Wikipedia:Neutrality enforcement
 | This is a failed proposal. Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use the talk page or initiate a thread at the village pump. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Editors contributing to articles and talk pages about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must agree to do so from a neutral point of view. If, in the opinion of a group of uninvolved editors appointed by the ArbCom or community, the overall contributions of an editor suggest partisan editing, he or she will be topic-banned after one warning. |
Intractability of the Israel-Palestine dispute
[edit]This is an idea to help end the intractable Israel-Palestine (I/P) disputes that have raged on Wikipedia almost since its inception.
As things stand, editors who repeatedly violate behavioral policies on the I/P pages may be blocked or topic-banned, the only effect of which is that some create new accounts to start the disputes all over again. The endless arguing on talk pages, reverting, partisan editing, and obstructionism drives neutral editors away from those pages, creates extra work for admins and ArbCom, and leads to poorly written articles. That it is possible to engage in such partisan editing on Wikipedia, usually without sanction, encourages editors to form off-wiki groups to protect their POV, and outside organizations to form such groups.
Neutrality enforcement (NPOV/E)
[edit]Time-limited experiment
[edit]The idea is that we actively enforce the core content policy, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, on all Israel-Palestine articles, on an experimental basis for a limited period of time—say, 12 months—after which participants would report back to the community on whether the idea is viable.
Any editor wanting to contribute to an article or talk page in that area must agree to make sure their overall contributions are neutral. That is, they must make sure that they "write for the enemy," or entirely neutrally.
Not every edit can be neutral. Material will inevitably be added or removed that favours one side. However, looking at an editor's contributions as a whole, it should be clear to any reasonable, and reasonably well-informed, onlooker that the editor is regularly and substantively trying to be fair to both sides. That is, pro-Israel editors would be expected to add material favourable to the Palestinian perspective as well as their own, and vice versa; or else ensure that their edits favour neither side. Editors wishing to edit from one perspective only would be expected to withdraw from editing in this area.
This approach would solve the problem of topic-banned editors creating sockpuppets to continue editing. If they were to do that under this idea, the new accounts would also be expected to edit neutrally, so, in effect, it would make no difference if a topic-banned editor were to turn up with a new name. It would also solve the problem of lobby groups creating accounts to push a certain point of view, because all the accounts would be subject to neutrality enforcement.
Benefit to articles and editors
[edit]Neutrality enforcement would have the added benefit of requiring editors to educate themselves about both sides of the debate, leading to better articles.
Enforcement process
[edit]NPOV/E group
[edit]A group of six-12 uninvolved, experienced editors, who needn't be administrators, would be chosen to oversee the editing in this area. The group would oversee the editing of I/P articles, but without intervening: no imposition of sanctions, no 1RR, no comments on talk pages i.e. nothing that might increase drama or lead to accusations of over-involvement.
Instead, it would quietly review the contributions of each editor to decide whether, on balance, he is making a good-faith effort to conform to NPOV. The group might decide to review contributions on a pro-active basis without waiting for complaints; or it might wait for particular editors to be drawn to its attention by others. If, in the opinion of the group, the contributions of an editor suggest partisan editing, the editor would be warned. If the problems persist, he would be topic-banned after being given some time to improve his editing. The length of the post-warning, pre-ban period would be decided by the group. The length of the topic bans would also be left to the discretion of the group.
Blocks
[edit]If a topic ban needs to be enforced by a block, one of the admins in the group may carry out the block; if there are no admins in the group, they can approach one. Blocks should be brief to begin with, increasing in length if the topic ban is violated, at the discretion of the group and the blocking admin.
Appeals
[edit]The idea is that the enforcement group would be given wide latitude to interpret broadly and enforce rigorously. The default position would be that their decision is final. Topic-banned editors may appeal to the ArbCom, but only in circumstances strongly suggestive of an unfair decision.
Talk-page notices
[edit]Prominent notices announcing the neutrality enforcement would be posted on all affected talk pages, with editors regarded as having been informed about the enforcement if they edit those pages.
Extension to other disputes
[edit]If, after an experimental period, NPOV enforcement were regarding as working in the I/P area, in the sense of keeping behaviour under control without sacrificing article creation and quality, it could be extended to other long-term intractable disputes that other forms of dispute resolution have failed to resolve. The idea is that each dispute area would have its own group of uninvolved, experienced editors to enforce good-faith attempts to edit neutrally.