Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


A recent deterioration in the editing of Israel-Palestine articles has resulted in a large number of complaints to WP:AE related to edit warring and civility. This page is intended as a centralized discussion, primarily for admins, on how to resolve the problem.

Options

[edit]

Option 1

[edit]

An increased use of article 1RRs. So that every time somebody complained at AE about warring on an article, we would automatically put the article itself on 1RR for three months. That would at least damp down the wars between the 1RR-restricted people and the others.

Comments:

  • For: (i) only affects disputed articles, for a limited but reasonable period of time. (ii) reporters to AE know that the price of a report will be the article being under 1RR for a time, regardless of any other outcomes, so reducing frivolous or abusive requests (iii) a simple rule, minimising issues of involvement and bias in arbitration enforcement. Rd232 talk 16:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. This is basically a milder form of option 3, both of which increase administrator workload unnecessarily. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2

[edit]

Increased use of page protection for articles which attract edit warring.

Comments:

  • Support. This is the only option that actually encourages editors to engage with each other and work out differences, instead of edit-warring. 1RR, if followed, doesn't necessarily stop an edit war. 1RR may just slow it down. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3

[edit]

Following the example of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies for AE case, the entire set of articles could be placed under 1RR.

Comments:

  • Here's my impression of 1rr: it's good for current events where 1rr is placed instead of full protection, thus allowing new info to be added. For other articles with no real developments, 1rr has no significant advantage over full protection (even disadvantages as per gaming concerns). I don't oppose global 1rr if admins here think it's a good idea, but just for the record, I don't. Rami R 18:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (as long no editor is exempt) - It's a start and it won't make things worse. I think a standard outcome would keep things simple and predictable e.g. fixed length 48hr block duration everytime. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4

[edit]

Following the example of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation#Sri Lanka Dispute Resolution Agreement, a list of active editors could be restricted to 1RR.

Comments:

Option 5

[edit]

Similar to the Arbitration remedy in WP:ARBPIA2, we could topic ban a number of editors on both sides. This would probably require widespread support in order to prevent being overturned on appeal.

Comments:

Option 6

[edit]

Issue short term topic bans to editors who are too battlegroundish, are POV pushing in their editing, or are even refusing to compromise and impeding article improvement when discussing on the talk page.

Comments:

  • I'm not sure about this exactly as phrased. A more liberal use of page (as opposed to topic) bans might be worth considering as well as or instead of this as a short-term, easily-enforceable solution. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm assuming "page bans" is meant here rather than the overall topic of P-I, as each article is a topic unto itself. This has worked in the past, but requires involvement from multiple administrators to deal with the inevitable appeals from the bannee. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Option 7

[edit]

Admins are to proactively enforce arbpia, without waiting for a complaint or enforcement request.

Comments:

Option 8

[edit]

Let's think a bit more radically how to address the issue without punishing the good editors in this area, both current and potential. See also discussion on the talk page.

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

Comments:

  • Radical, would take a little thought to set up with article/user talk templates etc and then for people to get used to it... but it addresses the socking issue, doesn't punish good editors with article 1RR, and prevents new editors getting involved in this contentious topic without a bit of experience in editing Wikipedia, which in the long run is better for everyone. It's also relatively simple to enforce, and a lot of the heavy lifting doesn't require admins or AE since determining number of edits is non-contentious. An edit made by a non-eligible user would probably be treated as edits by a banned user, which is to say, it could be undone with minimal justification beyond the explanation of being ineligible, but any eligible user can redo the edit, taking responsibility for it. Talk page involvement would have to be permitted, but perhaps slightly discouraged. Rd232 talk 10:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, what is most important here is that "new" accounts/IPs without enough edits cant enter the topic area, this will stop many socks. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this but it goes against wikipedia principles. How about allowing users with over 500 edits to revert additions of those with 100 or less edits (on these articles) with no penalties. In order to get rid of all socking problems. Polargeo (talk) 11:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just assumed that those over 500 edits would be able to revert (nullify) the unauthorized edits by the "new" accounts/IPs without it being counted as a revert. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it would count as a revert for 3RR purposes is the sort of thing that would need thinking about, and perhaps testing in practice. And of course we can talk about whether X should be lower than my initial suggestion of 500. This is a radical enough idea that the detail of implementation would require quite a bit more discussion, if the core idea is considered acceptable. (One of the difficulties with developing radical ideas is that it's quite hard for people to say "I can accept the principle if the details work out a certain way...", because it opens the door to negotiation over detail potentially not working out in a way they could accept, so they end up rejecting the idea altogether rather than take the risk.) Rd232 talk 13:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No admin would ever back you up unless stated specifically or if the admin had some sort of common sense usually lacking in most admins. Polargeo (talk) 11:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, so it should say so specifically in "option 8", that the unauthorized edits can be reverted and it doesn't count as a revert. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would follow that. Not on an individual edit but in general penalties should not be applied to the reverts of experienced users against inexperienced users unless serious transgressions are in evidence. This is to the benefit of wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of thing should be enforced by admins, otherwise it would just deteriorate quickly into the usual edit war. Pro-X new user makes an edit. Pro-Y experienced user reverts. Pro-X experienced user reverts back. Pro-Y re-reverts. Ad nausium. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's no different than the status quo. The minute an editor reinserts an edit reverted because it was made by a user with less than X edits, that editor is taking responsibility for the edit and the usual revert rules apply, whatever they are for that article/editor/topic. (And once an experienced editor has taken that responsibility, the edit can of course no longer be reverted merely for being made by an editor with less than X edits.) Rd232 talk 13:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.