Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:59, 16 June 2010

Archives

Archives

January - February 2008 February - March 2008 April - Dec. 2008 All of 2009

Note

Project Talk Page Guidelines

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

To Do List

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

Possible issues with three new main page sections

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

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

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

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

Thanks for commenting.

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

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

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

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

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

We need a hit list

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

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

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

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

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

We need to close ranks

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Templates section

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

Reward for good editors?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, the following editors have been proposed so far; if there is no objection against awarding any of them then I will do so in three days:

• Ai 00 (talk · contribs)
• ValenShephard (talk · contribs)
• ReneJohnsen (talk · contribs)
• Nosfartu (talk · contribs)
• Zuchinni one (talk · contribs)
• Prodego (talk · contribs)
• Licory (talk · contribs)

As it has been almost 2 weeks since I first proposed this, and I have been absent for a week, things may have changed; maybe I should add some sort of a disclaimer that these may be outdated. Are there any others that deserve recognition?

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

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

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

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

Cease fire?

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

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

and make a good faith effort to:

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

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

Yes, sounds like a good idea, sign me up

1. I'll try. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 02:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
2. Well done for trying to cool things down IronDuke.     ←   ZScarpia   20:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No thanks: here's why

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

   -- Kim van der Linde 12:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

General discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Battleground returning? Please no.

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