Wikipedia talk:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars/Archive 1

Archive 1

Why this?

Why the nominations page for this? We don't want to vote and have a popularity contest for a group of users who are going to make remedies to ArbCom. The committee should ask users to email them and they can discuss it amongst themselves. Users with the greatest support probably won't be the best people for the job. This I'm affraid is going to waste a lot of time which could be used more effectively on other parts of the project. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of a vote or a request for people to comment. Looks like it's all to be done via e-mail. John Reaves 01:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it's just changed :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 01:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Shortcut

Considered WP:GROUP (too useful, dont want to take it), WP:WGEW (working group on edit wars, too unmemorable), and others. Any idea on a better shortcut? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} —Preceding comment was added at 01:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

How about WP:EDITWARS? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:WORKINGGROUP & WP:EDITWARS are squatting way too general meanings. Eg. the second one creates confussion with Wikipedia:Edit war. They must be deleted/fixed while they did not propagate and a narrow one must be set. How about WP:ETHNICWARS?

What's the rush with shortcuts anyway? Why not think it over? `'Míkka>t 18:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What about WP:WGC (Working Group on Cultural...) and WP:WGE (Working Group on Ethnic...)? Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I like WP:WGEW; I think it's memorable enough for our purpose. It's not that we are striving to become well known beyond our group. We're just there to do a job, not to market ourselves. — Sebastian 22:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Full disclosure?

It would seem prudent to request that all applicants volunteer a full disclosure of any potential biases, in order to maintain a neutral group with no predispositions toward the outcome of any of the particularly salient cases under review. Just my thoughts. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Added, and also added confidentiality. Nice catch :) Thanks! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

To whom would such disclosure be addressed, and who would be reviewing it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Commendable, a few suggestions

Someone wrote me an email to make me aware of this working group. I think this is a great idea. I have too much else going on for me to volunteer to be a member of the working group, but (if anyone wants) I'm certainly available to give my opinion on matters where I'm knowledgable; feel free to ask me any specific questions.

As with WikiProject Ethnic Groups, this has potential to deal with matters a bit broader than ethnicity as such: the nationalistic issues related how to handle wars and other national conflicts are very similar.

One question: what are the concerns about the possibility of a need for people to recuse themselves in areas where they've been involved? Seems particularly tricky to require such a thing here: it is likely often to disqualify people who have an awareness of the facts of the matter.

Also, there are two ongoing disputes related to Moldova: the status of Moldovan ethnicity relative to Romanian ethnicity, and how to handle the breakaway region of Transnistria. I would guess that there are issues similar to the latter with reference to nearly all breakaway regions. - Jmabel | Talk 02:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

These disputes often spill over into articles on bodies that concern themselves with these situations, such as Criticism of Human Rights Watch, CAMERA, Amnesty International (recently moved to a 'criticism of' article) and the United States and the International Criminal Court, and the issues there are often no less dire. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Those who forget history...

Didn't we see something similar before? Wikipedia:Wikirules proposal. Oh yeah. So we did. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 07:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Similar issues concerning science

There's a similar problem concerning science articles. It's got so bad that some of our scientist Wikipedians are considering withdrawing and temporarily abandoning key articles (evolution, global warming etc) to the cranks to dramatise Wikipedia's ineffectiveness at dealing with partisan edit warriors. See User:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

True enough. But I think we should keep these issues separate. My impression is the dynamics of these conflicts tend to be different. This group shouldn't attempt to tackle all the big issues at once. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I absolutely agree. It may be worth setting up a parallel group to tackle the science edit wars, and I've suggested as much to the editors involved in that discussion. I do think, though, that the problems we're encountering with ethnic and cultural edit wars are indicative of a more general failure of Wikipedia's governance; I wouldn't be surprised to find that the recommendations from this working group would be applicable to many other areas of Wikipedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the same issues occur everywhere. Last time we did the numbers, we figured there might be ~1000 articles that are somehow pathological, and not editable with normal wiki-methods (which is not bad, out of 1 million, at the time). I don't know the current numbers, one would have to download a recent dump and do the maths. Though by extrapolation, I would venture something like 2000-3000 pages (out of ~2 million) --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Define "pathological"? -- ChrisO (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Not (easily) editable using normal wiki-editing, and likely to have NPOV issues, wikidrama, etc. --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC) We assumed that you need less than Dunbar's number number of editors to successfully do wiki-editing on any one page. Assuming Dunbar's number=150 (possibly a bit on the high side for on-line communities), we found there were ~1000 pages edited by more than that number of editors.

That's true to a certain extent, but isn't the particular problem we're dealing with here. Using Dunbar's number assumes that conflicts are limited on a per-article basis; in other words, given editors A and B, you're assuming that they would be in conflict on article X with #editors > 150, but not in conflict on article Y with #editors < 150.

Unfortunately, that doesn't actually work in practice, since editors factor their previous experiences with each other into their future decisions. The defining characteristic of these nationalist disputes is that conflict begins on a single article and spreads to all other articles edited by the parties in conflict, even if those other articles would not themselves have caused the conflict.

(On a more extreme level, it's not clear that Dunbar's number is naively applicable here at all, since the disputes are sparked by outside conflict rather than mere social friction.) Kirill 13:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's just a small number of users we can ban them all and be done with it. But is that indeed possible? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There are criteria we can go by, as we discussed here (search for "criteria"). — Sebastian 08:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(Update: Close deferred till 5th - turns out several committee members are away this weekend. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC))

Different Areas with Wars

Just my 2 cents worth. Kim Bruning's and ChrisO's comments of 29 Jan 08 are on target: the problem is not isolated and the group's recommendations are sure to be applicable to many areas. Treating the wars in different areas differently means that you could be duplicating this process forever. A war is a war is a war. Trying things out in "courteous but contentious" areas may give better feedback than trying to tackle the most extreme problem first. Also, if you don't have a good solution to less destructive contentions (which are a significant problem, I think), then perhaps a good solution to the bloodletting wars is unlikely. It sounds like the "expert community" is so motivated to find a solution that they might let you experiment in their area, should you want to. There are other areas where the editors are courteous and cooperative and have no hope of consensus without help (similar to the culture wars, but without the bloodletting). 24.178.228.14 (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point. I think, though, that looking at the most extreme problems first is likely to be the most productive approach. Those are the areas where Wikipedia's policies and governance have been tested to the most extreme extent, so it should allow us to see more clearly where the fracture points (so to speak...) are. Lack of courtesy is a big part of the problem, as it creates a hostile atmosphere that poisons relationships between editors, so looking at areas where editors remain courteous would actually miss a very important aspect of the overall problem. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The group's recommendations are, indeed, likely to be applicable to many areas, but focusing on one area makes it easier to think about the issue. If all we accomplish is to get these down to a level of civility that reduces burnout of good contributors, and get the churn of article text down to where it means a reader can assume that on any given day the article will not be wildly different from the day before, we will have accomplished a lot. And if we succeed here, the model can be used elsewhere. - Jmabel | Talk 01:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Objections to appointments

Is there any way to object to the appointment of an editor to the working group? The Arbcomm decision outlined that only "uninvolved admins" would be allowed to apply sanctions stemming from the Arbcomm decision. I see at least one name among the nominees who is considered to be an involved admin, by at least some editors and per the ArbComm decision wording. Can the inclusion of an "involved admin" in the working group be challenged? Tiamut^talk 01:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The working group is not intended to be an enforcement body, and members are not required to comply with any restrictions on enforcement imposed with the sanctions in the case. Kirill 02:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, I am concerned about the inclusion of Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs) for reasons outlined by GRBerry (talk · contribs) here and because of comments he made in the arbcomm case, such as this one which also raised my concern about his ability to be impartial and fair with editors who disagree with him. Tiamut^talk 02:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If Tariqabjotu was going to be given any standing to enforce an arbcom decision in a specific dispute, I'd agree that there would be something to check. However as Kirill has said, this is not enforcement; it's a working group discussing how the general kind of dispute will be handled. It is unlikely to focus on any one person's individual disputes, and its findings would be consensus recommendations by many editors, about how Wikipedia might make better rules and processes, and better handle these kind of disputes in future. Users on this are basically being asked to discuss a whole range of edit wars nopt just the ones you or tariq have been in, but ones like Macedonia, Ireland, and Azerbaijan. I don't think you have much to worry about. But thanks for checking. If you read the guidelines you'll see what the group is doing. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough response FT2. As long as it is clear that his participation here does not mean he is "uninvolved" or is used to speak to his right to enjoy enforcement capabilities stemming from the Arbcomm decision, I'm fine with it. Your patience and understanding in dealing with my concerns is deeply appreciated. Tiamut^talk 02:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Transparency and introductions

I see Tiamut's concern in a bigger context, independent of any particular editor. It is a problem that the selection process was not transparent. I believe transparency to be an integral part of any consensus. Our policy says: "WP:consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process". And we need consensus to solve such edit wars.

Maybe ArbCom modelled this group after the jury of the American justice system. I would have preferred this to be an expert commission. While this is now water under the bridge, we can still introduce a little bit of transparency by disclosing our qualifications to the public. Since it can be awkward to do this for oneself, I'll start by writing about some of people I know a bit:

FT2 (talk · contribs) was elected to ArbCom in 2007. In his candidate statement, he presented an amazing list of links showing conflict resolution experience.

Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs) is a kind editor with good experience in conflict resolution. I was sad when he retracted his ArbCom candidacy after he faced strong opposition from axe grinders, who opposed him on the grounds that he once proposed to forgive another editor. I am so much the more happy that Ryan joined our group, and I'm looking forward to his insight. — Sebastian 20:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to second Sebastian's call for transparency in what we're doing and who we are. I'm Jay Henry. I applied to be on this working group because I believe I can provide a (relative) outsider's view to the committee. I have no dog in these fights. I outlined to the ArbCom my belief that the Working Group should look at these edit wars as behavioral issues and editorial issues. I've done a lot of article work, including on current UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, which is a Featured Article, and believe I'm qualified to assist on the content evaluation front. I'm coming into this with an extremely open mind. If I already had the answers I'd simply have written my essay and it'd be fixed. I don't; but I'm planning to work hard, find out and present the community with some concrete recommendations on how to resolve these situations better than we do now.

As I understand, this working group won't be writing policies, we won't be enforcing decisions; we'll be studying the issues and putting our analysis and recommendations before the community. We'll be doing a lot of our deliberations in a somewhat private setting. The reason for this is so, basically, we can candidly say "Is it possible that so-and-so was the problem here?" and kick the idea around a little bit without having to worry about angering so-and-so. I, for one, would not have signed onto this Group if I felt anything subversive or untoward was going to come out of it, or if I thought we were going to be some sort of secret witchhunt committee. We will not.

While some discussion will be private, I sincerely hope our "Findings of Fact" will be much clearer and more detailed than what we see from the Arbitration Committee and will therefore provide a firmer foundation from which to move forward. --JayHenry (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

And I'm User:Black Kite, an admin with experience of quite a few of the disputes that will be considered, notably the Irish-British issues and quite a few of those under Moreschi's "Miscellaneous" tag, especially this one which I'm currently a party to. I'll be intermittently offline for a few days, but will catch up on the Wiki when it's set up. Black Kite 02:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And I'm User:Maxim. I've seen nationalist disputes spill over into very unusual topics. I write many articles. I've also the deleted the Main Page. It logged twice to boot. :D Maxim_(talk) 02:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Elonka, administrator and article-writer. Most of my efforts in this topic area are in the medieval history of the Middle East, especially around the Crusades. I have also done a lot of work on articles about Mecca and related elements of the Hajj. I have been involved in discussions about the Depictions of Muhammad, and have tried (unsuccessfully) to find a compromise on some disputes there. I have also been engaged in some discussions/disputes about the naming of medieval Eastern European monarchs. Outside of Wikipedia, I have been a professional online community manager for about 20 years now, and am also the chairperson of the International Game Developers Association "Online Games" group. I'm also a public speaker, occasionally giving talks about Wikipedia. Overall I am very supportive, but I do have a couple slides where I express criticism of Wikipedia procedures, as well as suggestions on how the project should learn from the mistakes of other non-wiki online communities, rather than continuing to make its own mistakes. I'm a big believer in learning from the mistakes of others, rather than insisting on making them all yourself.  :) --Elonka 02:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm Nishkid64, also an administrator and article writer. I have on occasion participated in mediating (or maintaining NPOV) on India-related and Armenia-Azerbaijan articles. I've seen my fair share of nationalist editing, and I am quite familiar with the antics of many of the users disruptively editing these pages. I hope that we, the committee, can examine cultural and ethnic edit wars, and hopefully, and discover how we can help the future generation of editors in preventing Wikipedia from becoming tainted by nationalist POV. I am very approachable, so if you have any questions or want to talk, contact me by e-mail or other forms of communication that I listed on our private wiki. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, my turn now? Okay, I'm User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. I'm here mostly because I have some experience with handling disputes of these kinds, most recently in overseeing the Liancourt Rocks and Transnistria cases while they were being brought to Arbcom. I edit regularly on Balkan-related topics, where I'm often involved in informally mediating national conflicts or handling various forms of ethnic conflict-related disruption too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Acceptance

Someone pointed out to me today that my name was on this page, which I had been completely unaware of. So, to whoever nominated me, thanks, and I accept. This looks like a very worthwhile project, and I look forward to putting together some suggestions.  :) --Elonka 03:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Getting started

I suppose that one thing we can do while we await further instruction from the Arbs is to compile a thorough list of ethnic and cultural edit wars that have reached the ArbCom (and even MedCom? I don't have a good sense of how much goes on at MedCom) levels. I would suggest being pretty inclusive in terms of whether or not a dispute was ethnic/cultural related. We can rule out certain cases as having other roots later, but it would help to start with a complete list. I'll start on this tomorrow unless such a list has already been created somewhere. --JayHenry (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Moreschi/The Plague/Useful links has most of them. (Strange, by the way, that Moreschi is not among us here.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Would it be worthwhile to also add MedComs and RFCs? We'll be able to find many of them in the previous disputes section of the various Arb cases. Perhaps make a subpage here for this rather than all of us invade Moreschi's userspace? --JayHenry (talk) 06:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, good idea about the other DR cases. (Gosh, what terrible user RfCs have we seen in that area. Will be depressing to review those.) - I don't think Moreschi would mind us using his page for the moment. Later, it seems we are going to be housed in our own wiki somewhere, so we can then copy stuff over there and expand as much as we like. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

In case I forget to mention this later on, I would like to clarify that the Ehud Lesar case is not about another Azerbaijan-Armenia content dispute, but about a block I made. It does involve the same editors from the previous AA cases, though. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been meaning to add RFCs to that page for a while. Never got around to it. If you chaps want to take the page over for a bit, go ahead. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Greetings to the new team

Just wanted to say thank you and good luck to the volunteers on the new working group. May the Force be with you! Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks to the Arbitration Committee, FT2, Kirill and all the involved people. This means hope. I'm waiting to see this working-group in action.

Please, some observer observing Jmabel if any Catalonia-related point is touched. I respect Jmabel, but I see his thought about the issue a lil' bit biased. Nevertheless, I think his presence here is very positive, because he knows the background and he have worked it. Thanks and good luck. --Owdki ^talk 11:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Working on analyzing possibilities for prevention?

(Until we get our wiki, we may talk here about some general issues.) I think that it may be useful, too. What others think about that? --millosh (talk (meta:)) 18:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of drafting some kind of list of agenda items I would like to see discussed. I will certainly contain things in a couple of different categories: not just (a) how to manage short-term containment of disputes, and (b) how to judge and sanction disruptive behaviour of individuals, but also (c) how to deal with sub-quality ethno-dispute-cruft article content once it's written, (d) how to encourage and protect good editors getting involved in such disputes, (e) how to better educate contributors before they enter the spiral of ethnic warfare... I guess the latter two fall in your "prevention" category, right? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I agree with you that if we have such body, it shouldn't deal only with acute issues, but to propose how to deal in a long term with those problems. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 19:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about membership Guidelines

I was quite surprised to learn today that User:Irpen is a member of this group, given that he has had significant involvement in ethnic and cultural edit wars, being a party to the following cases:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Irpen
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Halibutt
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren

Could this [1] be an issue for other members of the group in regard to the second point of the membership guidelines: "A record of conduct or activity that suggests an ability to work well and constructively with others as part of such a group."? Martintg (talk) 05:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Your attempt to drive a wedge between the members of the group in order to damage a certain participant you don't like is noted. It is not particularly helpful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think assuming good faith rather than adopting a belligerent tone would be more helpful here, thanks. Martintg (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Martintg, I would counsel you to review FT2's comments at the announcement of the Working Group's membership:

The Committee will seek to appoint the users it feels would have the best chance of producing a successful report with insightful findings, as its primary criterion ... [O]ur sole criteria in the decision has been whether the group will be more likely to produce better results for their involvement, and their ability to meet the criteria set out in the guidelines and work beneficially.

An ability to contribute to the Working Group's primary aim is the sole criterion for membership, and it is clear that Irpen has been deemed to meet the specified thresholds. If you have any concerns, I believe it would not be prudent to announce them in the public just yet—you may choose to instead email an Arbitration Committee member (perhaps FT2, who seems to be handling a lot of the Work Group's operations) with them. Regards, Anthøny 20:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice Anthony, I will email ArbCom directly with my concerns. Martintg (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I too was surprised at a few of the names, since they are individuals with whom I have been in disputes in the past. So the trust level is not as strong as it could be. However, I am willing (if they are) to put aside past differences, if everyone is willing to move forward and work towards a common goal which will be of benefit to the entire project. Or as the saying goes, "If all of us were thinking alike, some of us would be unnecessary."  ;) --Elonka 07:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur, particularly with your final point—my interpretation of the selection process, and I think this is correct, is that there was aimed to very much a balance of personalities surrounding the selection process. Perhaps the idea is that if there is as much "shaking up" of the norms as possible, then the Work Group will differ from the Committee in its operations as much as is possible, which effectively assists it in its operations—to discover alternative approaches to handling edit warring on cultural topics. Your quote there, Elonka, sums that up nicely :) AGK (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sure you are right. I was hoping that this working group would be composed of fresh people who would have new perspectives and ideas, not individuals deeply entrenched in one faction of the Eastern European disputes that have ravaged Wikipedia in the past. In answer to User:Future Perfect at Sunrise allegations, I have nothing against Irpen personally, he is a great editor and has contributed much, just in my experience I have found that he can be at times very confrontational and uncompromising. Martintg (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Named several times?" Oh, noes. Most of the names above have "been party" to several cases. It takes no skill, and certainly no wrong doing, to be "named" in a case, and the person crying out for AGF is showing utterly rotten faith in suggesting that "being named" in a case is somehow an indication of anything other than a complaintant with an itch. It's classically trolling to try to get a talk to change its topic from its objectives to its process. Famously, the peace talks in Korea took months to decide on what kind of table to use: it's what happens when you don't want peace, when what you want to do is mass troops. Utgard Loki (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, being a party to a case can even be a sign of sensible editing—many experienced, civil editors open Arbitration cases in an attempt to find a final resolution to a very bitter conflict, and are by default a party. It's not always a bad thing :) AGK (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Martintg, this is not democracy. Although ArbCom is elected, it combines all Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial powers. ArbCom has no obligations to explain all decisions. But this decision is understandable. We are talking about "ethnic and cultural edit wars" here. Would you invite Napoleon to discuss military matters? So they invited Irpen. Who else knows this subject better than him?Biophys (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I was also surprised and disappointed to learn of Irpen's selection. ArbCom seems to be haemorrhaging credibility at an alarming rate in 2008 and this hardly helps matters. ArbCom have already managed to drive off Giano, Bishonen and Adam C and "admonish" Dbachmann, a user who's done more to impose NPOV on national conflict pages than any other editor I can think of. On the other hand, I'm pleased to see the presence of Future Perfect at Sunrise, the guy who finally cut the Gordian knot at Liancourt Rocks (along with Spartaz). I think we need to see more of that kind of direct action rather than endless ArbCom pondering that leads nowhere (or worse than nowhere) if we're ever going to fix these problem areas. --Folantin (talk) 10:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

First, thanks for the compliments :-) - as for the overall composition of the team, I'm sure we've all found names on it that we found surprising, but I can assure you that up till now we are working pretty well together. A person may well be somewhat opinionated or prone to get into conflicts in practice, but still have very insightful things to say about how and why such conflicts happen and how they should be dealt with. Please everybody keep in mind that our job is not to judge individual current conflicts, so any particular political bias some of us might have won't necessarily skew the result in a biased direction. The whole thing is more on a meta level. By the way, a good part of our initial internal discussion so far has been on how to ensure maximum transparency towards the rest of the wiki community, and I think I'm not spilling any secrets if I tell you that Irpen has been the strongest voice for maximum openness. As for the Liancourt case, it looks as if conclusions drawn from how that was handled will indeed play some substantial role in further discussion. We'll keep you guys updated. There's not an awful lot more to report right now, as there hasn't really been a huge lot of activity yet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

More as an echo-comment rather than introducing anything new, I agree with Future—although it is early days, the Work group has been getting along very nicely thus far. Of course, that may well change as the temperature raises and we get to the heart of the issues surrounding cultural edit warring, but for the moment, I would tentatively say that the implications for destruction that seems to be being suggested will occur because of Irpen's involvement appear to be pretty much invalid at the present time. AGK (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

While I have been suprised at first to learn of Irpen's inclusion, it does make sense. He has been one of the first if not the first people to suggest the creation of such a group, and in the past discussion has made some interesting suggestions regarding it. The fact that he was involved in many heated conflicts and has a strong POV becomes less relevant here since the group is not looking into any single conflict, nor into a series of conflicts dealing with Russia, but at conflicts in general; hence what Biophys said, despite some irony I can detect, is quite true.

I could only wish that I have learned of this group existence earlier - shame it was not advertised on regional noticeboards, which many users, interested or involved in such conflicts, read more often than general forums like Villages Pump. It appears to me that while the group has many great members, it lacks representations from many (but not all!) "ethnic and cultural groups". While I don't think that the impact on group deliberations due to this unbalance will be major, it is a distinct possibility, as well as the fact that by including user(s) strongly identified with certain side(s), but not with others, the group eventual decisions will lack legitimacy - (this problem can already be seen in this thread).

Nonetheless I am optimistic. As I said, the group includes many members I personally recognize as dedicated to the side of civility and justice (grandiose words, but true), and its creation is certainly a much needed step in the right direction. For now, I am looking forward to seeing if the group accepts new members (I would be happy to contribute with my knowledge of Eastern European issues, for example), or if it will publish its deliberations online. Unlike ArbCom, which may justify some closed discussion, I don't see why this working group would require a non-public forum.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the issue of openness is being discussed. One argument for closed doors is that it allows us to talk with candour about on-wiki situations, including individual editors, without having dozens of them jump at us wanting to defend themselves, throw accusations and counter-accusations around etc like they do on WP:AE. But everybody acknowledges the arguments for more openness are also strong. Please note that the current setup with the super-seekrit extra wiki was designed by the arbitrators before we were convened, so we initially had no say in it. – As for taking more people into the group, my understanding is that the arbitrators intend to keep that under their own control, so you'd have to ask them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

While I understand the need to talk with candour about on-wiki situations and individuals, hence the secrecy, one problem with having (a) member(s) strongly identified with one faction to the exclusion of the other side in the workshop, is that you will likely hear only their persective on the situation/person under discussion. Without balanced input, it would be difficult to achieve a balanced outcome. It is a pity that the call for nominations for membership to this workshop was not more widely promoted on the various notice boards. Martintg (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I would push for maximum transparency to allay the suspicions which have been raised here. I would also urge this committee to concentrate on immediate practical solutions rather than endless theoretical talk. We already know why these edit wars happen. We already have policies like WP:BATTLEGROUND - it's just that we never seem to enforce them. I'd start by cracking down on single (or virtually single) purpose accounts. Any editor who does nothing but argue over ethnicity and nationality or take part in endless naming disputes should be shown the door per WP:SOAPBOX. For example, the history of Liancourt rocks shows many users who did nothing but edit that - or related - articles. They were here to fight for The Cause, not to improve this encyclopaedia. The Korean newspaper Chosun Ilbo actually solicited its readers to come here and edit that page so it purveyed the Right Version. --Folantin (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Folantin, I am in full agreement with you that one of the things that exacerbates problems, is the presence of SPA and other agenda-driven editors in a discussion. They often have no intention of compromising on any point, don't do any other work on Wikipedia, and end up stonewalling or antagonizing the other editors who are trying to find a solution to a complex problem. So for what it's worth, I will definitely be speaking up on that.  :) --Elonka 22:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

To the Arbs' credit this group was promoted at WP:AN, the Village Pump, and the Signpost (where I learned of it). The discussion of transparency could really benefit from more voices. On the one hand, we're not a quasi-judicial tribunal. We won't be issuing blocks "per secret evidence"; our directive was to study in general. At a minimum, we'll produce a series of detailed and completely public reports. At no point will anyone be asked to "take our word for it". I remarked elsewhere that in an ideal Wiki, a group might occasionally operate in private and it wouldn't be a problem. But the way it's happened groups that have used secrecy have too often allowed bad things to fester, have allowed themselves to go unchecked, and have behaved with unresponsive hubris when asked about it. Unfortunately the ArbCom has very often been most guilty of it, and they chartered us. There is a trust deficit; our options are limited by this history. --JayHenry (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I hope the working group looks at the attitude of some established editors/admins and whether the way wiki policy is structured and enforced unnecessarily inflames these disputes. There is a tendency for group-think among some editors/admins in dealing with alleged disruptive behaviour. I'm sure there are all sorts of SPA's, socks, meat puppets, even, gasp, "nationalists" (as opposed to proletarian internationalists?) out there bent upon undermining Wikipedia's historic mission. However It is a fact that there are many who genuinely want to contribute in their own area of interest and expertise. The reality is there are many unrepresented topic areas that lack sufficient english language sources, and people residing in the countries within the topic scope usually have a better handle on the subject matter than established editors who neither reside there nor have the requisite language skills. Unfortunately there this tendency of some established editors drawing the wagons into a circle in the presence of new comers who may challenge their sometimes pre-conceived views. With it comes the application of all sorts of labels that tend to demonize these new editors, making the imposition of draconian measures all the easier. They see the big stick as the only solution.

If you are going to look at specific wiki-situations, look at the circumstances leading to the Digwuren case for example. In the lead up, a group of Estonian editors, who were initially enthusiastic about Wikipedia (for example, getting Wikiproject Estonia and a related military project off the ground) were stigmatised from the very beginning in mid 2007 with accusations of being SPA's, socks, meat puppets, nationalists, even Nazi sympathisers at one point, for editing articles related to their own country and history. In the end, rather than be nurtured and encouraged, they were basically collectively tarred and feathered by being made subject to an ArbCom case (without any prior dispute resolution) for no other reason than that they happened to be parties to an old inconclusive checkuser case initiated by the banned user User:Petri Krohn as part of his battle against them . So in the end they just gave up and left the project. Wikiproject Estonia is basically dead with most activity now either that of bots, trivial copy editing or vandalism patrol.

Unless Jimbo is going to take estonian language lessons in addition to the german he is learning, I don't see how the current gap is going to be filled any time soon. People wanting to edit articles about their own countries are not the enemy. It's not necessarily a "nationalist plague" (a phrase that quite frankly gives me the creeps because it invokes the image of rats scurrying around from that film "The Eternal Jew"). This work group needs to examine how to make wiki-policy (essentially written mostly by twenty-something year old IT graduates with no real understanding of the human condition or conflict resolution from what I can see) less punitive and more inclusive and amenable to encouraging constructive behaviour. Good luck in your endeavour to find a solution. Martintg (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully helpful

While checking through the refs for Jewish lobby, I ran into this and checked it here [2]. Having already been aware of this page, I considered it likely helpful to the members’ task at hand. I also found it to be very informative about the Israeli-Palestinian/Arab conflict, as well as WP:IPCOLL and other related topics, such as New anti-Semitism, Jewish lobby and Islamophobia, to name a few. My mind’s image of several Wikipedia editors on both sides and instances of Wikipedia itself flashed before me, while I read it. I believe that it is insightful and adaptable to other conflicts as well. May the force be with you, good luck. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Hopefully

Working group wiki

For group members and observers who have not checked out the wiki yet, it's up and running, and all voices would be valued. :) http://wg.en.wikipedia.org ~ Riana ⁂ 12:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wiki closed to observers. This latter point is rather painful. I might want to set up an alternate a parallel process. --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Kim, I meant 'observers' in the technical sense that ArbCom has defined. But you bring up a point which I am also slightly uncomfortable with, and could be discussed somewhere, or with an arbitrator. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I need to speak with James Forrester, as my position is likely to hinge on his views. --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've asked around. I think I also need to talk with FT2. Will do so soon. --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that a "parallel process" probably would not be very helpful in accomplishing the aims of the ArbCom in setting up this working group. Why not just let the process play out and see what happens? The guidelines allow for both public and private discussions, and that seems reasonable in light of the fact that prior processes (including the existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines) have had limited success in producing an acceptable working environment in the highly controversial topic areas that the working group is looking at. 6SJ7 (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There are small discrepancies between the aims of the members of the arbcom, an aim for the arbcoms future, the aims of wikipedia, and of course my own aims. These aims might not all be exactly the same. That's why I'd like to talk with James and/or FT2 first, eh? :-)

As to why not wait and see? Well, I'm worried that this process is too similar to earlier attempts that failed.I'm also worried some sets of aims might be adversely affected.

Finally no one on wikipedia has really scrutinized the controversial topics question very heavily. Some wikis or forks have attempted solutions before, but those were not acceptable to us. Perhaps it's high time to pull together people on-wiki to look at the matter (as well). It certainly can't hurt, IMHO.

All of this is highly tentative though. First I'd like to talk with some working group and arbcom people. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think most of the Working Group members are watching this page and would be grateful to see where previous efforts that were similar to this failed. Those who do not learn from the past, and all. You previously mentioned Wikipedia:Wikirules proposal, a three-year old proposal that has none of the same aims as this, and resembles this effort only in that it was a group of people that were attempting to do something. Other failures, especially ones that were similar to this, would be of great interest to us. --JayHenry (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the working group is a great idea, and needs to be given a chance just as it is. It's obvious that the current approach (a never-ending cycle of arbcom disputes on the same subjects, with the same editors) isn't a long-term solution. Transparency will come when the group presents their findings and proposals. Until then, let them work with each other, away from the baiting and trolling that is too common among both 'nationalist' and 'anti-nationalist' editors. Martintg makes some excellent points above regarding this, notably that "some established editors/admins and...wiki policy...unnecessarily inflames these disputes."[3] As someone who has been affected by these cultural edit wars, I say best of luck to the working group. ~ priyanath talk 17:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have talked with FT2, and this user appears to be exceedingly competent. I should talk with them more. :-) As FT2 is worried that a community side discussion might cross with the working group, I'll take things slow for now. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Article this group should look at...

Islamophobia is an article that is more often protected than not. A look at Talk:Islamophobia indicates that the debate often goes round in circles without any consensus or even cease fire being agreed upon. If this working group can help the debate on controvertial articles such as this move forward, then I wholeheartedly endorse its creation. The Signpost entry indicates that this is a group that "authorized and observed by the Arbitration Committee, has announced its membership". I always feel that the word "membership" is rather icky on Wikipedia. Just like we decided that Wikipedia:Esperanza was too bureaucratic and not in line with our principles, I hope that this group will not exclude Wikipedians who could be valuable contributors. JACOPLANE • 2008-02-13 20:49

Generality

For the working group to present findings of lasting value, I think that it should examine the nature of the given conflicts as a struggle for survival. By that, I do not just mean a survival of the fittest, but the nature of competition for finite resources. I suppose that would imply sympathy towards multiculturalism and tolerance as opposed to the purified "consensus" of cultural assimilation. Even if the losing side has resorted to terrorism in their struggle to survive, we should view such degenerations in behavior in a mature fashion and simply view it as "typical", rather then label it evil and then refuse to further think about the nature of struggle that minorities often face. If the current set of edit warriors distort the dialog too greatly, then perhaps it would be helpful to examine the relevance of the working group's findings on the situations of the utterly subjugated; say, for instance, the aborigines of the Americas and Australia.--Factwhen (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that what you are suggesting is precluded by the policy on neutral point of view. Articles are not supposed to be "sympathetic" but rather neutral. As for terrorism in particular, I think your approach is, unfortunately, already followed on Wikipedia. You can't use the words terrorism, terrorist, etc. on here without creating a huge controversy, no matter how appropriate those terms may be in a given case. "Terrorist" is officially a "word to avoid". Even in cases that seem to be obvious, we end up with silly article titles like Palestinian political violence instead of, well, what would seem (to me) to be the obvious title. 6SJ7 (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Factwhen,

With all due respect, you have been editing Wikipedia for less than 24 hours and may therefore be unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy. Allow me then to familiarize you.

First and foremost, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

To that end, the acceptability of material in articles is determined by Wikipedia's three core content policies:

• Neutral Point of View
• Verifiability
• No original research

No matter how "utterly subjugated" the adherents of a particular POV may feel, on Wikipedia that is never a justification for adding material that cannot be verified by a reliable source.

This is because, as I noted above, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox for the dispossessed, no matter how worthy their cause might otherwise be.

As for 'maturely viewing degenerations in behavior as "typical"', just as being "utterly subjugated" does not exempt an editor from the requirement to attribute material to a reliable source, nor does it exempt that editor from the requirement to be civil.

The worst possible outcome of this working group would be a lowering of Wikipedia's standards for either content or conduct.

JFD (talk) 11:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I restored this section under the mistaken assumption that it was created by JFD, when in fact it was created by Factwhen. Still I believe that censorship is wrong, and the section should remain.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Alison is saying that factwhen is the banned user. But a little bit of clarification would be nice. This is a subject matter which has touched many, many banned users, and so having some access to their thoughts may have some help to us, but I also understand the need to enforce bans. --JayHenry (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)