User:2over0/Filll's AGF challenge

This set of exercises is based on  typical Wikipedia editing situations in controversial areas. Decide how you think that Wikipedia editors should handle each of these.

Note: Although all of these are inspired by real situations, the details of some of them have been altered slightly to obscure the identities of those involved

For details, see the original page: User:Filll/How to Take the AGF Challenge

A note on answers: I have adopted a fairly conversational style representative of my talkpage interactions, though indulging in somewhat more prolixity than I usually prefer or find productive. In consideration for the intended audience, I use a little wikispeak; in interactions involving people who are not die-hard regulars, I prefer to spell out links to WP: space rather than using abbreviations: example. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

My wife is not a coauthor
Suppose someone has coauthored 10 books with their wife. And suppose that this person also wrote 10 books on their own, and on this second group of 10 books, their wife is not listed as a coauthor. All 20 of these books are listed on a website belonging to the couple for sale, and on various other websites, with the authorship list for each book listing either the person, or the person and his wife. All of these websites and descriptions of these 20 books agree with each other. Suppose that in interviews, this person is quoted as saying that his wife had coauthored some of his books, and that this person listed this coauthorship in his autobiography.

Therefore, in the biography of this person on Wikipedia, we state that this person has coauthored some of his books with his wife. And then this person contacts WP, using the OTRS system, and threatens to sue Wikipedia for describing his wife as a coauthor of some of his books. He wants Wikipedia to assert that he wrote all the books himself and his wife was not involved.

What should Wikipedia do? Do we just state something that is contrary to more than a dozen reliable sources, which all agree with each other? Do we state something for which we have not a single source except a private email purportedly from the subject of the biography (but of course we do not know for sure)? What is the ethical thing to do? What is the encyclopedic thing to do? What precedent would your actions set, if any? How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?


 * Easy - OTRS and No legal threats are above my paygrade, except when WP:DOLT is invoked to make sure that matters are directed to the competent people with a minimum of fuss and ruffled feathers. This person, at least at this juncture, is not interacting with Wikipedia as a normal editor, and needs the overhead machinery, not the potentially inconsistent opinions of ground-level editors.
 * If I were to get involved as the point of contact before they discover or are directed to the proper channels, the first obvious thing to check is the actual WP:RS status of the sources being used for the coauthorship claim. Very likely, the websites are all getting their information from the same source, for instance a press release from the publisher; if the publisher now lists single authorship, this would go a long way towards solving the problem. Next, I would check for any sources reporting on this controversy. The autobiography and cover credits in this case pretty squarely preclude ever having the article simply list single authorship without reference to a coauthor and controversy.
 * As an interim measure while the matter works its way through OTRS, any AN/I thread(s), and inter-library loan, I might consider presenting the authorship question as in his autobiography, Dr. X describes writing with his wife (or then-wife, if appropriate) ... . A level of article protection might be called for (application depending, of course, on my WP:INVOLVED status), but as long as discussion is moving forward it should not be necessary. Actual advice rendered would consist of discussing sourcing (for instance, the couple's website or some other website verifiably linked to him), with recourse to WP:BLP/N or WP:AN/I depending on how that goes.
 * From the description here, the best reaction definitely seems to be polite but firm de-escalation, possibly with in-text attribution added to the article. The best advantage of this strategy is that it applies to genuine requests and to trolls equally, obviating the problem of personally verifying his identity - the one gets a serious discussion, while the other is denied an indignant flamewar. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

My town's library
You run across an article, created a few days ago, that reads:

You do some web searching, and find nothing about this library on the internet. What should Wikipedia do with such an article? How would you handle this situation? How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?


 * This is not quite CSD#A7 material, as arguably a 70 year old library, likely the only one serving Smithville, could be notable. PROD would be preferable to WP:AFD, but a one sentence merge with a fact tag to Smithville, IA would be best, assuming I could identify the correct village. Last I checked, townships are inherently notable, so the article could be created if necessary. Most of that article is unencyclopedic, but it does not seem to be in need of WP:OVERSIGHT. I am not a regular on the New pages patrol, but I expect that this is a one-shot contributor - notification and request for sources are in order, but I would not hold my breath waiting for a response. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I am the best
"Theobold Johnson III" is notable for having been involved in a football cheating scandal and also writes books about orchids, illustrated with beautiful pictures. Johnson has written several self-published books about orchids, and in their autobiographies and interviews he describes himself as "the greatest living orchid man" and "widely recognized by the academic world as the greatest orchid scholar in the world". Johnson refers to himself as "Dr. Johnson" or "Professor Johnson" frequently in print. Johnson also asserts in print that he is a professor in the Botany Department at the famous "Winthrop College" and has given his mailing address as "c/o Winthrop College" for many years. Johnson often writes that all other people studying orchids are morons and even all other botanists are stupid and vile disgusting fools who should be publicly flogged or worse.

In the course of writing a Wikipedia biography about Johnson, you start to uncover disturbing information. First, you are able to find a mention of a "Theobold Johnson III" on archived versions of the Winthrop College website from 1994-1997, but there is no mention of Johnson on earlier versions of the website, or later versions. A "T. Johnson, III" is listed as a visitor in the Computer Science Department of Winthrop College in the 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997 versions of the website, and a phone number is given. You contact the President's office at Winthrop College and the Dean of Science office at Winthrop College and ask if Johnson is or was a faculty member there. Receiving no reply, you ask a friend who knows the Dean personally to ask the Dean privately. The word comes back from your friend that he has talked to the Dean privately, and that Johnson is an embarassment and never had a faculty appointment at Winthrop College and just has his mail forwarded from Winthrop College due to some arrangement he made with someone in the Winthrop College mailroom 25 years previously. Johnson never was on the payroll of Winthrop College and never had an official position at Winthrop College and has not been on campus for 10 years or more. Johnson was listed for a few years on the telephone list and was a short term visitor, but this was just a courtesy and he was one of 3500 visitors a year who get this courtesy. The Dean's office then, thanks to the probing of your friend, issues a very carefully worded "official statement" about Johnson, stating he was never a faculty member at Winthrop College and inviting further inquiries to their Press Office, and sends you a copy.

You do some more checking, and find no evidence that Johnson has a PhD or any degree in botany or science whatsoever, at least from Liberty Washington University, as he claims. You do find a record at Liberty Washington Community College that Johnson obtained a bachelor's degree in history 30 years previously. You also find a report in the local newspaper that Johnson was expelled from Liberty Washington Community College for theft while he was an undergraduate, and then was readmitted and eventually graduated. You look at various lists and directories of prominent orchid scholars and find no mention of a Theobold Johnson in any edition of these directories. You also dig up 5 reviews of Johnson's books on orchids in various scholarly journals from different botanists and orchid scholars from Harvard and University of Pennsylvania and Yale. These reviews are uniformly poor, and state that Johnson is a charlatan and a fraud and his books are replete with errors and the worst possible nonsense. You then find another interview of Johnson published in Sports Illustrated where it is stated that Johnson has no PhD or other Doctorate, but it is a title that people use for him out of respect for his tremendous knowledge and learning.

How would you write a biography of this person on Wikipedia? What would be reasonable and accurate and ethical? What would be fair? What should Wikipedia do if this person contacts Wikipedia and demands that it write his biography the way he dictates? What if this person threatens legal action if Wikipedia does not do what he asks? How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?


 * The sources "I" found look from here to be sufficient to establish notability, but clearly this article needs to be rewritten basically from scratch. I would focus on the orchid books controversy (potentially these books are self-published, but the reviews from respected sources make them relevant), stating that they are beautiful but not scholarly. I would mention and cite the (lack of) credentials, treat the SI source as self-published, and omit the LWCC expulsion unless the story was picked up later and preferably with more detail. The Winthrop release I would ignore unless I found a good source where he claims to be affiliated.
 * Personal contact from the subject would be handled with WP:COI - help us find the best sources for this article - and recourse to WP:BLP/N and Contact us/Article problem/Factual error or OTRS, as required. WP:RS and WP:BLP carve out the space between defaming a living person and allowing them to bully a whitewashed article. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Arrow of Time
In the Young Earth Creationism article, an editor with a total of 47 edits to their credit repeatedly inserts the phrase

This appears to have little if anything to do with Young Earth Creationism. After all, the Big Bang produced time itself, according to the Big Bang theory, first advanced by Belgian Roman Catholic priest Georges Lemaître. Discussions of whether time existed before the Big Bang have already discarded one of the main features of the Big Bang, and so are not about the Big Bang, and definitely not relevant to Young Earth Creationism, which does not have a Big Bang associated with most versions of it. It is a confused and somewhat nonsensical statement.

No sources or references are provided, although this editor is asked for sources dozens of times by several other editors. Other editors remove this phrase, and the new editor responds angrily that he is being censored. The new editor reinserts this phrase 38 times over the next 2 weeks, and never provides references or sources of any kind. When asked for sources, he states it is the responsibility of the other editors to provide them, not him.

On the talk page of the article, this editor posts vaguely obnoxious statements like

He states that since the other editors do not want to include his statement about the Arrow of Time without a reference, they will be sued:

Everyone is polite to this editor. No one threatens him. No one curses him. He is tolerated.

What should Wikipedia do in this case? What is fair? What is the journalistic thing to do? What is the encyclopedic thing to do? Could someone like this demand that Encyclopedia Britannica include this kind of statement in one of its articles? The New York Times? What sort of chance of success would they have? How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?


 * If I am satisfied that involved editors have applied the BRD cycle correctly, it is time for the RBI cycle. The blocking notice should, of course, point out the definition of editwarring, how to deal with actual legal matters, and an exhortation to gather consensus based on reliable sources. WP:Fringe theories would probably not be useful to mention, as many people are more closely wedded to their religion than the words on their screen from some stranger on the internet; WP:DUE will suffice. Encouragement to branch out to other editing interests might also be in order. Agreeing to work within a collegial model should be a condition of unblocking. The key here is to make continued disruption boring.
 * As a side note, it is certainly possible for an editor to be both disruptive and right. It may be helpful to those editors to point out how to make edits that bring the article towards a more accurate reflection of the reliability-weighted preponderance of sources rather than just edits that feel good. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ghost in the machine
Some people have decided that sometimes ghosts call humans using cellular telephones (i.e., mobile phones). Strange anonymous cell phone calls are said to be caused by phantoms and spirits trying to communicate with the living. Ringing cellular phones during inopportune moments are believed to be caused by mischievous spirits playing tricks on humans. Static during cellular telephone calls is said to be the voices of those from beyond the grave, that can be heard if you listen closely enough. Crosstalk between calls and other phenomena are said to be the results of spectral beings and supernatural influences. Cats that get strange looks on their faces when cell phones ring, or run and hide, are said to able to hear the ghosts. It is claimed that sometimes cats look into the corners of empty rooms watching these phantoms that are present, and invisible to humans.

Several articles on this "Cellular Phantom Phenomenon" (CPP) are written for Wikipedia. Since there are no mainstream scientific studies of CPP, the editors demand that no negative material or mainstream material be presented in the Wikipedia articles on CPP, since there are no mainstream reliable sources. Conventional explanations for CPP and information about how cellular telephones work and the causes of crosstalk and static are dismissed by the proponents of CPP as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The proponents of CPP maintain that the conventional mainstream scientific explanation must be kept out of the articles on CPP, and refer to those trying to include them as "pseudoskeptics" and "not real scientists" and "close-minded". Efforts to try to balance the article lead to huge disputes about trying to distort WP:NPOV and make it WP:SPOV instead, which some claim is an abuse of the policies of Wikipedia.

What should these articles on CPP in Wikipedia look like? Does mainstream science have any place in these Wikipedia CPP articles? What should Wikipedia do in this case? Can the rules of WP:FRINGE be applied or is that inappropriate and unfair? How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?


 * SPOV did not gain consensus, but the preference for scholarly sources is retained. If nobody outside of a small core of believers has commented on this belief, then we should not have an article on it. Without such outside notice, NPOV is impossible to determine and maintain. From the description, I would be surprised if there is enough reliably sourced material for more than one article plus possibly a biography or three with Further links for the bulk of the CPP material. WP:FT/N and WP:Wikiproject Rational Skepticism are handy sources of outside editors interested in balanced presentation of WP:FRINGE articles and familiar with relevant sources. WP:SPS and WP:REDFLAG would seem relevant, and potentially WP:ADVOCACY. We necessarily cover the topic in neutral reflection of the sources, but without lending undue credence. The article should focus primarily on conveying to the reader an understanding of CPP, but in the context that static and crosstalk are not ghostly in origin. WP:ONEWAY indicates that it is highly unlikely to be appropriate to link the cellphone articles to CPP. Personal attacks should not be allowed to interfere with article development.
 * An example where I discuss with an editor wishing to describe an organization in its own terms and state its opinions as fact may be found here (not the first responder, scroll for it). An example where I engage in lengthy discussion of how exactly to present an accurate and finely nuanced summary of an Alternative medicine article may be found here. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Take me to your Leader Extraterrestrial Shape-shifting Reptile
David Icke is one of a suprisingly large group of people that believe that most of the world's leaders, from Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton and George W. Bush to members of the British Royal Family, are blood drinking shapeshifting reptilian humanoids from the Alpha Draconis star system. A little investigation reveals that there are literally dozens of books and videos on this subject, including a number that purport to present "proof" of the truth of these claims. There are also thousands of websites on this subject matter and many many people who believe this to be completely true, and supported by immense bodies of incontrovertable and irrefutable evidence.

An editor appears on Wikipedia and wants to include a paragraph or two in the biographies of many politicians around the world alluding to the fact that these politicians are in fact secretly shape-shifting extraterrestrial lizards of some kind. This editor links to one or more of the sources that are claimed to provide "proof" for these allegations. This editor wants to include this material in several hundred Wikipedia biographies. This editor protests vehemently about any efforts to remove this material from Wikipedia articles. This editor angrily denounces Wikipedia as unfair and biased, and the removal of this material as evidence that Jimbo and Arbcomm and many of the admins on Wikipedia are also shapeshifting extraterrestrial reptiles, conspiring to keep this information secret and from the public.

What should Wikipedia do in this case? What would be fair and reasonable? Should Wikipedia allow these claims only in the biographies of politicians and leaders that are already deceased, to avoid problems with WP:BLP? What is the best course of action, and most journalistic and encyclopedic and ethical? How does one avoid offending this editor? What if this editor is joined by 50 others with the same agenda so they can overwhelm any minor response by Wikipedia editors? What sort of precedent would this set? Are the rules of Wikipedia important in this situation or not? Should they be ignored? Whose rules should be applied and when, to which cases? How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?


 * Ideally, early recourse to explaining what we mean by WP:reliable sources could head this off prior to the anger and escalation phase, as the last thing Wikipedia needs is another disruptive sockpuppeteer. Excepting any case where the claims receive exceptional outside attention (on par, for instance, with the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories), the material should not be included, even if phrased as Mr. Donovan alleges ... . Death lifts the mantle of WP:BLP, but not of WP:UNDUE; in any case, BLP is a massive hammer with potential chilling effects, and should not be wielded when UNDUE will do. Repeated poorly sourced insertions of such material would be disruptive. Including the more prominent and better-sourced examples at the the dedicated article is, of course, perfectly appropriate.
 * The almost certain meatpuppets or sockpuppets showing up to the discussion can be problematic in some situations (see Requests for arbitration/Scientology for a similar but incompletely parallel problem). In simpler cases, wait a few days, revert, and SPI any account still active may be sufficient. The key again is to ensure that effort-to-satisfaction (however that is measured) is high for disruptive accounts. Page protection can help here.
 * Outside eyes and independent recommendations are key to solving disputes like this before they get out of hand. It is important, however, to avoid the appearance of "calling in friends" and dismissing what another editor views as legitimate concerns. WP:CANVASS requires neutrality for the sake of fairness, but it is also important for the sake of de-escalating a dispute. Out and out calling someone a crank, conspiracy theorist, whackjob, or whathaveye is never productive; bad strategies for building an encyclopedia alongside a possessor of THETRUTH abound. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Related to a saint
Oacan was an editor whose aunt compiled Oacan's family genealogical history in the 1950s. Oacan's aunt claimed that Oacan's family was descended from the brother of a well known 15th century saint. Oacan then altered the Wikipedia article about the 15th century saint drastically and aggressively, for over a year, to support the claim his aunt had made in the family genealogy. Oacan removed any discussion that was contrary to this claim of his aunt, and any sources that contradicted this claim. Oacan drove off several other contributors because he insisted on creating a biography that supported his aunt's claims and "altering" the Wikipedia articles to do so.

However, Oacan's aunt's genealogy was never published, or checked by a professional genealogist. It also appears to contradict several published reliable sources. In addition, Oacan's aunt's genealogy has gaps in it as long as 95 years.

In this case, what should Wikipedia do? What is fair to Oacan? What is fair to everyone else? Should Wikipedia go with the published material from reliable sources, even if it hurts this editor's feelings? What about the ethical issues? What would a good journalist do? How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?


 * Fairness to the community requires that we uphold the standards of reliable sourcing across the board, and fairness to our readers forbids WP:original research. Frankly, the quality of the unpublished source is completely immaterial (conveniently, as I am not qualified to judge it) - it should not be used as the basis for any article. WP:RS/N would, I feel certain, confirm this, with an WP:RFC if more outside opinions are needed. Said opinions must not only be independent, but must also be seen to be independent for this route to work. I am also not sure that any space should be devoted to descendants of a saint's brother.
 * Getting the editor to accept this after a year (!) of dedication may be difficult - pointing to WP:COI and WP:OWN may be met with nobody else wants to do the hard work of maintaining this important article. Fortunately, although Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, plenty of other places are. Kindly pointing this out while firmly denying the inclusion (enforced by page protection or short blocks if necessary) should leave everyone suitably happy.
 * Even when in good faith trying to improve the encyclopedia, replacing well-sourced content with unsourced content is disruptive, and may lead to blocks if discussion falls on deaf ears. The question of when it becomes disruptive is more problematic - we are all volunteers here, and willingness to outlast or drown in verbiage other good faith contributors should not be rewarded. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I make my own rules
One editor who was fond of WP:FRINGE theories such as conspiracy theories and alien abduction theories, and edited articles on these topics on Wikipedia, decided that he disagreed with the standard interpretations of Wikipedia principles like WP:NOR and WP:RS and WP:NPOV. So he wrote his own versions of these policies. He altered all these standard policies to make them more friendly to WP:FRINGE topics, contrary to community consensus and rulings of Arbcomm, etc.

Then this editor proceeded to send out his own "welcoming statements" to new Wikipedia editors, with links to his nonstandard altered versions of Wikipedia policies, similar to the procedure normally followed for new Wikipedia editors.

What is appropriate in this case? Can someone decide unilaterally to design their own policy statements, contrary to those of the community? What is the ethical thing to do? What is the reasonable thing to do in this case? How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?


 * Willfully and intentionally misrepresenting policy is not quite as damaging to the project as lying about the contents of a source, but it comes close. The fraudulent Wel statements should of course be replaced anywhere substituted and themselves deleted per WP:CSD. Honestly, by the time things could get to this point, community discussion has already broken down. I think I recognize this example, and so shall not comment further. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Summary
Establish the lines of communication early, and keep them open. Being infinitely accommodating, however, is counterproductive. Two additional variably useful strategies are shunning and strict and equitable enforcement of the WP:talk page guidelines. I deal with a lot of disruptive single-purpose tendentious accounts in my daily editing, and some days I think how nice it would be if they were all summarily blocked. This is not actually a good idea. In addition to the fact that the sort of community who would put up with that is not one I would help to build an encyclopedia, these people are precisely the ones who do most of the legwork in finding sources for obscure topics. Properly channeled, they are a valuable resource to the project until they start consuming more volunteer time than their productivity warrants.

There are significant parallels between the zen of writing articles which accurately reflect the reliability-weighted preponderance of sources and the modes of thought used in evidence-based medicine. I prefer to behave as though I am convinced of the power of Bayesian reasoning (modulo reasonably obtainable data), and adhere precisely to available sources. With recourse to noticeboards for help in weighting, this so far seems a functional technique for remaining sane in the face of editorial conflict.

Still, it costs you nothing to be civil right up through any necessary blocks; the difference between assuming good faith and just acting in accord is immaterial. In terms of getting what you want - a quality encyclopedia - doing so is the best game theoretic option. Consider a simple Prisoner's dilemma style situation. You do not know whether another editor genuinely has the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart, nor do they know the same of you. Assuming that you in fact are, this leaves eight options summarized in the table below:

In this simplified example, in no case is assuming bad faith a net benefit to the project. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)