View source for Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Workshop

{{pp|small=yes}}
{{Casenav}}

== Idea regarding titles of articles about events ==
{{hat|moved to the workshop page (clerks feel free to remove this section if you like)}}
ScottishFinnishRadish's [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_ScottishFinnishRadish|comment]] that "{{tq|Articles are created as quickly as possible [because] consensus is needed to change the title once the article is created}}" struck me. Perhaps this has been suggested, and/or it's wrong for me to comment; I took this to be a decent place for a non-party comment, but if a clerk or arb feels this should be moved onto the Workshop page itself or removed, let me know: 
* Articles about events in places (in this topic area) shall be named—or if created under another name, moved to—"[Place] event of [date]" until consensus is reached for another title. 
Perhaps someone can improve on this. The idea is that an article about a P/I-related attack / defense / rescue / massacre at Smithville will be "Smithville event of 2024" (or "...December 2024", "...6 December 2024", depending on how many events must be disambiguated) until there is consensus for another title. Disagreement over place ('Smithville' vs 'Smithville School / Refugee Camp / Kibbutz') could be handled by preferring the more general title.<br/>(I regard the stupidness of "X event of Y" names as a feature, nagging people to move the article to a real title, not just leave the placeholder in place indefinitely.) This could be applied to any such articles for which there's never been a consensus on what to title them that were created since the start of the current conflict, the start of the overall conflict, or the closure of this case. [[User:&#45;sche|&#45;sche]] ([[User talk:&#45;sche|talk]]) 22:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

:{{re|-sche}} I do think this should be moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Workshop|the workshop proper]]? You would be welcome to comments which are not actually part of a proposed remedy in the "comments by others" section. Best, <b>[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b>&nbsp;([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 23:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}

== off-site canvassing ==

What to do with off-site attention?
There has been a lot of attention given to "tech for Palestine", however, this last year a lot of (mostly critical) attention is given to Wikipedia by pro-israeli twitter-accounts, blogs and even newspapers. I note that lots of "newish" editors turn up whenever an article is discussed externally eg, at [[Zionism]], [[Gaza genocide]]. Any thoughts about how to handle  that? [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] ([[User talk:Huldra|talk]]) 21:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

:If it's about people arriving from random news articles, nothing.  If it's something else, submit evidence like usual?  [[User:Arkon|Arkon]] ([[User talk:Arkon|talk]]) 22:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

== Icewhiz SPI ==

Noting [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz#08 November 2024]] in which [[User:ABHammad|ABHammad]] and [[User:האופה|האופה]] were blocked as [[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] socks. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 06:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

== Creating CTOP-specific sockpuppet tracking pages. ==

One thing that I noticed when going over discussions about PIA sockpuppets is that there's a lot of blurriness between them (especially when it comes to sockpuppet families attributed to Icewhiz.) I am wondering if it could be worth creating a dedicated page for tracking sockpuppetry or possible sockpuppetry within the PIA topic area, where frequent sockmasters in the area could be noted down to make it easier to figure out who someone is, and possible sockpuppets whose potential sockmaster is unclear could be brought to the attention of people who are familiar with them to examine for behavioral links. I haven't created a specific proposal yet because I'm not ''quite'' sure what this would look like or if it is something that ought / needs to go through ArbCom at all, and wanted to see what other people thought first. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 17:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

:Would there be admins/SPI clerks willing to dip their toes in PIA-specific SPI pools? There is already a lack of admins who want to engage in the AE process due to contentiousness in the space. [[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 18:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{u|Aquillion}}, can we create a page for '''content''' subject to long-term abuse, for example: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine/Sock targets]] ? [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 16:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

== Analysis of content dispute resolution process ==

The following is an examination of how disputes are resolved, to try to spark ideas for remedies that can improve how decisions are made for complex disputes. I've placed it on the talk page as it is not an analysis of evidence.

Typically the following general process is followed in the real world to resolve disputes:
* '''Breakdown step''': break down the question to be resolved into smaller, more manageable questions, whose answers will lead to resolving the main question. This can include questions on how to evaluate the available options.
* '''Determination step''': there are three common ways to determine the answers:
** '''Mutual agreement''': the involved parties work through each question and reach agreement on which answer has the best case.
** '''Decision-maker''': a person/group is delegated to hear arguments from the involved parties, working through each question and deciding which answer has the best case.
** '''Voting''': the involved parties vote on the answer for each question.

The former mediation process implemented by the mediation committee essentially did the breakdown and determination steps through mediation. As I [[Special:GoToComment/c-Isaacl-2018-10-28T16:30:00.000Z-Extended discussion|discussed previously during the RfC that led to its shutdown]], though, it doesn't scale well to handle disputes amongst a lot of people. It also suffered from the same problem that all English Wikipedia discussions have: the volunteer nature of Wikipedia means it's practically impossible to have sustained participation over an extended period of time. This leads to a shifting set of involved participants, and progress stalls.

The default process for most disputes is a unmoderated version of the breakdown and determination steps, but without anyone guiding the process to work systematically through key questions. Thus how much progress is made depends highly on the cooperation of the participants. Many participants don't want to spend their limited available time to work through the related issues one by one; they want to be able to drop off their opinions all at once and let someone else work through the expressed viewpoints. This focus on individual users results in opponents responding to each individual separately, which greatly expands the amount of discussion and increases the threshold for ongoing participation. This leads to more disengagement, further decreasing cooperation.

Given the reality that processes requiring sustained participation tend to get stuck as the dispute gets more complicated, some form of delegation may be needed to resolve complex disputes. For example, the involved parties could agree upon a person/group to which the decisions at the determination step are delegated. Depending on the degree of ongoing involvement desired, they can completely delegate the decision to the person/group (leaving them to make the decision by mutual agreement through discussion), or they can present their arguments to the person/group (the decision-maker approach).

I appreciate that delegation is an approach that many editors dislike. But the community has tried for years to make large-scale discussions with ever-changing participants work, and they just don't. I understand that this moves the collaboration problem to how delegates are chosen, which I don't know how to resolve. My instinct is that this problem should be more manageable than the original complex content dispute, but I know there are problems with a delegation approach, and historically many editors have felt those problems are more significant than the problems with the current content dispute resolution process for complex cases. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 01:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

:I'm a fan of the idea of delegation and representation. I do think when we had medcom/medcabal, association of member's advocates, and so on, dispute resolution had a structure with some more moderation that was helpful. Things go a lot more smoothly with a filter and some amount of a lid. Practically speaking though I don't know what it means for today; as you point out, it doesn't scale and had other problems - inactivity, limitations inherent in the lack of authority and voluntariness of the process, and systemic problems that led to poor outcomes much of the time. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{re|isaacl}} My current plan is to create a central place for agreement on smaller, manageable questions. The place I'm doing that is [[Draft:Manual of Style/Israel- and Palestine-related articles]], where I'm adding principles that are helpful in resolving content disputes in the area. I don't believe that draft needs arbitrator intervention at this time, but I'd like your feedback on it. <span class="nowrap">[[User:Chess|Chess]] ([[User talk:Chess|talk]]) <small>(please [[Help:Talk pages#Notifications|mention]] me on reply)</small></span> 05:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::If I understand correctly from the draft and its apparent intended location as a subpage below the manual of style, the scope will be style guidance on the use of specific terms and phrases? I'm not sure these are smaller questions, but personally I agree with centralizing discussion. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 17:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{re|isaacl}} I agree with centralizing discussion on more abstract questions about principles, which can be cited in content disputes. I don't think we need a formal delegation process. Having a central board that focuses on the breakdown step will likely cause editors to self-select, since not all editors want to craft policies. <span class="nowrap">[[User:Chess|Chess]] ([[User talk:Chess|talk]]) <small>(please [[Help:Talk pages#Notifications|mention]] me on reply)</small></span> 04:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

== 1RR or even 3RR exceptions for content subject to long-term abuse ==

I am very concerned that information with respect to Palestinians being native or indigenous keep getting removed. This is currently happening in [[Palestinians]]. I'm not saying anyone currently there is a sock. But this seems to be the type of information that has been targeted before, sometimes in pairs: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinians&diff=1228841908&oldid=1228839263 change by Owenglyndur 13 June 2024][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinians&diff=1229077848&oldid=1229030111 change by ABHammad 14 June 2024].

I am thinking of a 1RR or even 3RR exception for this type of issue. But I am not putting into project page yet, as I am still trying to flesh it out. Maybe 1RR or 3RR exceptions could be an additional admin tool. Administrators handling cases at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations]] can also place 1RR or 3RR exceptions on certain pages or on certain content in a page, based on behavioral evidence? The content with these type of exceptions can be changed through [[Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Requesting_other_editors'_help_for_content_disputes|various forms of content dispute resolution]]. 

I am also concerned about a potential long-term campaign of attrition. If majority or all of "the regulars" get blocked, the socks can then easily out-revert rest of us, especially if they come in multiples. And there won't be people giving lengthy and detailed and time consuming behavioral evidence at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations]]. Of course this is not a pass for any of "the regulars" to ignore Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but I am concerned about the long-term abuse. 

As a side note, there are lots of sources on this ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinians&diff=1245066407&oldid=1245066034] and [[Talk:Palestinians#Sources]]). Denying Palestinian links to their lands can also be considered anti-Palestinian bias [https://academic.oup.com/ijtj/article/18/1/162/7681852] [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 14:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

:Maybe if the long-term abuse is shown at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations]], and if there is a community consensus (such as one established through an RfC), these exceptions can be granted by administrators (based on RfC result)? Of course, the content could be changed through other content resolution processes, such as another RfC. My aim is not to lock in content, but to discourage long-term abuse. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 14:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::I think that giving administrators this kind of discretion under CTOP can be a good thing. But I want to push back just a little on what you said about "the regulars". You are right to say that this shouldn't be a pass to disregard policies, and I want to emphasize (per [[WP:REPLACEABLE]]) that ArbCom should not fear acting in this case out of fear of disruptive accounts taking over unchecked. If we are (hypothetically) at the point where Wikipedia is going to collapse unless we allow disruptive users to monitor other disruptive users, then Wikipedia is going to collapse. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

{{od}} From [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz]]:

"[[Palestinians]] - one of the more obvious examples of the POV by this group of socks; in this case, trying to say Palestinians are not indigenous or native to Palestine: האופה (HaOfa) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1226858361], ABHammad [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1226863711], Owenglyndur [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1226950291], ABHammad [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1227097212] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1227693208], האופה (HaOfa) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1228826211], Owenglyndur [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1228841908], ABHammad [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1229077848]"

Minimizing violence against Palestinians and denying Palestinians links to their lands seem to be hallmarks of an anti-Palestinian ideology:

{{tq2|Anti-Palestinian racism has been identified as including the following forms: denying and justifying violence against Palestinians; failing to acknowledge Palestinians as an Indigenous people with a collective identity; and erasing the human rights and equal dignity and worth of Palestinians amongst others}}[https://academic.oup.com/ijtj/article/18/1/162/7681852]

I see [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Workshop#The_term_"Zionist"|the term Zionist]] was discussed in the workshop, but I haven't seen a lengthy discussion of anti-Palestinian edits or content. 

I think both actual and demonstrated (not just accusations) antisemitism, and actual and demonstrated (not just accusations) anti-Palestinianism should be taken very seriously. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 19:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

:It's too late to introduce evidence and analysis for this case; and anyway, I highly doubt the discussion of Zionist is going to go anywhere, for reasons I articulated on talk - the proposed FoF were too broad. Whether something is uncivil or [[WP:FORUM]]y is a matter of context, not a matter of creating a list of no-no words or verboten topics. "Don't call editors X" might work as a general principle, but "you can't say this thing about Zionists / Palestinians ''as a whole'', even in the context of making editorial decisions" isn't workable because editors need to be able to articulate and discuss potentially controversial ideas on talk, which includes saying "I think X is true and here's some sources to back it up; we should reflect this in the article" for things other editors may consider [[WP:FRINGE]]. (Now, if they keep hammering at it and refuse to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] after it's clear it's fringe and not getting into the article, that's another matter. One core question I've come back to in similar questions is "how wrong is someone allowed to be" - this sort of touches on the discussion of "being right isn't everything." Loudly pushing for a [[WP:FRINGE]] position and refusing to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] eventually becomes disruptive, and I do think that being glaringly wrong reduces the amount of tolerance someone should get - it strains [[WP:COMPETENCE]], it's a potential sign of [[WP:TEND]] editing, etc. But we can't pre-ban people from arguing for those positions in articles entirely, partially because we need an actual process to determine what's fringe, and partially because even fringe positions do often need some coverage in our articles, if with caution.) --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 22:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::Also, while it's too late, one possible thing just crystalized in my head as an answer to the "being right is not enough" argument - while that FOF is true, the flipside is that editors are ''expected to do their best to be right''. [[WP:AGF]] means that we assume that this is the case, but an editor who constantly falls glaringly short of it might have either [[WP:COMPETENCE]] issues or [[WP:TEND]] ones; and in either case, "you're clearly not even trying to get it right, you're just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks" or "your understanding of this topic area is so unequivocally far from the available sources that it strains good faith" are valid reasons to remove someone. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 22:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I didn't provide new evidence, it's already there. For example: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Makeandtoss]]
:::I just said the anti-Palestinian racism aspect wasn't discussed significantly in the workshop phase. I think it's fine to point that out in the talk page. 
:::Just to be clear, I also didn't say I agreed with [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Workshop#The_term_"Zionist"|this part]] or say using "zionist" by itself is antisemitic. So I'm not sure if you are responding to me. 1RR or 3RR exceptions suggestion wasn't really workable so I didn't add it as a suggestion in the project page. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 15:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

== Workshop phase closing soon ==

The workshop phase is closing in just under 22 hours, at 28 December 23:59 UTC. Please have all your workshopping completed by that time. <b>[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b>&nbsp;([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 02:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

== Structure ==

Structure of the workshop is confusing so not sure if I placed my proposals in the correct place/format. [[User:Makeandtoss|Makeandtoss]] ([[User talk:Makeandtoss|talk]]) 10:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

== Private evidence ==

So about the private evidence that was supposedly submitted, wasn't it supposed to be inserted into the evidence list to be publicly viewed and discussed? [[User:Makeandtoss|Makeandtoss]] ([[User talk:Makeandtoss|talk]]) 10:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{Reply to|Makeandtoss}} If this is in reference to [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area|the motions posted at ACN]], that private evidence was shared with those individuals so that they can properly assess and respond to allegations made, but unfortunately the details of the private evidence render it unsuitable for public review. Other private evidence submissions were either non-private and the senders were asked to submit them during the Evidence phase, or are similarly unsuitable for public review because of the non-public nature of the contents. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 18:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::I think if the committee has confirmed a link from the social media identity of the person who created the off-wiki canvassing group and an on-wiki banned account, the on-wiki account name should be made public. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 05:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::No. We don't doxx people. That's the whole point of doing it privately. [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 07:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Is revealing one end of a 2 ended link doxxing under Wikipedia's definition? The social media account name is not relevant, just like the social media account names of the named sanctioned accounts Ïvana et al are not relevant. But their account names are relevant and named in the motions. My thinking is that the Wikipedia account of the person who created the off-wiki canvassing group may be relevant for SPI cases. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 07:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Can the committee confirm that evidence identifying the online activist as a particular banned wp editor was received and judged to be convincing?  No doxxing requested. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 08:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::No, we cannot confirm this. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 19:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

== Order of sections ==

Not that it really matters very much, but some of the newest Workshop proposals have been placed below the sections for Analysis of evidence, leaving the Analysis of evidence sandwiched between earlier and later proposals. Maybe the clerks will want to fix it, or maybe it doesn't matter. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

:Fixed, thanks. [[User:SilverLocust|SilverLocust]]&nbsp;[[User talk:SilverLocust|💬]] 00:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

== Edit request ==

I kindly request here as well the opportunity to present [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Workshop#Proposals_by_Makeandtoss another] 2-3 important brief proposals relevant to the case, some of which build on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Evidence#Edit_request new evidence]. [[User:Makeandtoss|Makeandtoss]] ([[User talk:Makeandtoss|talk]]) 10:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:Declined, per [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence#Edit request]]. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 02:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)