Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

AfD - I-P_editing_battleground_statistics

Comment here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting to read the bit on the talk page where NoCal100 gets a little bit sanctimonious over another editor's sockpuppetry.     ←   ZScarpia   04:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

As I wrote on the page, My main comment is that the official lists of notifications, blocks and bans is at the bottom of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles, so out of date redundancy may be the biggest problem. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone suggested we just archive it, and I could do it on this page as a separate category, as is done on the articles talk page. If there are no objections, I'll do that with a note about what it was and vote to delete. Thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, just archive it. I used to update it occasionally, but not recently. PhilKnight (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that archiving is probably the best outcome. My main concern is that the original nominator didn't trust this a possibe project enough to ask us if we still need the page. It seems almost to assume bad faith about the project's collective intentions. --Peter cohen (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

One possible outcome of the mfd will be a formal keep in the expectation that we go ahead and archive the page ourselves. So far three of us have indicated that we support archiving. Anyone disagree or should Carol go ahead and archive?--Peter cohen (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with archiving it by redirecting it or whatever as suggested. However, with all due respect, the discussion should be allowed to run its normal course and be closed by an uninvolved admin in keeping with the majority of deletion discussions and with XfD guidelines. Wikiprojects aren't autonomous entities exempt from community consensus and their members can't just decide to act unilaterally. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Further diverse responses from other editors are to be found on the page link "Comment here" given above by CarolMoore. Their consensus seems at this time to be to preserve the page but update it. Possible archiving of earlier years might be done after the last few years are filled in, keeping it a live record of an ongoing contentious subject area. In addition, I would suggest creating links to it from other Wikipedia pages, such as the General Sanctions page.Tempered (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Per consensus reached at the MfD, the page has been deleted. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The archive is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues. I actually meant to put it here, but it ended up over there. I don't know if it really matters. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone actually deleted the archive linked from here when they deleted the actual page. See here. I did keep the last version, but really not sure about appropriateness of putting info back in there given the "re-creation" note at that deletion page. So others will have to opine and do something about it if they feel strongly. Otherwise, I'll just get rid of the link if there's no content. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Problematic Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/users - Now MfD'd

User:SlimVirgin proposed and created this in the middle of a retaliatory WP:COIN where an editor is trying to get me driven off I-P editing, so I think we can see the abuses this board would be used for. RfC/User more than suffient. There is discussion both at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#New_user_neutrality_board and the board's talk page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

In case you missed it elsewhere, SlimVirgin also has been touting the obviously related essay WP:Activist which also is problematic. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Considering this is another variation of the failed proposal on Wikipedia:Neutrality_enforcement in spring 2009 which was supposed to keep (which?) advocates under control, it's already suspect and was brought up in the middle of a WP:COIN where an advocate of one position was trying to get an alleged advocate of another kicked off....

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Advocacy/Noticeboard CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible discussion of interest

Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Palestine_and_its_membership_in_United_Nations_organs: Thinking someone here has time to make an analysis. JJB 21:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

POV template needs to be balanced or merged

Altough we have two much more comprehensive templates - Template:Palestinian National Authority and the Palestinian people and Template:Historic region of Palestine topics, the user Oncenawhile insists on keeping this POV unbalanced template under the broad scope name "Palestine topics" (in my opinion, if this template would remain, we have to at least rename it so that the template name "Palestine topics" would only redirect to the NPOV template Template:Historic region of Palestine topics). Please share your knowledge on this matter here. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 06:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice canvassing, TheCuriousGnome. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikimania 2011 in Haifa Israel/Call for papers

Official website

This probably should have come up sooner here. I just found out about it. One person commented here. I responded with the point This isn't about politics, it's about not endangering the integrity of Wikipedia's database of editors and the safety of editors. Other issues? Respond here, there or both places. CarolMooreDC (talk)

Submission guidelines and info here. This is a list of current submissions, FYI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Dealing with possible exclusion issues

FYI. I just learned from this AlternateNews articlethat in Sept 2101 The US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel called for Wikimedia to reconsider holding the August 2011 wikimania conference in Israel. See their website for details. (I put this in relevant paragraph of Boycotts_of_Israel#Academic_boycotts.) AlternativeNews also criticizes Wikimania accepting sponsorship from East Jerusalem Development Company which it writes is "actively participating in the demolition of Palestinian communities in East Jerusalem."CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This seems completely out of the scope of this talk page. It also does nothing to assist in the project's overall scope. It does seem like a grenade about to go off which is the exact opposite what this project is intended for. Anyone mind if we close his out and let the sure to be entertaining discussion continue to take place in the appropriate venue?Cptnono (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I un-hatted this because I do think it is relevant because one of the two reasons the organization gives for its boycott is the Wikimania conference in Israel being an "unwelcoming environment for majority of techies in the region." (Again see their statement.) The very issue I brought up above, which no one responded to. If that issue had been brought up in a timely manner by this group, perhaps there would not be an organized boycott of Wikimania.

The main page of this project states: The purpose of this collaboration project is to create a more hospitable editing environment for Category:Israeli–Palestinian conflict related topics, including through a) actively seeking the cooperation of people who are uninvolved or hold strong and differing points of views as specified under membership and b) preventing and resolving disputes about the application of Wikipedia policies to these articles.

• Does it create a hospitable environment if Wikimania is held in a country that probably would make it very difficult for Arabs and Muslims to enter for the conference? Not to mention anyone suspected of being critical of Israel, including on Wikipedia? If editor members of this project (Jewish and gentile) considered "antisemitic" because they include negative information on the state of Israel or its most aggressively politicized supporters were excluded from entering Israel for the conference, while those considered pro-Israel were permitted, wouldn't that be relevant? Something tells me those who are critical won't even bother going to the conference.
• As for "people who are uninvolved or hold strong and differing points of views": I have to wonder how many will be pulled aside as they try to enter Israel and subjected to interrogation about their editing on Wikipedia and whether such interrogations will in fact become a major topic during the conference? As for those who return home after the conference (assuming they don't suddenly have and/or express such negative opinions that they are not allowed entry), I wonder how many editors will come to this project wondering if its members ever had an opinion on the conference and these issues. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This talk page is for "This talk page is only for the discussion of how to organize WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration". It is not to discuss issues such as this and this discussion is certainly not assisting in the creation of "a more hospitable editing environment for Category:Israeli–Palestinian conflict related topics". If anything, it is contrary to that. Wikimedia's blog, IRC, Wikimania, and several other venues are available for you to vent your frustration with the decision. It is simply out of place and distracting here. Cptnono (talk) 04:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

First, "how to organize WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration" includes discussion of the purpose of the project, which certainly is for getting people involved, not ignoring or defending circumstances that would exclude them. And I don't think any editor who puts the good of Wikipedia above that of their partisan views would mind seeing this issue pf editors being refused entry to Israel for the conference discussed.

Obviously, it would have been nice if this had been brought up by those in the know when Haifa was first discussed last fall. However, I'm not calling for moving the conference or for boycotting. It is still of relevance to this project if people are excluded and how other editors react to such exclusion. Perhaps we do need to make a statement that Israel should not exclude editors for their known or suspected free speech views and to other participants, should their be exclusions, that we do not think such exclusion is justified and that Wikimedia should provide legal help and/or issue a public statement about it. And what if on lead up to conference the boycott becomes and issue and/or local Israeli peace groups decide to protest in some way for some reason? These are still issues this project can deal with, including through any representative who attends the conference.

Seeing the hostility against the topic now, I'm beginning to wonder if Wikimania Dc in 2012 also will be subject to the same problem: people deemed politically suspect being forbidden entry to the US to attend. I am waiting to see what happens in Haifa before bringing that up to DC Wikimania organizers (i.e., in terms of having extra legal aid available and a public relations approach in place). CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Having been just reminded about this discussion thread, a note that info about future developments covered by WP:RS should go into Wikimania article per my comment on talk page at this diff. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Per the Project Talk Page Guidelines I removed the uncivil comment from anindefinitely banned editor. I wonder how the bot managed to put in User: Sarkhan Vol's signature when s/he was banned for incivility in August 2011.

Anyway, I didn't hear of anyone being banned from the Israeli conference - did anyone else? And I have been meaning to update both Egypt and Israel wikimania sections with some pertinent info. I did include a photo from the Egypt event recently. CarolMooreDC 19:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Moderation?

I was about to move the above entry to the proper page and then remembered - oh, yeah, I don't want to moderate this group any more, let's not go into why. So I removed myself. Evidently the other editor has not moderated in a couple years. Do we need moderators at all? Maybe just hope people post to the correct place and just put in an automatic archving bot? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Carol, I'd just like to take this opportunity to thank you for all your hard work as moderator. PhilKnight (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Guess you don't have to be an official moderator to move inappropriate things, as I just did, or even archive :-) I just don't want the "official" title anymore (hint: target). I also left HG a message about whether s/he wanted to be listed as moderator since s/he's been inactive for last year or so. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I don't need to be listed as moderator since I am on a long wikibreak. Here's hoping for balanced cooperation (and less POV) among all parties. HG | Talk 20:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Member statements section?

Hello. I got here from clicking a big link in a big red box on top of the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration - no clue how to go about helping out with this project in between looking for a job, but here goes: I'm an extremely biased and prejudiced person prone to writing too much, as long as it's convenient. I know very little about wiki formatting and the overly complicated wiki editing language and procedures. Yes, my personal page is a mess. History: born/raised in Sweden, naturalized US citizen. US education (BSFS Economics at Georgetown, MSIR National Security Studies online via TSU), 10.9 years US Navy and currently looking for work out of San Diego, CA - see http://www.linkedin.com/in/parjlarsson My bias & prejudice: see top of http://reasonablydoubtingnews.blogspot.com/ (SFW). I'm dead set against anyone, much less US taxpayers or individuals, sending money to support religious fanatics/settlers in West Bank/Gaza. I advocate the indiscriminate killing of terrorists, defined as anyone who deliberately targets civilians (collateral damage happens, oh well). HAMAS is on the DOS terror list - good enough for me. Hezbollah - same. I judge Israel's human rights record harshly, but I compare them to their neighbours, mostly. I'm still waiting for the "Gandhi non-violence-ization" of the Palestinian struggle. Throwing rocks is violence. Arafat was a corrupt failure, good riddance. Same with Ariel Sharon, except more successful. Other than that I'm a fairly neutral guy. How can I help, once in a while, when it's convenient? I could review pages for NPOV, I guess, if someone points me to a list of needed reviews and how that process works.Pär Larsson (talk) 00:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:Help is a good place to start. Also Wikipedia:Five pillars & Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Also observe how policies discussed and used on various articles of interest. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Taking stock

I think, after a year or so of vigorous efforts to enforce order in the IP editing arena, it is time to take stock of what we have achieved. The key questions we should ask ourselves are:

1. Has the level of conflict between editors been reduced as a result of enforcement and intervention?
2. Has the quality of the articles improved?
3. Has the stability of articles improved?

I would like to see an earnest discussion of this, and see if we can reach any kind of conclusion about how to proceed. For the time being I withhold my own opinion in the matter; let's see what others have to say.

1. No. I've seen no evidence of a reduction in conflict. Talk page discussions still seem to get rapidly bogged down in futile spirals of death for reasons that often seem to have nothing to do with simply following the sources and policy. I don't think there has been a reduction in the activity of sockpuppets either. There are always at least one or two and usually more repeat offender sockpuppets editing in the topic area at all times. This doesn't help at all.

2. Not significantly at least as far as I can tell from the subset I have watchlisted.

3. I think the 1RR restrictions have helped. Semi-protection would probably help too. It certainly wouldn't hurt. I also think that the outcome of centralised discussion about what to say about the legality of settlements probably had a significant impact. That was one of the finest examples of a pointless and apparently endless edit war across multiple articles that was resolved peacefully in an objective, rational and policy consistent way....eventually. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have been away for awhile - and I am honestly a bit wary about investing too much time in the short term - due to the friction which has pervaded the topic area and the additional time overhead which it requires ( on top of the time needed for research ).

1. I can't really comment on this - from perusing AE and ANI archives this does not seem to be the case. That said, I find that many 'old timers' seem to be less overtly hostile, whether this is from moderation, collegial bonding, investments in appearances or due to common ground having been developed is unclear to me at this point.

2. I can't really comment on the current quality, from my watch list I can see that there is still considerable tug-of-war action going on regarding wording which my reading of sources suggests should be uncontroversial.

3. It seems to me that the 1rr has helped in terms of 'day to day' stability, but I worry that this is due to 'self preservation' rather than formalized consensus on the underlying issues.

I agree with Sean above regarding the benefit of centralized discussion, I think that emphasis on this course of action would be valuable - this ensures knowledge transfer, (hopefully) allows pointing to a broad consensus later - and helps with regard to attrition / frustration / focus. un☯mi 18:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

My focus in this area mostly has been on the Israel lobby in US politics and media and bios and articles about individuals and groups that criticize Israel, and an occassional foray into other articles that catch my eye as being particularly POV. The good news is that 1RR helped end a lot of edit warring; yes, probably self-preservation, and having to make every edit count. I do still have the impression that going to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement too often ended up with both sides being punished, perhaps unfairly, so I personally avoided it. 1RR doesn't have that problem. Of course, it can still be abused by organized groups of editors, both in numbers of edits and in establishing phony consensus; and one does have to wonder how many of those pro-Israel recruits (see Outside organizing of editing) are still editing and rising up the Admin ranks, permitting all sorts of shenanigans by their partisans. ;-( CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This is very subjective, and based on a very few articles, but my impression is that a lot of pro-Israel and pro-Palestine editors have been topic banned. The result is that not many experienced editors are in the area at all. I keep finding people who immediately assume bad faith, very tiresome. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I had a feeling a lot of people were banned. Do you mean by bad faith my giving a link to discussions of "Outside organizing of editing" that include links to NY Times, The Guardian and Jerusalem Post articles on the topic? Not to mention a whole section in Committee_for_Accuracy_in_Middle_East_Reporting_in_America#CAMERA_campaign_in_Wikipedia which I didn't mention. According to reports, people were trained in such a way to not make it obvious what they are up to, thereby undermining assumptions of good faith. Obviously it's difficult to prove, but discouraging to NPOV editors who have their suspicions. Vigilance over admins patterns of bias obviously is the solution, and reports to RFC/User. I admit the one time I had a fairly strong case, I was too exhausted from attacks by this person and his confederates, and the refusal of the community to stop it, to do an RFC/user. One reason I'm staying away from any hotly contested areas for the time being.

That said, I can't help but speculate: if you throw in 3 sock or meat puppets on one side and get them banned, perhaps it makes it easier to ban a legit user who just lost their temper dealing with the 3 socks. Frankly, if I had organization and resources and some agenda I was trying to push and didn't give a dang about the media I was doing it in, that's just what I'd do. But that's not my situation or inclination.CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

My position regarding the issue of potential risk of socks and admin abuse is one of mitigation - try to achieve a consensus that includes as many 'non-regulars' as possible, ensure that discussion stays focused and achieves resolution of one thing at a time and that all on-topic arguments are heard and addressed. My hope is that this will eventually lead to a point where most issues with old arguments from new accounts can be resolved by pointing at an archive and conditions that must be met to unsettle the previous consensus. Hopefully this will also lead to a situation where AE is no longer necessary or at least that any 'surprising' actions will be more clearly apparent. I realize that such a Zen approach is probably easier to espouse when one has been away from awhile, we'll see how it goes. To that end I would urge editors to take ipcoll centralized discussions into use as frequently as possible. un☯mi 21:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You are correct that that can work and I was getting really good at it. But then some "researcher" found some minor Achilles heel (now 8 year old off wiki email rant) and suddenly a bunch of editors on different articles (who didn't necessarily edit in the same articles) started beating that dead horse in every forum they could find. Kind of thing that makes you suspect organization. The time wasting factor is the biggest issue, since many articles on other topics I'd like to have fixed up or created have gone by the wayside, making it a losing effort to work much in this area. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

1:Right now disruption is reduced. I do not believe the issues will necessarily reach the level seen a year or two ago but the problems will continue.

1a:I believe it is only temporary since it is primarily due to key offenders being banned. Hopefully they will return to the topic area with a better perspective when their bans expire.

1b:AE is also a scary place now with shifting blame and boomerang being the expectation. I was under the impression that mentor-like suggestions on improvement would work better if used before enforcement (similar to what is actually stipulated in the arbitration decision) but I was recently proven wrong on.

1c:Asking editors if they are socks is not improving the interaction between editors. It is a pointless question (a sock isn't going to admit he is a sock) so just take it to SPI. I assume a couple editors are socks but I don't have the evidence so an assumption it will stay. Badgering them about it won't fix it.

2:Not sure. There have been some improvements but too many articles are stuck at a low traffic but still low quality state. Neutrality is still a concern. I also think the centralized discussion on occupation was a good thing. I am not 100% happy with the wording but it is good enough for me and I am happy that it worked out. Conversely, I am disappointed that the map discussion never materialized and think that we could have had an easy fix (much much easier than the occupation thing) to something that is an ongoing problem across the topic area.

3:Yes. 1/rr is good.Cptnono (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

IPCOLL invite template

Am I misremembering or is there a template for welcoming / inviting users to participate in IPCOLL? un☯mi 17:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

There's this, which could be improved: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration#Draft_invitation_to_potential_members. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll see if I can't do some work in that regard. un☯mi 13:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Amnesty for topic banned and blocked users

I would like to continue the discussion of a concern raised by itsmejudith and Carolmooredc: the topic banning and blocking of experienced editors.

On the one hand, it is my impression, and also the impression of a few others who responded to my previous thread, that vigorous enforcement by Arbcom has done little to reduce the level of conflict on disputed articles. On the other hand, as these editors have pointed out, we have lost a number of productive editors to sanctions, on both sides.

How would editors of this page feel about proposing an amnesty for blocked and topic-banned editors who have been outstanding contributors to Wikipedia, in the IP and other areas. Two such editors come immediately to mind: Nishidani and Gilabrand. I would have added Nableezy to that list, but he escaped block by the skin of his teeth.

I would suggest that a condition for amnesty would be that the candidates (a) have made substantive contributions to articles (and not just talk page contributions) and (b) not be single purpose editors, but have contributed in a number of topic areas.

My own feeling is that an amnesty of this sort would help to relieve tensions in the project rather than add to them, and restore editors who have added valuable content to the encyclopedia. I think a proposal of this sort would carry weight if it was supported by editors from both camps, and included blocked and banned editors from both camps.

What say you all?

--Ravpapa (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

If Gila actually admitted to socking, and committed to not doing so in the future, I would support her being unblocked and unbanned. I, obviously, would support Nishi being unbanned, but that would take ArbCom's consent. For Gila, you just really need to convince one admin (T. Canens) or a consensus of them at AE, or, if necessary, ArbCom. Nishi is a bit more straightforward, only ArbCom can reverse his ban. Though I have wondered if we might convince the admins at AE to practice jury nullification. nableezy - 01:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm sure the real editors have learned their lessons by now! CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I have made the request here. You are invited to add your comments. Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 04:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Terrible idea that will only lead to trouble. Cptnono (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard - one month trial

Check it out and see if useful for this project. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Article Alerts bot

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Feminism/Article_alerts is one that picks up lots of stuff automatically: Articles for deletion, Good article nominees, Requests for comments, Peer reviews, Requested moves. It's more inclusive obviously than our current articles talk page, which is good for things of special interest to editors and discussion. It probably would be massive if properly formatted, but it would be an excellent overview of what is going on in the topic. Anyway want to try to put it together? CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The Alertbot would only notify you about articles with the WikiProject IPCOLL banner on their Talk pages (roughly 50 articles). It's probably easier to watchlist Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine/Article alerts and Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel/Article alerts instead. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Draft Invite Box

I saw one on another project and thought it would be nice for this one. It needs to be a bit smaller with a beige background so people can see the image, but I can't figure out how to do that. Other thoughts? We can create a template page. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

We invite you to join WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. There you can also find and coordinate with users who are trying to improve Category:Israeli–Palestinian conflict articles. If you would like to get involved, just visit the project page. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or other project members. Happy editing, ~~~~

Tightened, color changed, links added/fixed. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

السلام שלום We invite you to join WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. There you can also find and coordinate with users who are trying to improve Israeli–Palestinian conflict articles. If you would like to get involved, just visit the project page. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or other project members.Happy editing, ~~~~

Great! I made the Israeli/Arab letters bold and (maybe) bigger. Can we make box a tad darker? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, finally figured out how to darken box. So can add it to main page. CarolMooreDC 00:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Also I made the template page Template:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration_invitation. CarolMooreDC 01:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC on WP:ARBPIA/WP:ITN

Comments are welcome:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Arbitration_Enforcement/Israel-Palestine_articles#RfC:_Should_WP:ITN_area_discussions_on_items_in_the_WP:ARBPIA_topic_area_be_subjected_to_WP:ARBPIA_itself.3F--Cerejota (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Israel Palestine Collaboration Hot Articles List

Your Hot Articles list is ready. To use it, just put {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Hot articles}} wherever you want the list to appear. An example is below. Kaldari (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

569 edits	November 2024 Amsterdam attacks
209 edits	Israel–Hamas war
174 edits	Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war (27 September 2024 – present)
126 edits	Red Sea crisis
105 edits	Timeline of the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (17 September 2024 – present)

These are the articles that have been edited the most within the last five days. Last updated 10 November 2024 by HotArticlesBot.

Thanks! Will do. Improvements to name or place welcome. We have to remember to put the "WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration" template on articles we want to attract people to. CarolMooreDC 10:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

People using IRC channel?

Looking at the main page I realized the banner and the hot articles should be mentioned together since can't become hot article without having the banner. Plus other things that are a little disorganized I'm going to reorganize just a bit. I tried IRC channel for first time and probably did it wrong but didn't see any action. Are people using it enough to warrant a whole section, as opposed to one paragraph?? CarolMooreDC 00:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is seeing much use, no. It never got really busy and it went downhill from there ;) un☯mi 19:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I also see it is not listed here. Wikipedia:IRC#WikiProjects, which it should be if it gets active. I removed it as a section and made it a paragraph under a more general introduction on how to collaborate. Both doubtless need more work, but that's all I have energy for today. Feel free to tweak. CarolMooreDC 17:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#ARBPIA 3

I have started outlining a new Arbcom case. People are invited to help hone down the scope of the case. And victims parties are invited to add themselves with a general perspective before they are targetted with any accusations they feel they need to respond to first.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

There Peter writes: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues is very much part of the WP:BATTLEGROUND.

While I've seen that past and had a feeling it was true in current discussions there which I have not been following, I think it would be helpful to discuss here any means that we can use the Current Articles page more constructively. I don't notice this issue is involved in the Arbitration and it seems to be more about blocks and admin bias than something broader. I skimmed the whole page so far, but I'm not sure what the broader implications might be. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 21:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Carol. One thing I wonder is how much of a presence is there here of "neutral" editors/admins.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyone "neutral" probably has never heard of Israel or Palestine :-) The trick is to learn to put the good of Wikipedia and the educational project ahead of personal prejudices and genuinely engage in WP:Dispute resolution. Difficult, but important. Note there is now a Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution for those interested. CarolMooreDC 04:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

As a party (or perhaps the fulcrum) to the dispute mentioned, I can't say that I've done everything possible to diffuse the tension and stick to the issues in good faith, though the record might show that I made a serious effort in the face of an almost impossible situation. There seem to be two aspects of any conflict; Content and Behavior. Though the resounding majority of WP guidelines appear to weigh more towards behavior, dispute resolutions often fall victim of arguments on content instead. A sensitive discerning of behavior, which should be the ultimate measure of integrity, is then laid at a lower priority. This seems to raise frustrations and blur essences. It's why I joined IPCOLL and brought the dispute here from other talk pages where there was little hope for improving the collaboration. The same problem recurred here, unfortunately, and I'm not sure ArbCom will even consider commenting on it, though there's still a good chance it might. But I wouldn't worry too much about this battle weighting too heavily on the project, as I think this is one of the reasons for its existence. WP: Dispute Resolution Project might be a good place to put some focus on analysis and improvement. Thanks Carol. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of the likes of Phil Knight who used to be fairly visible here and who I never thought was affiliated with one of the sides here. We've lost him to Arbcom and I haven't seen a replacement. Maybe we need an advert Ambitious admin planning to stand for Arbcom one day? Then come and test your mettle at IPCOLL. ;-) --Peter cohen (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Good one. Hey, that's one way for Wikipedia to raise money, hosting appropriate adds from Wikiprojects :-) CarolMooreDC 03:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

hmmm, perhaps i could help in some way, re the suggestion above for dispute resolution. a new case? what's been happening around here? can anyone try to fill me in please, if possible? appreciate any info. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Follow the link for details details details. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#ARBPIA 3 CarolMooreDC 02:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

hmmm, ok, thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

brief note

hi everyone. I haven't been here in a while. it sure is good to see people actively working here to address these issues. please feel free to drop me a line or to respond if i can be of help in any way at all. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard

A reminder there IS WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard, a safer place for narrow issue conflist that WP:ARBPIA since far less likely to have both parties blocked. There is a very structured reporting system and at least a mediator of sorts where the more cooperative editors can try to work together. We should try to get in that habit of going there. And don't forget Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution which is trying to improve mechanisms. CarolMooreDC 17:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Binding RFCs proposal

A proposal of interest to this project. Discuss at talk page. CarolMooreDC 17:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)