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.

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:

• I think this could be worth trying. If after implementing this, we still have serious problems, then I think we'd have to look at topic banning some of the more disruptive editors. PhilKnight (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Excellent idea. This would at least dampen the flames and reduce the workload on AE. Obviously the finer points would have to be worked out, but, in principle, it's a brilliant idea. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I've thought about proposing this before, but I'm not sure how one defines the scope. Would it cover every article related to Israel (or the Palestinian territories), even if those articles weren't related to the I-P conflict itself (such as the 1996 Lebanon war between Israel and the Lebanese group Hezbollah)? Editors in this space seem to find the most inane things to edit war over (Hummus), so it might be hard to cover a set of articles broad enough to address the problem, without being so broad as to hinder real progress. ← George ^talk 20:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This may work for now. -- tariqabjotu 05:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• A useful measure that should at least dampen the flames. If it is not enough, we can explore other options then. T. Canens (talk) 07:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the term "revert" needs to be interpreted in a common sense manner. Also, we could exempt reverts of new users/IPs from 1RR. T. Canens (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as a good starting place. We can move to sterner options as needed. JodyB _talk 17:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for limited time (month?), with option to continue for longer periods (three months), but not permanently. Not sure I agree with HJ Mitchell about reducing AE load since I foresee some editors who edit all day long continuing their rampage, flirting 1RR. --Shuki (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• For: (i) simple, well-known procedure. (ii) catches new sockpuppets and meatpuppets, wherever or whenever they materialise. Against: 1RR discourages good faith editors and encourages "gotcha!"-type WP:GAMEing. Damps everything down, but doesn't address the core problem. Rd232 ^talk 16:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. 1RR can be gamed, just slowing down an edit war, and increases the workload of administrators who must enforce it. It might work if the 3RR noticeboard was used to report 1RR violations so that other uninvolved admins can take action, but (perhaps I missed it) I don't see examples of 1RR violations being reported there. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they are reported to the 3RR board actions are indeed taken (and I do remember seeing a few of those reports). T. Canens (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Q: To be clear, 1RR means that each editor is allowed to make only one revert per day to any I-P article, or is the restriction relative to individual articles instead of the entire topic area at once? AGK 17:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per article as explained in the proposed template. PhilKnight (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 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:

• Ugh. So new sockpuppets would have an advantage over established editors in an edit war on the topic? I can't see how that would end well. Jclemens (talk) 03:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for Jclemens reasoning. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• There is rarely any reason for an editor to exceed 1RR, and the disadvantages of hindering those few instances where it would be fair to do so would be far outweighed by the advantages of killing the plentiful revert-wars and other nonsense that goes on here. Also per Jclemens. Oppose. AGK 17:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:

• If it comes to that, it is probably better to simply ask arbcom to open ARBPIA3. T. Canens (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• As suggested, I don't think we have the green light for this, but this is my top preference. Certain editors seem to always be around where there's Israel-Palestine disruption. -- tariqabjotu 05:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure if this would solve the problem. Editors on both sides of this conflict have such zeal that they'll stop at nothing to push their viewpoint. Looking through WP:ARBPIA2, of the eight editors sanctioned, two went on to become highly prolific sockpuppet-masters. I worry that this option would have a similar result. ← George ^talk 07:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only two accounts from that case that are now blocked are NoCal100 (talk · contribs) and Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs), and the latter is a sock of a former. This hardly supports the argument that the topic bans led to the socking - it was already there before the ban was imposed. Besides, sockpuppeteers are frankly much easier to deal with. Just checkuser, and if confirmed, indef. T. Canens (talk) 09:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. This would solve the problem of existing problematic editors, but new folks with agendas discover Wikipedia every day. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:

• The reason there are AE requests is because it's a game: participants don't have the good of the encyclopedia in mind, but rather the good of their "team"; they aren't interested in arbitration enforcement, they're interested in removing an opponent. Proactive enforcement would mean no need for these "gotcha" games at AE, thus allowing more focus on editing. Rami R 20:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a good idea, but obviously would be very time consuming. PhilKnight (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's very unlikely that we will get enough admins in AE to make this practical. There is no way we can review every single edit (that's arbcom's job). T. Canens (talk) 08:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — I thought ArbCom enforcement was one of our jobs as administrators anyway. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if you can get enough volunteers to do this, go ahead. Few admins are interested in AE, and even fewer have the time and energy necessary for a proactive system to work. T. Canens (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, you're right. I should have appended a smiley :) to indicate sarcasm in my "support" comment. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. We don't have the time nor manpower to do this. A more pragmatic method of compensating for the serial gaming that plagues this topic area would be to routinely look at the conduct of the filing party in relation to the AE complaint submitted, in addition to the conduct of the subject of the complaint. AGK 17:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The term "taking one for the team" comes to mind. Rami R 18:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Support indef semi protection as a standard practice for all P-I articles. Not sure about the other parts of this proposal, though. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that "unsure, but sounds interesting and is worth discussing further" or ... not? Rd232 ^talk 21:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant I wanted to think about it further. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• An edit count/semi protect system is easy to game and may unnecessarily shut out genuine new users. But I like the "revert without penalty" idea, which I think is also used in the troubles case combined with 1RR/day otherwise. T. Canens (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• A number of editors that make substantive edits exclusively in the I-P area also use semi-automated tools to revert vandalism site-wide. While that is a valuable contribution to Wikipedia, it also takes very little time to amass a large number of edits using this method. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is one suggested solution that I find difficult to fault, although I would remove part (4) and replace it with Option 3 ("All editors subjected to 1RR"). AGK 17:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]