being misidentified as problem users.

The process of identification and sanction could be kept relatively simple. A user who inserts information from a substandard source, and reinserts it after having that source challenged by another user, takes a trip to AE where the quality of the source alone is assessed by three administrators. If in their view the source is clearly substandard, the user in question gets banned from the article in question for a set period, say, a month. If the user gets banned from, say, three different articles over a period of three months, he gets a three month topic ban. There could be escalating bans for repeat offenders.

I submit that this could be a relatively simple method of weeding out substandard editors, and not only POV editors necessarily but editors who aren't really up to scratch in other ways, because often a lack of discrimination in selection of sources is a symptom of additional problems.

• Another potentially simple way to identify problem users is to assess whether they are in the habit of chronically misstating from sources. So again, if there was a situation where one particular user added, say, three obvious misstatments of source material to a particular article in a given period, whether it was three separate misstatements or the repetition of a misstatement even after the problem has been pointed out to him, then again those three examples could be posted at AE and three administrators could make the determination as to whether those misstatements could readily be determined as demonstrating either an incompetent misreading or reckless disregard of source, or not. Again, this would help weed out not only POV pushers, but also those editors who simply aren't capable of restating source material competently. And again, the sanctions could be escalating for repeat offenders. Gatoclass (talk) 06:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Re "Now, I do feel we already have some reasonably objective criteria on this wikiproject about what does and does not constitute a reliable source..." - What are the objective criteria and how do they differ from what is already in Wikipedia guidelines and policy? If they differ, could the existing guidelines and policy be changed accordingly? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how closely you have been following I-P disputes to make this suggestion. For, if you have been following them, you will know that much of the argument is over the reliability of sources. I can give you many specific examples:

• Until about 10 or 15 years ago, there were two widely cited sources on the biography of Hajj Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, the Mufti of Jerusalem: a book by the historian Zvi Elpeleg, former head of the history department of the Hebrew University, and a book by Moshe Perlman, who was head of military intelligence for the Yishuv (prior to the establishment of Israel) and a respected journalist thereafter. However, more recent scholarship challenged these two sources as containing fabrications, and, after a number of very bitter exchanges and edit wars, they were removed as references to the article.
• Benny Morris's book Righteous Victims: A history of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001 was perhaps the first book to offer an academic analysis of the origins of the Palestinian exodus from Israel. Morris, a professor of history at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, has been accused of falsifying documents from the archives of the Palmach, a charge made by other reputable (or not, depending on your side) historians familiar with the archives. Morris himself has since had a change of heart and has pretty much repudiated much of what he wrote in that book; yet it remains one of the first and most comprehensive compilations of information about that period from sources other than toers of the official Zionist line.
• Walid Khalidi, who studied and later taught at Oxford, wrote All That Remains, a pretty comprehensive atlas of Palestinian towns that have been depopulated. His book is one of the main sources of information on Palestinian demography prior to 1948. Critics point to numerous inconsistencies that cast aspersions on the reliability of this source (and others by Khalidi).

Are these sources reliable? Well, it depends on your point of view. The academic community is just as bitterly divided over these sources as Wikipedia editors. The advantage of the academic community over us is that they allow for a plurality of voices, while we insist that there be only one article about each topic.

No, I wouldn't rely on the reliability of an editor's sources as a basis for determining whether that Wikipedia editor is neutral. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, if I may consolidate my reply to both Bob and you in one post -

For the purposes of the above proposal Ravpapa, there is absolutely no way it would be workable if one started getting into thoroughly subjective criteria, as suggested, perhaps, by some of those examples you have outlined above. The whole idea is to eliminate as far as possible such subjective criteria so that what we are left with is a relatively simple yardstick that can be applied out of the box, without the need for reams of complex subjective analysis. Possibly as time goes on we might be able to develop the yardstick further to account for more complex recurring issues, but we could start more simply. So the initial yardstick might look something like this:

• Academics with qualifications in a relevant field are considered reliable, so long as they are being cited in a reliable source which has editorial oversight etc;
• Writers with no formal qualifications whose work is cited by academics in a relevant field are reliable;
• News sources with a reputaton for fact checking and accuracy are considered reliable, though not as reliable as the previous two categories;
• Advocacy sites, blogs and all other sources will not be considered reliable unless a majority on both sides of a dispute agrees that the material is useful for inclusion. Gatoclass (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a pretty good suggestion overall, if done right. While these examples above are obviously complicated, there are other examples that are much more clear cut. A pattern of doing this repeatedly, not just once, certainly would establish grounds for sanctions. (And don't forget misuse of primary sources, especially cherry picked to make a BLP look bad, a chronic nightmare on one bio I've worked on.)

The biggest problem would be that new editors, when first working in a contentious area with more experienced editors who obviously have the opposite POV, may not believe the other articles when they claim a source is not WP:RS (and have justification for not believing them); they may not even know about WP:RSN, and therefore may get themselves in trouble. (I sure would have been in trouble first couple articles I worked on til I learned the ropes!) So there also should be a mandatory trip to tutorial and/or some mentoring for the newest editors who keep putting in questionable sources. And this should be wiki-wide, not just on this topic.

Note that there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Links to reliable sources discussions which is a good overview of specific sources and general issues which have been brought up and good for both newbies and longtime editors on this topic to review. (It's a couple archives behind right now but I'll update it soon.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think there would need to be a period of grace before the system would be applied to new users. Wikipedia already recognizes in practice that noobs are allowed a learning period. So yes, this system would apply only to established users who have had plenty of time to learn the ropes. Gatoclass (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Gatoclass, Thank you for answering my first question regarding what the objective criteria were. Please note my remaining questions regarding the objective criteria, from my previous message:

"...how do they differ from what is already in Wikipedia guidelines and policy? If they differ, could the existing guidelines and policy be changed accordingly?"

Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It's very late here, so I can only give you a brief reply, but the short answer to your question is that I am not thinking in terms of a rewrite of wp:v or wp:rs. Those policies have been worked out over a long period of time and are quite stable. This is not about altering policy per se, it's about developing a few simple principles we can apply, based on the policies mentioned, to help us identify and sanction editors who are habitually violating our editing policies. The problem at the moment is that we really have no effective framework and no clear sanctions in place for dealing with the problem. This is essentially about developing better methods of dealing with policy violations, it's not about altering the policies themselves. Gatoclass (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If I may suggest: it would be difficult to sanction anyone without a policy specifying the conditions for that sanction. And I would speculate that an implication of Bob's question might, perhaps, have been that existing policies already cover the behaviors of concern here, that it is more a matter of doing better at working within existing policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. We should build on existing guidelines and policies. The criteria that Gatoclass suggested seem general, not specific to I/P articles. Furthermore, those criteria may already be a part of existing guidelines and policies. If they are already part of existing guidelines and policies, we shouldn't try to reinvent the wheel. Also, if they are already part of existing guidelines and policies, it would strengthen Gatoclass's overall proposal if that were the case. If some of the criteria aren't, perhaps it would be beneficial to all of Wikipedia to tweak the existing guidelines and policies to include those parts.

I think the rest of Gatoclass's proposal should be looked at in a similar way to see if the existing dispute resolution procedures, guidelines, and policies will handle the problem situations. It may be that the trouble is that these available existing avenues haven't been used enough, so that it is a matter of encouragement and education on how to use them, in order to fix some of the problem behavior at I/P articles.

Also, the recent ArbCom decision regarding edit warring at some I/P articles,[3] might be used as a precedent or example, to clean up similar behavior that may occur at I/P articles, or anywhere else in Wikipedia. Seems like these NPOV, RS, etc., problems eventually end up as edit wars, or involve the repeated edit warring behavior of a problem editor. Edit warring behavior seemed to be intrinsic to the examples that Gatoclass gave. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't seem to be getting my point across Bob! This is not about rewriting existing policies like wp:rs or wp:v. It's about putting in place a much clearer framework by which sanctions can be applied for certain clearcut breaches of existing policy.

As for your comment about seeing "if the existing dispute resolution procedures, guidelines, and policies will handle the problem situations" - clearly they don't. There is a widespread perception on this project that the existing policy framework is not adequate when it comes to dealing with contentious topic areas. So we hardly need to revisit that question. The question we are trying to address on this page is what can be done about the problem, not whether the problem exists. Gatoclass (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Re "...the existing policy framework is not adequate when it comes to dealing with contentious topic areas." -

What are your thoughts regarding the recent ArbCom proceedings[4] and actions against the subject editors?[5] Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If your point Bob is that this case somehow proves everything is fine at contentious topic pages, you are entitled to your opinion. But I and many others believe that we need better tools to identify and weed out problem editors before the problems get so bad that they can only be resolved by sprawling arbcom cases that waste weeks of everyone's time and which usually end up handing out harsh sanctions indiscriminately. Not all parties are equally culpable, but you wouldn't know it to read through some of the "remedies" handed down. No, I was not pleased with the result of that case - I doubt anyone was really - and that is partly what has motivated me to start thinking about alternatives. There has to be a better way. Gatoclass (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It is natural and understandable in disputes of this sort that involved editors will think they are right and others are wrong. It is therefore possible that they will perceive decisions such as this one from ArbCom as being indiscriminate, when in fact that is not the case. Please understand that I am not saying that about anyone in particular, but just making a general observation, because the same phenomenon is a risk in pursuing the kinds of proposals being discussed here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, look, to be fair, I don't go around checking diffs and wading through talk pages to try and keep tabs on who the bad guys are :) Possibly all the involved editors had lost their sense of perspective to some degree. I do very much doubt however, that all were equally culpable for the fracas, but they all ended up with the same penalty.

I'm not sure what to make of your other comment though. If you mean that I might end up being just as unhappy with decisions made by a different group of administrators in a different context, you may well be correct. I must say the reactions of some admins to the various dramas generated on this project never cease to amaze :) And yes, in the end a system is only as good as the people who comprise it. That doesn't mean, however, that putting into place more concrete methods of dealing with inappropriate user behaviour would not be a step forward. Gatoclass (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, all of what you said is fine. I just thought it was useful to point those things out, both as something to think about, and in the spirit of extending AGF to ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Gatoclass, the difficulty with focusing on sources is that it's almost an attempt to rewrite the sourcing policies (V and NOR), which would be problematic.

It also overlooks what I've found to be a key issue in I/P articles, namely people trying to keep information out of articles. Anything that allowed them to question sources even further has the potential to make that issue worse. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I've clearly stated above that I am not proposing a rewrite of existing policies. What I'm proposing is putting in place a more structured framework, together with a structured set of sanctions, for common and clearcut breaches of existing policies.

As for your comment about people trying to keep out reliable sources - I agree that this is a problem. However, just because some difficult-to-address problems exist is no reason for continuing to do nothing about some much more straightforward problems which potentially can be addressed.

Just to give you one recent example of the kind of editing my proposed framework is aimed at: last night someone added this as a reference for a disputed claim. Said book is written by an author with no apparent qualifications in the field, and published by some obscure religious publisher. Under my proposed framework, based on our existing policies of wp:rs and wp:v, this would constitute a clearcut breach. So the user who added this reference would have it pointed out to him that the reference breached policy. If he then objected to its removal, the issue would go to AE (or perhaps, a new AE subpage organized to deal with these matters). Three administrators would review the reference and make a decision as to whether or not it constituted a reliable source. If they decide it is not, then the user who added the reference is prescribed a set sanction, let's say a week long page ban for a first offence.

A simple breach, a simple process, and a set sanction at the end of it. No days of wrangling at AE or other processes about the user's alleged misbehaviour, no posting and counterposting of hosts of links attempting to prove or disprove the point, no hand-wringing about what sanctions if any should apply. Instead, we have one swiftly dealt with user, who will be subject to increasing sanctions for repeat violations. Over the longer term, one might reasonably expect to see a reduction in drama, as irresponsible editors who are incapable of reform are weeded out, and the remaining editors get a chance to work productively together to stabilize content. It's an all-round win, and for a relatively small addition to our existing policy framework that will potentially save countless hours of fruitless argumentation on dispute resolution pages. Gatoclass (talk) 07:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you're saying. Thinking out loud here, I can see a few objections:

1. We have the RS/N, which we could use for the same thing, minus the sanctions.

2. A lot of I/P editors (not only I/P, but focusing on these for now) have problems using sources well i.e. finding good sources, accurately summarizing what they say without plagiarizing or creating quote farms, and using them without violating OR. Your remedy would address only one of those issues.

3. As I said above, I find that the main issue on I/P is editors trying to keep good material out, using a number of ploys, including claiming it's POV, claiming it's OR, claiming it belongs in another article. I won't give examples because I don't want to finger-point, but I see it all the time. Sanctioning people for the poor use of sources might make this last issue worse. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Although there are other aspects of this new suggestion that I'm concerned about, regarding item 3 - Couldn't the same proposed process be used to rule against those that keep valid material out? --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

In theory, yes, but it gets difficult. Those judging the issue would need to have an excellent understanding of the content policies. Otherwise they'd get bogged down in the endless arguments that take place on I/P pages about what is and isn't OR, what is and isn't a good source, what is and isn't the correct use of a good source. I feel the proposal would only move the problem to this new set of admins, or whoever would be looking at infractions. What I would like to do is stop it, and the original proposal was intended to say, in effect, "Forget the wikilawyering. Show us (don't just tell us) that you can edit from both POVs, or bugger off." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Re "In theory, yes, but it gets difficult." - Yes. The devil may be in the details. But that seems to be the case for all the proposals here. (Just an impression.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Making clearer the guidelines for sanctions is a good goal. But since even longtime users may run into some brand new (for them) permutation of policies and guidelines, and hear it first from an "opponent" and doubt it, they too should be given more than adequate chances to understand the policy on the talk page and then get specific warnings from any admin for WP:RS/POV related problems. Right now I'm watching at least one person who consistently insults wiki editors and admins and the wiki process, gets blocked for a few days here and there, doesn't learn his lesson, does it again, usually alone, sometimes with help from friends. So when even bad behavior like this is barely sanctioned, we shouldn't be rushing to sanction anything that might be much more subjective. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Re "...gets blocked for a few days here and there, doesn't learn his lesson, does it again..." - That's interesting. I wonder why the length of blocking isn't increased when the offense is repeated by the same editor. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, to be more precise, a few days longer each time. He's up to a new indignity now which may get him blocked again. I assume at some point he'll get in big trouble, but he seems to do it in different articles every time - and keeps deleting talk page complaints (often with rude comments) keeping the ones about what a martyr he is and how biased wikipedia is posted by himself and his friends.

Anyway, if we don't get objectively bad behavior under control before going after more subjective editing, it will make people wonder if there is a political agenda going on, no matter what side it falls on from incident to incident, even if there isn't one. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Responding to some of the issues raised by Slimvirgin above -

1. We have the RS/N, which we could use for the same thing, minus the sanctions.

RS/N is really for the more nuanced RS issues, and as a mere noticeboard it wouldn't really do the job anyway, because anyone can respond there or not respond as they please. I've had no response whatever from issues I've raised there a number of times. And besides, for a process with the power to apply sanctions, which I consider to be an essential part of this proposal, I think we would need a discrete noticeboard.

I am currently thinking along the lines of something like the WP:AN3 noticeboard, except that three admins would have to make the judgement instead of one, with judgement rendered by a simple majority.

2. A lot of I/P editors (not only I/P, but focusing on these for now) have problems using sources well i.e. finding good sources, accurately summarizing what they say without plagiarizing or creating quote farms, and using them without violating OR. Your remedy would address only one of those issues.

The I/P conflict is a highly sensitive topic area. If there are users editing there now who "have problems ... finding good sources ... accurately summarizing what they say ... and using them without violating OR", are these the type of editors we would really want to encourage in this area? I submit that these are precisely the kind of editors we should be looking to weed out from contentious topic areas. Sensitive topics require sensitive handling, and if users are poorly informed, unable to summarize material accurately and so on, they really don't belong there. Let them find some less contentious topic areas to work on. I feel that this comment of yours only strengthens my case.

3. As I said above, I find that the main issue on I/P is editors trying to keep good material out, using a number of ploys, including claiming it's POV, claiming it's OR, claiming it belongs in another article. I won't give examples because I don't want to finger-point, but I see it all the time. Sanctioning people for the poor use of sources might make this last issue worse.

On the contrary, I think a system such as the one I am proposing would provide a framework for dealing effectively with many such disputes. Instead of just wrangling about the issue for days or weeks on end, often without resolution, users would have a place they could go to ask for a determination as to whether or not a source was reliable. Now some cases would obviously be too nuanced for the system to deal with, but if it was a case where the source clearly did or did not meet the guidelines given to the ruling admins, then the issue would be quickly resolved. So I think the system would make it easier to resolve at least some of the situations you refer to. Gatoclass (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking that perhaps it's time I started working on a draft for this proposal. No-one has yet come up with an argument that has dissuaded me of its viability, which which has given me some added confidence. But as Bob said above, the devil is in the details, and until I start filling some of them in, the flaws may not become apparent.

In the meantime however, I'm happy to continue fielding responses here concerning the proposal while I'm working on it elsewhere, as it may take me a few days to put a draft together. Gatoclass (talk) 08:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You suggested above "takes a trip to AE where the quality of the source alone is assessed by three administrators. If in their view the source is clearly substandard, the user in question gets banned from the article in question for a set period, say, a month." I don't think that is a good idea as is. For example see these two sections Talk:Recognition of the Armenian Genocide#RFC: Armenian National Institute, Inc. and Talk:Genocides in history#Azerbaijani Khojaly. What would be useful in both cases would be someone to make a decision over these sources, and that decision published via a link in a box on the top of the talk page (either way for or against). If a decision is made that particular sources can not be used or should only be used if other sources confirm the validity of what is said, only then if an editor insists on using the sources, once it has been pointed out to them that it has been decided that sources are unreliable, should they be sanctioned (a simple W:ANI request would suffice for that). If it is constructed as you suggest as I have quoted, then it will become another club in the arsenal of POV warriors (take a punt on the assessment of the quality of new source used and maybe I can get him/her blocked). What I have in mind is a process closer to a RFC on a user, but with a panel (thee seems about right) similar to an arbcom, or put another way a "Request for comment on sources". --PBS (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The decision could be either on a specific source or specific website, or it could be for a class of sources eg. In this article only "most reliable sources" as defined in in WP:SOURCES may be used, which would rule out many types of sources that in a different article would be acceptable (think of all those pages on light entertainment which have sources that would be totally unacceptable on BLP page). --PBS (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Although this could be used for all pages, to begin with it might be a good idea to restrict it to a class of pages over which there is an arbcom decision, as those are the disputes that most need this type of policing, and it is a closed set of pages which should mean the work load decreases as more decision are made. --PBS (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that would work, because it would be tantamount to setting up a committee to adjudicate content disputes. And there seems to be a great deal of resistance to such an idea on this project - not without good reason, I would suggest.

it will become another club in the arsenal of POV warriors (take a punt on the assessment of the quality of new source used and maybe I can get him/her blocked).

As it happens, I am aware of that potential problem, and I think some means of deterring frivolous cases could probably be found readily enough. For example, you could do something simple, like limit the number of cases someone could start about a given article in a set period of time. Currently though, I am leaning toward a system where if the user's case fails, he cops the sanction instead of the person he tried to get sanctioned. That would ensure that users only took cases to the noticeboard that they were sure had merit - and it might have the added advantage of sanctioning the kind of user who is so biased he always thinks he is right and the other party wrong. Gatoclass (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

As you work on the draft, please consider the problem of how to construct a committee that isn't biased with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian issues. I raised a similar concern for the original proposal.[6] Note that there may be organized partisan groups that may try to get members favorable to their side on the committee. An example of one such group was discussed previously.[7] Thanks and good luck. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't really envisaging some sort of permanent committee. Originally, I was thinking more along the lines of this being handled at AE, or a subpage at AE, by the usual admins who adjudicate there. Now I am thinking more along the lines of WP:AN3, where any (uninvolved) admin can participate. The idea of having two or three admins sign off on a sanction instead of just one as in 3AN is to add an extra level of protection against potential biases. Gatoclass (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem of educating editors in general is illustrated by the fact that as much as I've looked around for help through relevant Dispute resolution and other pages I've never noticed WP:AN3 before. Also, it took more almost 2 years of editing before I (a relatively assertive editor) had confidence to/could bring myself to report someone for 3RR or eventually WP:ARBPIA, including a couple times when I had more than adequate recourse. (It was only then that I realized other editors would guilt trip you into not doing when you had a good case; and in others threaten to get you in trouble, when their case was relatively weak. Either way, it left one reluctant to complain.) So having editors who know HOW to use the current process to stop the problems caused by other editors is a big part of the issue. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Carol, I agree with you and I made a brief similar remark previously regarding education. Also, there might be a mentoring system established where an experienced volunteer mentor might help an editor and walk the editor through the dispute resolution process. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Gatoclass, Although it's hard to have something that is tamper proof, your way of not having a permanent committee may help. But there may be a detail that will still cause bias problems. The administrators/editors that respond may be the ones that have an interest and knowledge in Israeli-Palestinian issues and they may have bias. Admins/eds who aren't interested or knowledgeable in Israeli-Palestinian issues would seem to be the safest, with regard to being unbiased, but they may not be willing to spend the time to get up to speed to understand the sources well enough to determine if they are reliable. Catch-22. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that's the big Catch-22. It's really got to be a group that deals with all such problems, to avoid attracting such prejudiced individuals. And there are certainly other articles that need such help, like one I've wasted a lot of time on this week because of a POV pusher misrepresenting sources. (Who is backing down, but it would be nice if he'd learned sooner.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The problems that Bob raises are problems that exist in any dispute resolution procedure. We do not know, for example, whether any of the current arbcom members harbor a clandestine or perhaps unrecognized bias against one or another party in the I/P conflict.

Ultimately, one does inevitably have to rely on an element of trust. Administrators are users who have gone through a process which has established them as trustworthy in the eyes of the community. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that they can be trusted to make good or unbiased decisions, but it is an indication. If it turned out however, that some administrator was routinely making questionable decisions at the proposed noticeboard, I think that could probably be dealt with through our existing dispute resolution procedures. Gatoclass (talk) 05:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I think I should wait and see what the details regarding the 3-man committee looks like in your draft, and how it works with the rest of the proposal. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Gatoclass, I like your idea more now you've compared it to WP:AN/3RR. It might just work. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

To be somewhat specific about the trust issue, let's face it many of us had a lot of problems with the other User (an admin and former Arbitrator) mentioned in the CAMERA article see here. He's a usually polite and always skillful game player and deletionist who was frequently complained about by other editors on his talk page and elsewhere. He was chastised at least once in the last year for misusing his admin powers. Evidently finally he lost it on one article and was recently topic banned for six months. Until that happened I was convinced Wikipedia was unfixable and was trying hard to cut down my hours as wasted time. We'll see what happens when/if he returns. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course, having unbiased admins/editors is important for any situation where they decide on the fate of others. But life isn't perfect and I would like to see Gatoclass's draft to determine how the risk of bias among the people who rule on the issues compares to the reward of correcting problem editors in a possibly more efficient and efficacious way. Also, we should keep in mind that approaching the problem by making the existing dispute resolution process more useful by educating and mentoring editors in its use, would incur no additional risk of this kind of bias. But then, the proposal in Gatoclass's draft may incur no additional risk of this kind of bias either. I think I'll have to see the actual draft to get a clearer picture. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

As you said Bob, the devil is in the details, and it's already proving more difficult to come up with a simple definition of what constitutes a clearcut breach of wp:rs than I anticipated :) So this is probably going to take a little longer than I thought. I'm not in any hurry though, these problems have been with us a long time and there's no great urgency in addressing them, especially given the recent mass sanctions that were handed out, which I'm sure has helped to remind all editors of their responsibilities. Gatoclass (talk) 08:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts and good luck. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales likes "writing for the opponent"

Last night got around to making a slightly altered version of my comment above about using "writing for the opponent" instead of "writing for the enemy" on his talk page and got this response.

I am happy with your suggestion. I am opposed to a model of Wikipedia as a battleground in the war for ideas. I think every editor should write neutrally (as best as he or she can) at all times. I am favorably impressed by the attitude embodied in proposals like this one: Wikipedia:Neutrality enforcement. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Also posting to Wikipedia talk:Writing for the enemy asking how people feel about changing the name of the article and doing a search for other article uses to change it?? Thoughts relevant to this discussion?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I need to give it more thought. A couple of items as I've read through all above:

1. I've been accused of being a SPA—however, I edit in response to where I see the greatest need, not where I seek to inflict my POV. One can not use an area of editing to indict an editor, one can ONLY use whether or not an editor refrains from personal attacks and sticks to fair representations of reputable secondary sources. Nothing more, nothing less.
2. Writing for the opponent is naive. I have often written for the opponent representing alternate viewpoints, inevitably, that never goes far enough as I don't concede an alternate viewpoint is based on fact when it's demonstrably not. The issue is NOT personal or editorial viewpoint. I have had more constructive interchanges with paid POV pushers who were under obligation to their employers to paint their POV via shall we say creative use of secondary sources in order to create a facade of reputability than with those editors who state, simply, all POVs must be equally represented (as fact). I am sorry, but the "moon as cheese" litmus test must be applied, that is, irrefutable facts and reliable secondary sources engender a fair and balanced narrative; endless repetition of propaganda is an opinion, no matter how widely held, and engenders only conflict. Editors whose conduct falls in the latter category are not interested in writing for the opponent/enemy.
3. The above—and my experience with engaging with editors paid to push POV on WP, is that it all boils down to enforcing the use of reputable secondary sources fairly and accurately represented (I've seen editors cite reputable sources concluding something in opposition to what the authors themselves stated in the book, just "elswhere"), and that opinions, no matter how widely held, are only opinions unless backed by irrefutable facts and those same reputable secondary sources.

Which leads me to the inevitable conclusion that this is yet another doomed attempt to legislate upright editorial behavior on the part of those who couldn't care less. Those that exhibit such upright behavior don't need additional guidelines, those that don't won't care. I regret my less than sanguine reality check, but Jimmy has his head in the sand if he thinks that WP is not the black hole of POV pushing now that it's the top search engine result for just about any topic. Wishing it were not a battleground is to ignore reality. The ONLY measure that matters is whether there has been fair representation of reputable (secondary) sources, and there are plenty of guidelines and means of enforcement already. We need to simplify existing guidelines and enforcement, not build yet another restatement of Jimmy's utopian vision. Perhaps I'll be more sanguine after my second cup of coffee. (!) PetersV       TALK 15:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict with the below) P.S. If any one wishes to create [[Category:Wikipedia utopian]] I'll be glad to sign up complete with userbox (actually, I'm sure it already exists somewhere, just point me to it), hope springs eternal. But let reality, not hope, guide how and where we best expend our efforts to craft an encyclopedia with informative, engaging and reputably sourced narrative. Fairly representing reputable sources (that is, summarizing reputable editorial POVs) does not mean balancing all possible POVs (as in all personal opinions are equal before the WP:LAW). PetersV       TALK 16:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I read your remarks with interest. There was one part that especially caught my eye, "...editors paid to push POV on WP...". It sounds like this is more than just suspicion on your part. I wouldn't know whether or not this is true so I'm curious. Perhaps you have some evidence that you would care to share? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

On Transnistria, a regime ruled by a Leninphile whose security minister is transplanted OMON Black Beret forces who shot and killed freedom demonstrators in the Baltics; his men, also transplanted, even by Russian accounts shot up a Transnistrian ambulance (wounding and killing occupants) and blamed the Moldovans, leading to an excuse for martial law in Transnistria.

1. perma-banned user User:William_Mauco was affiliated with the "The International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty", a front for Russian interests in Transnistria (journalist Edward Lucas documented his interchanges with Mr. Mauco extensively), see also User:Pernambuco
2. perma-banned user User:MarkStreet, pen name for publisher Des Grant, the publisher of the "Tiraspol Times," a rag which towed the official Transnistrian line, misused the intellectual property of scholars (and continued to do so when authors specifically requested materials be removed) and lied outright (read "Not journalism" section) about what reputable individuals they had met with and what had been said and discussed

Interesting reading for anyone wishing to subject themselves to all the various archives. Also, see AFGPI for some background on the Transnistrian players, that would be the "Purveyors of Propaganda" section. PetersV       TALK 16:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually am not that fond of the idea of writing FOR the "enemy" (or less offensively the "opponent," including for some of the reasons stated above. One does have to write WITH the opponent in mind, of course, if one does have a POV. Many people interested in any subject area will have one and also be aware of that of opponents. (Or find out once they edit an article, if they are not.) In the end, we should be trying to write for the more accurate perspective on reality, keeping in mind all factors, including powers-that-be and other WP:RS biases against any perspective. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

PetersV, Thanks. In your opinion, what's the current state of the Transnistria wiki with respect to NPOV? In other words, did existing Wikipedia procedures cure the problems over there? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

People are what they are. They see Wikipedia as an opportunity to write the truth as they see it. Rather than getting all pious about it, it would be better to accept that that's what it is, and figure out how we can practically deal with it.

And "writing for the enemy" would be a much more viable idea if you didn't believe the enemy lie through their teeth. I'm sure that both sides in the issue that SlimVirgin considers here feel that way about the "other side". And with some merit. The reality we have to deal with here is that there is no neutral middle ground: it's an extremely polarised issue. It's particularly difficult because one of the sides in this issue -- as in other issues -- actively attempts to mould opinion and has the means to do so (there isn't a Palestinian hasbara as such, although one can certainly argue that it has its proxies, although they are by no means as well funded, resourced or respected as the Israeli version: for instance, there's no Palestinian AIPAC as such, and its equivalents are far less influential).

Jimbo's desire to wish away the concept of Wikipedia as a battleground of ideas is actually harmful. As in other areas, because he has sufficient sycophants to create effective change, he could lead. Most issues are resolved by weight of numbers here, not by reasonable compromise. Eventually, the minority in any issue either loses interest in trying to restrain the majority or gets burned in the conflict. The ideal was great but it was broken the day we first had a vote on content. Consensus and voting are eternally inimical to each other. We pretended that we were using votes to "gauge consensus" and before we knew it, we were deciding nearly everything by simple majority.

When you have tried reason, and you have been confident that your argument was strong, and was not rebutted by a stronger argument, but simply by the fact of the other side having more strength, more administrators, more willingness to cheat, then you can talk about what "neutrality" is worth here. I don't think Jimbo's been there and I for one don't consider his view worth spit until he has. Grace Note (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Essay tag

I've tagged this as an essay, because it's clear it's not going ahead as a proposal (at least not as written), but I think it contains ideas that could be taken forward in some other form. So I'm going to leave it here as an essay in the hope it provokes further discussion, on this talk page or elsewhere. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Essay doesn't fit, I don't think. Rather, I think {{rejected}} is a better choice, because this is written as a page that describes a process or policy, rather than written as "advice or opinions"... since it doesn't have consensus to be policy (that is, to be an enforcement process), it seems "rejected" is the correct term (or {{failed}} as an alternative, either fits, I think). I'll wait a bit and then make the change, unless the page is changed to fit the essay model. I think it was an interesting idea, but not, ultimately, a workable one. ++Lar: t/c 03:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

A policy was proposed. The proposal was not favored by a majority of those who commented on it. Interest in it in general was limited and has since stopped. Thus, I think that it's fair and objectively to say rejected.

Calling this rejected is a statement of fact about its adoption as policy. It doesn't say anything bad about the writer of it or anything like that. The Squicks (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad others brought this up. I had my doubts but no time or energy to see what happens to rejected proposals. Calling it an essay just confuses things - esp. since a lot of people don't read tags carefully and will think it is a policy; especially if some other confused person claims it is! (Something I've done myself before I started reading those boxes more carefully!)

Also as someone wrote above:

Also, please note this excerpt[8] from Wikipedia policy WP:PG :

"A failed proposal is one for which consensus for acceptance has not developed after a reasonable time period. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral or unclear on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal has likewise failed. It is considered bad form to hide this fact, e.g. by removing the tag. Making small changes will not change this fact, nor will repetitive arguments. Generally, it is wiser to rewrite a failed proposal from scratch and start in a different direction."

So I did put Category:Wikipedia rejected proposals on bottom or proposal. I guess removing the essay tag would be part of reverting "bad form to hide this fact." Or do we have to add to the policy "by removing the tag or change the proposal to an essay" first?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree, this is not an essay; the essay tag should be removed and the document should be properly tagged as a proposal that failed to gain consensus. Not sure what the hesitation or confusion is here. Woonpton (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Based on the above apparent consensus, tagged as {{failed}} ++Lar: t/c 21:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Full marks for nerve

But let's face it, you would never make this suggestion if you didn't think that your group of "uninvolved" (majority American) editors would be (at least tacitly) biased to your POV. You're well aware that this site on the whole reflects the American consensus view on Israel. You have already fought hard to make the content policies favour the MSM, which in any serious encyclopaedia would be considered extremely suspect as a source for anything, largely because it uncritically presents a pro-Israeli POV, and other sources that you believe favour you. Your faction has been obstructionist and abusive throughout the process of creating the pages in question, and frankly, the quickest route to neutrality for all of them would be simply to exclude about a dozen of the people concerned from editing them, you included. Grace Note (talk) 00:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

...who is 'you' ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)