User talk:StevenJ81/How do we make it better

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

I'm willing to designate this space to continue a discussion, and perhaps start sketching out some answers. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You may want to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. On the one hand, a specialized subpage there would make the most sense. However, my fear us that things like Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Article workshop have languished for 7 years. -- Avi (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll do that. But I really wanted a less-official (and less public) place to have some initial discussions. We'll need and want to start sharing, at WP:IPCOLL and at the upcoming ArbCom, soon enough. שבת שלום. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Introduction

Copied from User talk:Chillum#How can I help? I got permission first, not because all of this isn't under general license, but because it's Chillum's talk page, so that's the polite thing to do.

@StevenJ81: Regarding this post, what are you asking from me? It seems like you are asking me to provide administrative assistance in an area where there are significant content disputes. I have been involved in such disputes as the depiction of Muhammad in the Muhammad article, and the showing of Rorschach ink blots on the Rorschach test page. If you are not familiar with these disputes they ran very high in magnitude and emotion.

I am not a stranger to being either an administrator or an editor in the difficult areas. It is not clear to me from your post specifically which area I can lend my efforts to. Could you please point me to the locus of this contentious topic area you speak of? I will certainly give it some of my attention. Chillum 18:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Truth tell, I should have left your name out of it, and I apologize for that. I actually softened my original, more sarcastic phrasing: I was a little underwhelmed at your describing yourself as "heartbroken". But probably you were, as I am: assume good faith.

Honestly, Chillum, this whole incident is only a very little bit about what Malik did or did not do, and whether it was or was not appropriate. This incident is collateral damage from the fact that the whole Israel-Palestine issue, and probably some other topics around here, are flat-out broken, and flat-out do not work.

What people like us need to do is a top-to-bottom re-evaluation of the basic tenets of how this project works when it comes to areas this contentious. There are, at this point, a great number of rules as to how things are supposed to be done around here. And in many parts of the project, these rules work. But they don't work in this area, and I personally think the approach to areas like this needs to be scrapped and built over from the beginning. In my mind, the justification for doing so is clear. These areas, de facto, are not open to people who want to edit collaboratively and constructively. The inmates are in charge of the asylum. So we might as well concede that these areas are not really open to everyone to edit. And if that's the case we might as well restrict editing to people who have a track record of wanting to build a good encyclopedia, instead of leaving editing to the inmates.

I'm not sure how to start doing this. But if we don't do something like this, incidents like this will continue, and serious contributors will continue to drift away from Wikipedia. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said, areas with disputes that just won't die are my speciality. I don't think I will solve the world's problems but what I can do is offer a neutral hand in an area where I sincerely have no strong opinions on. Where would you say is a good place to lend a hand? Chillum 18:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, from personal experience, I agree with StevenJ81 that there is a serious problem in Israel/Palestine and similar geopolitical issues. I'm loathe to a priori restrict editing to a certain "class" of people. I'd much rather if we could give everyone enough rope, but quickly bounce people who cannot maintain decorum—first temporarily and then permanently if necessary. -- Avi (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I am guessing from past experience in contentious areas that there is a talk page with dozens of pages of discussion and an archive as long as my arm. Could you point me towards the area where an uninvolved administrator willing to wade into murky waters could be useful? Chillum 18:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (I don't necessarily disagree with Avi, but please see the following, which I was writing at the same time.)

Good question. Let me think overnight on that. (Seriously.) Part of the problem I see, Chillum, is that on occasions when I have tried to offer a neutral hand, I've gotten my head handed to me. (Disclaimer: I do have an opinion on these topics. But if you look at past AN/I's on, for example, United Synagogue, you'll see that I bent over backwards to keep my feelings out of it, until I snapped myself, and immediately withdrew.) If you've got a thicker skin for that stuff, G-d bless.

But I also don't know that trying to intervene as a conventional neutral party here is going to help much. The process itself is dysfunctional in the Israel-Palestine topic area. Avi and others suggested over on that page that ArbCom really needs to clean up a lot of the fundamental issues that resulted in this incident in the first place. I agree. So if there is anything you can do right away, it's to start thinking about appropriate suggestions to give ArbCom about managing topic areas like this.

Beyond that, as I said: I'll give it some serious thought. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I look forward to hearing from you. I am happy to take up your challenge in the spirit of productivity it was given in. Chillum 19:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

No need for intervention at this second, I think, but here is a "talk page with dozens of pages of discussion and an archive as long as my arm" if you want an example 8-) [or should it be 8-( ]: Talk:State of Palestine -- Avi (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I will read through the talk page, and then the archives. I will pay particular attention to the good work being done by Malik and others. I will also try to figure out problematic behaviour and the inevitable recurring personalities(sock puppets). I will then see what I can do. Chillum 19:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

As an editor who works a lot in WP:ARBPIA and might be one of the lunatics who are in charge of the asylum, perhaps I can give my opinion. One of the main problems is the routine sockpuppetry. Wikipedia does not have a system to deal with determined sockpuppets. This guy, NoCal100, is for example, a real artist, with some of his socks undetected for years. Some sockmasters (like this guy) are pretty easy to spot, but more subtle, and more civil, POV pushers are quite hard. It is often quite easy to see when people are editing to advance one side in this area. But, unfortunately, it needs domain knowledge, because so much of the propaganda claims in this area are plausible enough for an uninvolved editor. Thus, "uninvolved" admins focus on conduct issues, and disregard content. Unfortunately, it is quite labour intensive to investigate socks, because, on the one hand, you need some editing history to compare, and on the other, the long editing history makes detecting it quite hard. If I did more of it, I would barely have time to write content. Kingsindian ♝♚ 19:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I will certainly pay close attention to the additional tools that the discretionary sanctions provide. It appears that both arbcom and the community have had a lot to say on the matter. I will be sure to read up on all of that too. I clearly have a lot of homework to do before I do anything else. Chillum 19:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: That brief summary was helpful to my understanding. Thanks. As you see, I'm inclined to be more aggressive than, say, Avi in overhauling the rules in areas like this. I wish I didn't have to be. But at some point the "creating an encyclopedia" part of this gets lost in the rules. And as things things stand right now, the people least likely to edit in this area are people committed to "creating an encyclopedia", while the people most likely to edit don't give a rat's ___ about it. And on a macro level, that doesn't work.

There are all kinds of editors all over the place who are in it for reasons other than "creating an encyclopedia", but for the most part the excesses get squeezed out eventually. But not here. So in my view, somehow, we've got to figure out how to limit participation here to people committed to "creating an encyclopedia". And we have to do it explicitly, because trying to be laissez-faire about it and eventually squeezing out the excesses isn't happening here. The question of how to do so, though, is tough. I don't know if the idea of a (really material) minimum edit count is really right; I just threw it out there. But right now, it's the Wild West. And good guys are getting shot. And at some point maybe the marshal has to restore some order. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@StevenJ81: To be honest, I actually have no clue how to fix this problem. WP is basically incapable of dealing with sockpuppetry, where socks just create a new account when the last one is blocked. Actually, my own viewpoint on this matter goes in the opposite direction. In investigating these socks, I have actually found them sometimes doing decent edits. They have some interests in niche topics and sometimes remove blatant propaganda from the "other side". In this area, I generally agree with John Stuart Mill that the Devil's Advocate is a useful thing. But my opinion has probably more to do with my temperament than anything else. I doubt you will find many other supporters of this viewpoint in this area, who are just sick and tired of socks, and might consider draconian sanctions. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Chillum, Here is another example; look at the history on Second Intifada. What LoveFerguson is doing is completely and totally unhelpful and should be stopped. Do I have a personal POV on the issue? Sure. I'm pretty sure Zero0000 does too, and it's almost certainly opposite mine. But when editing these areas takes the requisite time, glacially slow perhaps, eventually, even people who come from different points of view can reach consensus. But when someone starts tossing fireworks into the nitroglycerin pool, editors who try and toe the line get very frustrated, and I wouldn't blame anyone on that page from losing it. I'd almost counsel you not to dip your toe in those waters, it's guaranteed to cause you heartache. :( -- Avi (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

And Chillum, based on what I know about Avi and Zero0000, I'm pretty sure that if the two of them could work together on it and be left alone, they'd come up with something appropriate and useful. Neither of them would be extremely happy with it from a POV POV, if you will. But they could get to something they could both live with as a reasonable, neutral view of the situation. As things currently stand, there is no incentive for extremists to let experienced, dedicated editors hash something out, and every incentive for them to throw fireworks in. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, StevenJ81. Please forgive my hubris, but one of the moments I am proudest of in my on-wiki interactions was how the Ahmed Yassin image discussions were handled. There were a number of issues with that article, but specifically Talk:Ahmed Yassin/Archive 2#Better picture?, Talk:Ahmed Yassin/Archive 2#RfC: Should the image illustrating Yassin be changed, and Talk:Ahmed Yassin#Image selection for the Ahmed Yassin article. In summary, it took 5 months, but we reached a consensus as to which image to use and why (and it wasn't the one I originally wanted either). Yes, tempers frayed a bit, but overall editors like nableezy, NickCT, Cullen328, Sadads, and Cptnono were able to discuss the issues like adults and the article is much better off now. Unfortunately, in Israel/Palestine, interactions like that are more the exception than the rule. I could wax poetic and pedantic as to why, but I'd be abusing Chillum's talk page 8-) . The question is, how do we make it better?!?!?! -- Avi (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

In the spirit of not abusing anyone's (main) talk page, I invite interested parties to continue at User talk:StevenJ81/How do we make it better for further discussion, and maybe sketching out answers. Chillum, you're invited to cut-and-paste or copy-and-paste what's here to there, if you want, but I don't want to presume to move anything off your talk page without your consent. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

A quick look at my archive would show that I am used to far greater abuses of my talk page, even recently. This is one of the more productive things to take place on my talk page. StevenJ81 this conversation is welcome to fill up my talk page and even my archives(which are already long). However if there is a location better suited also feel free to move this there for me and I will follow. Chillum 20:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Up to you. But I think maybe a specific designated page is better, if for no other reason than to keep your general talk page clear for more routine business. What I think I'll do (but probably not today US EDT) is create a little template for here (and other interested parties' talk pages) to direct people to the locus of the discussion. (A template at the top of the page is better than a mere note on the page because the note is likely to be archived eventually.) After I've done that, I'll get everything set up over there. Meanwhile, keep going here. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I would think that the ideal use of my talk page would be to discuss how to improve the quality of these article's neutrality. I really cannot think of more appropriate content here. Chillum 21:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's what I propose: I'll copy down to here over to my page. Continue the discussion below, on improving articles' neutrality, right here. Over on the other page, let's discuss more radical possibilities. I am firming up in my fundamental belief that a necessary (though possibly not sufficient) condition of fixing this is to find a way to really exclude people who are WP:NOTHERE. So I'd like to talk about ways to do that. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done

Copied with Chillum's permission. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Concept

Personally, for reasons I've discussed elsewhere, I don't see where incremental improvements to the system will help much in extreme situations like this. I would like to find a way to restrict areas like this to people who have a proven track record of being willing to work toward creating a high-quality, neutral encyclopedia. I concede that defining that, and then implementing that, are difficult things to do, especially given the general culture here. But as it stands now, it is just exactly those people who walk away. And that doesn't work. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

We need to make sure the nutters walk away and the committed editors willingly stay. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi}

Discussion points

One problem with my suggestion, I think now, is that it might stop good, rule-observant editors from joining in to edit new but important 'breaking news' pages. At 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict though to my eyes his work looked almost 'official', User:WarKosign proved an invaluable addition. I'd never seen him in the I/P area before, and haven't checked if he started there, but the article would have suffered notably had a newcomer to the area like him not collaborated. No conflict, despite notable disagreements, because the rules were meticulously adhered to, and one could trust him to listen carefully, and edit consensually. A second problem is that a 'paranoid' reading of this in terms of power maneuvering would suspect that, objectively, my proposal only serves to consolidate the ranks of the so-called 'pro-Pal crowd'. The sorry fact is that 90% of this nuisance making comes from one side, and thus, contextually the measure can be read as a rather cynical ploy to get a 'Palestinian majority'. I think the essential problem is to get more Israeli/Jewish quality editors in, who can ensure that the varied perspectives from that POV are, when ignored by other editors, duly registered. As sean.hoyland remarked, the problem at the moment is that this persistent poor, sock-based abuse gives Israel's legitimate point of view interests here a rotten name, which is dangerous. A further defect is that quite a lot of useful edits come from IPs who browse by, see a spelling error or a slip up, and correct it. This category of positive drive-by editor could be protected, were we to have a threshold for contribution bar imposed, by specifying that new editors can notify the talk page of anything problematical, for it to be addressed and acted upon.

Evidently then, this is no easy matter to fix, and one needs a space for lengthy and close discussion to come up with a creative if interim solution. Perhaps an alert-system to draft in volunteer admins to oversee articles where revert wars flourish and newbie redlinked editors crash in. Under such a system, to avoid admin fatigue or burn-out while ensuring cautionary oversight, a period of service could be set at a week or two. That said, I still think some consideration needs to be given for at least a test-period in which one experiments with things like a 100+ or more contributions is needed. I'd like a more empirically flexible wiki in short, where ideas to cope with known struictural issues are tried out. If they work, adopt them: if they are counter-productive drop them after a month etc. What is wholly unacceptable is that while there is a virtual unanimity that the I/P area is broken, and 'toxic', nothing is done to fix it. The failure to fix structural defects runs against the whole history of gradual tinkering to overcome flaws which has got this encyclopedia where it now is in numerous areas and articles, a quite serviceable quick guide to any argument or topic. Nishidani (talk) 09:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Nishidani. I'll give some detailed ideas a little later. I'm one who would take Israel's side, and so is Avi, I believe.

I'll say, this, though. We can work through exactly what consitutes a WP:HERE vs. WP:NOTHERE editor. But at this moment I'm willing to take the risk of losing some new, high-quality contributors to get rid of the bulk of the problem. (In principle, I suppose one could consider a vetted exception policy, à la "confirmed" vs. "autoconfirmed". But I don't think we can go there until we sort out the core problem first. And the overwhelming majority of people who ask for "confirmed" status before autoconfirming are denied the request.) StevenJ81 (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I've stated more than once that if any set of rules were put in place in the I/P area strict enough that even a longtermer there like myself would quickly fall foul of them and get repermabanned, I'd assent immediately to their introduction. So feel free to suggest stringent rules (you say, not adding an edit summary: that would get me into hot water, but it is a good idea, which I approve of) Nishidani (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I want to get some invitations out, and set a few more things up. But I'm going to start outlining some basic ideas here, including placing some headers to focus things. On the principle that a stool needs three legs to stand sturdily, I think we need to overhaul the rules in three different areas in order to make this work. And then enforcement needs to back it up rigorously, even if good, experienced people get snagged.

1. WP:HERE vs. WP:NOTHERE. I'm actually impressed how well "anyone/everyone can edit" actually works in many parts of Wikipedia. So I'm a little sad, in a way, to start here. But as I have said in a couple of other places, we are already at the point in I/P that not "everyone can edit", because so many good people are hounded away from this area. Once we concede that point, though, we have new freedom, too. Because once we concede that we are already at not "everyone can edit", we have the freedom to decide, then: "Who can edit?" In my mind, if you have to choose between people who are WP:HERE and people who are WP:NOTHERE, HERE wins, hands down.
2. Individual edit quality. Everything in this encyclopedia is supposed to be sourced. And edit summaries are supposed to be able to show, quickly, just what has been done, so that it is clear, quickly. How well these items are enforced varies all over the place, of course, and the overall rules have their exceptions. But at risk of snagging even experienced editors in mistakes in the beginning, I say: These rules should be enforced strictly, quickly, and mercilessly.
3. WP:CONSENSUS. In principle, all pages, everywhere, are subject to a requirement that edits are made collaboratively, by consensus. Instead, we have edit wars. Get rid of single-issue editors, and part of this problem disappears. But since we have talk pages for a reason, I think any editor ought to be able to demand a consensus discussion on a talk page. Once that request has been made, the specific content simply gets frozen in place. No exceptions, other than true typos, or BLP or copyvio or the like.

I have ideas on some of these, but I'm fully open to discussion on everything. But something has to change. Consider what follows merely an opening argument. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

HERE vs. NOTHERE

• I would really start out strictly: Registered users only, at least 500 edits in mainspace, outside the I/P area (no more than 50 "minor"), at least 90 days account age. That's it.

Now, once that general requirement is in place, one can argue the details a little. Are general articles on, say, Judaism or Islam "outside the I/P area"? I'd like to think so. But I got snagged in a kerfuffle at United Synagogue because one part of that organizaton's work is Israel advocacy, and an anti-Zionist editor was trying to make that the main focus of the entire article. And, to take things to the extreme, in the article on the holiday of Shemini Atzeret, I describe how Jewish law on the holiday works differently in Israel than outside. I don't think that's in the I/P area, really. But should we construe strictly?

• Ultimately, though, I think we need to be really tough on this. It's been argued with me that this may favor "trolls who know the system" more than honest editors. We'll see. I think 500 non-I/P edits and three months is a fairly substantial requirement for your average single-issue account to overcome. And while in the early, transitional stages, there may be "trolls who know the system" who are eligible, I'll bet they get weeded out. And to help that: If a sufficiently severe offender (term of art right now, not defined yet) gets bounced from his/her/its right to edit in this area, the clock and count start over. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that some thing like 500 edits outside the I/P area should constitute a sine qua non of then proceeding to work the area. For one, it makes life hard for throwaway sockpuppets (b) has a positive side-effect of improving articles elsewhere. I don't klnow about 90 days. NoCal and others seem to have a practice over the years of setting up a few dozen accounts every couple of months, that lie dormant, until activated. Then they step in and start working over the I/P area with an apparent presence going years back. One can also be sure that as soon as a sock is detected, he or she creates several new registered names, roughly coinciding with the latest block. It's perhaps an idle thought, but would it be possible to introduce software that notes account creations that remain relatively idle, so that the repository of data could be looked at by checkusers when suspicions arise? On the other hand, 90 days is a proposal I'd back: if only because it would force sockpuppets to exhaust or use up their old registered handles fairly quickly.

I agree that Jewish and Islamic topics in themselves should not immediately be construed as relating to the I/P conflict. But the ARBPIA wording is 'broadly construed', a phrase which allows editors to rope virtually anything in this area related to Judaism and Islam. There is a salutary note on just how difficult this can be in a (relatively recent book on archaeology, of all things):-

'In his with quiet outrage written book Sacred Landscape. The Buried History of the Holy Land since 1948(Los Angeles, CA:London 2000) the Israeli scholar Meron Benvenisti has shown that everyone using a name for an ancient archaeological site in modern Israel, the Gaza strip or at the West Bank enters the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.'K. Van Bekkum, From Conquest to Coexistence: Ideology and Antiquarian Intent in the Historiography of Israel’s Settlement in Canaan, BRILL 2011 p.3. Nishidani (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit quality

I'll start here with a couple of quick points:

• Any edit in this area without an edit summary can be reverted by anyone (using any tool s/he wants, including rollback) for that reason alone, provided the reverter says so in the edit summary.
• Any edit in this area where the edit summary is materially misleading can be reverted by anyone (as above).
• Some edits don't have sources (typos, style, etc., and also WP:BLUE). Those must be outlined in the edit summary, like with any other edit. All other edits without a source attached to the edit can be reverted by anyone (as above).

If someone claims BLUE and someone else comes along and disagrees with that, the "someone else" can revert, but should do so in a way that assumes good faith, and requests a discussion on the talk page (see CONSENSUS section below).

In the end, some sources end up not being WP:RS. Sometimes this happens despite a good-faith belief, too. But if someone creates a "made-up" source, or uses a patently unreliable source, intentionally, as a means of circumventing the "no edits without sources" rule, then (a) the edit can be reverted by anyone, and (b) the editor is subject to sanctions.

StevenJ81 (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Consensus

• Anyone can demand a consensus discussion on the talk page. (I suppose the possibility exists of this being invoked frivolously, but we can probably work around that.) That immediately freezes content, except for typos or something that the overall rules require an immediate revert on (like copyvio and BLP)—which of course must be marked as such.

Someone who edits notwithstanding frozen content can be reverted, assuming good faith. That person is directed (by edit summary, and preferably by user-page notice), to the talk page. Further editing notwithstanding frozen content is subject to sanctions.

• Once a consensus is reached on a subject, that consensus should be allowed to hold without continual rechallenge for some period of time. I'm inclined to think the usual rule should be one year (or, perhaps, even two). In principle, we need to allow someone to request a consensus be reopened sooner, but that kind of request should be routinely denied unless a patently obvious justification exists (there's been an intervening election, the subject has died, and the like). StevenJ81 (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Please feel free to move this somewhere else. I myself might not mind, if it could be workable (which is open to question) something like regular annual RfC's on articles of a contentious nature which have been subject to significant developments as a regular procedure in contentious articles. Changes of a more obvious nature could be accomplished through some form of article protection and a request for edit to a protected page. John Carter (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Mechanics and Enforcement

• I don't know if everything I'm suggesting here can be done without some additions to the software. I hope it can. But we ought to request changes if we need to.
• Enforcement of current rules should be merciless and unapologetic. Anyone making an honest mistake will be back soon enough; anyone whose mistake wasn't honest will feel a bite.
• There is some additional enforcement muscle described above. I'm open to suggestions. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)