User:Doncram/SectionHeaders

Notes on activity promoting neutral section headers, per wp:TALKNEW, especially at wp:ANI.

Explanation of issue
The usage of non-neutral, even inflammatory, section titles in Talk pages, anywhere in Wikipedia, is disallowed(?) by guideline/policy wp:TALKNEW within "Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines". Specifically, it says...

In my opinion, the most egregiously non-neutral ones are those having subject and verb phrase or subject and adjective phrase that make a negative statement about a specific user. These can be: These are damaging because every following edit in the section hammers that message, whether it is accurate or not, tending to discredit the named editor. Each new edit in the section, even by the named party, repeats what is in effect a personal attack against the named user. Like repetitive advertising, the message gets repeated in the watchlists of editors following the page, most of whom are not going to dip into the issue at all. It will just be hammered into their perceptions of that user, that the user is involved with whatever negative activity. Wikipedia editors may think that their views are not moved by seeing those messages, but frankly that is absurd to believe. Like consumers who believe they are not affected by advertising!
 * (username)-(negative verb phrase), e.g.
 * (negative adjective)-(username), e.g.
 * other (username)-(negative) format, e.g.

Pretty obviously, some experienced editors involved in conflict with another editor will choose such section titles when opening ANI cases for exactly that reason, that they do wish to discredit the named user. And they might enjoy seeing the message expressed again and again. They may be repeatedly opening ANI proceedings or user talk page sections and so on with damaging titles, as part of a campaign to drag down an editor, like death by a thousand cuts, for whatever reason (perhaps they feel it is justified to drag down the editor, say because of content disagreement that they think is really important, but any indirect campaigning like that is simply inappropriate: really they should be using other direct channels:  article talk page discussions about content, or user talk page discussions hosted on their own Talk page or their target's talk page, or DR methods of RFCU or mediation or arbcom). More innocently, other editors see ANI titles of that form and think it is a normal practice to follow.

Note, wp:3RRnb does not have this neutrality of naming issue: it uses standardized titles of format "User:username1 reported by User:username2 (Result: )", until updated with a result summary at closing. And while implication is that it is username1 whose behavior is poor, experienced editors know that it goes both ways often? (what are stats for usual outcomes?)

Less inappropriate:
 * (negative characterization) alone, without username(s). Still a completely neutral wording should usually be possible, instead.  (E.g. replace "copyright violations" by copyright issues"?)
 * Alleged What about using "alleged" to soften? E.g. "Alleged bad-behavior of username".  Would use of "alleged" help?  Like newspaper coverage.  Note I tried changing one to "____  ____ alleged", 3/5/2015.
 * What are actual guidelines for journalists/editors of newspapers? In body of an article they use "alleged", usually, right?  What specific guidelines do they have for headlines?  In U.S. presumption of innocence until proven guilty is important principle usually followed by press (but not by tabloids usually?  often not, inflammatory...what is history of this?)  In other countries, what is history and current practice?
 * Question mark? What about using a question mark to soften? E.g. "Viktorengström's SPA campaign on Stalinism?" is a section title at ANI as of March 6, 2015 (permalink).  For now I won't change those.

Neutral:
 * "(Username) at (article name)"? About one editor's behavior at one article.  It would be implicit that (username)'s behavior is being criticized.  But, it takes two to tango, so it would be better to use more general article-specific header, leaving open the possibility that other(s) behavior can be questioned too, even if you personally think all the misbehaving is on the part of one editor.  Almost always, others could behave better, e.g. by explaining more clearly, e.g. by more sympathetically recognizing and taking into account situational factors (where the one editor is coming from, as a newbie, or just off a long block, or what.) or by being more balanced (recognizing the editor's good contributions within the article or Talk page, or contributions elsewhere), or taking into account personal factors (sorry you were sick).   Preferred would be "(Article name) article", as more neutral, less targeting.
 * "(Article name) article", about one or more editors' behavior at the one article
 * "Conduct of (username)", about one editor's behavior at more than one location, if, in your first edit, you do document a pattern of same behavior at multiple articles, and stick with that list of articles. It is implicit that the conduct is imperfect;  we don't see ANI sections about commendable behavior, but at least the title itself does not seem loaded.
 * "(Topic)-related articles", about one or more editors' behavior at series of related articles
 * "(Negative behavior)", about one or more editors' bad behavior of some type at more than one location. Negative behaviors that can be named in this way are:
 * a
 * b
 * etc
 * "(Negative behavior) at (article name)" is better as more limited in scope than (Negative behavior)
 * "(Negative behavior) at (topic)-related articles" is broader, but better than too-broad "Negative behavior" anywhere by anybody.

What about headers that express a requested action, instead? E.g. "Proposal for topic ban of user:username". Maybe that is okay, it is being specific and descriptive about scope of the section, and is not super-judgmental. Or there was recently an ANI section titled "Request IBAN with User:username". IBAN is always 2-way, so better (more neutral) title is "Request IBAN btwn User:username1 and User:username2", even if it is username2 making the request. But that is complex request requiring review of a pattern of edits, maybe should not be at ANI at all, should be at RFCU (abolished, bring it back?). Consider: "Request block at (article name) article"? No, a block is user-specific not article-specific. Consider: "Request block of user:username"? No, "Conduct of user:username" is more neutral as title. Consider: "Request protection at (article name) article"? Maybe okay. But "(Article name) article" is more open, is that better? If "request protection" is really only the outcome wanted, then maybe response should be limited to be answer of "Yes/No", without considering other outcomes?

Balance descriptiveness vs. what? Are there multiple scales relevant, like as explained within the guideline on canvassing (Scale, Message, Audience, Transparency)? Neutral. Length. Self-involvement. Scope-appropriateness. Narrow, clear, described in first edit. As opposed to open-ended.

But wp:TALKNEW is about article talk pages, not ANI?
Editor Hijiri88 raised that, and it's a fair point. I and he/she discussed at H's Talk page, this diff, regarding Catflap ANI opened by Hijiri88.


 * However, wp:TALKNEW clearly does discuss section titles at administrative noticeboards, as it states:
 * "Don't address other users in a heading: Headings invite all users to comment. Headings may be about specific edits but not specifically about the user.  (Some exceptions are made at administrative noticeboards, where reporting problems by name is normal.)", and
 * "Reporting on another user's edits from a neutral point of view is an exception, especially reporting edit warring or other incidents to administrators."
 * Interpretation: It is saying that using a username in an ANI section heading is allowed, but not within a non-neutral complete title, or, in other words, not when combined with a negative characterization.

So avoid matching a username plus a negative characterization. E.g. "Conduct of user:username" is neutral and okay, but not "User:username is continuing tendentious edits" (which uses a verb phrase that characterizes the user's conduct negatively) and not "Incompetent and tendentious user:username" (which uses an adjective phrase characterizing the user negatively).

Expressing a negative characterization alone, without naming a user, is not a violation. E.g. "Continuing tendentious edits at article Articlename" does not on its own constitute a personal attack. It leaves open the possibility that editors may disagree about who has been tendentious, if editors agree that indeed there has been tendentious editing. Such a label will not convey a negative accusation about a specific user in the default edit summaries that will repeat the title; it does not prejudge what is the consensus judgment about a specific user;  a later link to the archived section does not imply that a negative accusation about a specific user was found to be the consensus outcome;  later mention of the label is not hurtful to a victim unfairly accused.


 * Explanation: Surely in the extreme case, all should agree that the title should not constitute a complete statement that constitutes a personal attack, itself. But further, it should not even combine a username with a negative characterization, even a mild one.  The reason is that the section title is more salient and influential than statements within the section.  The point of an ANI discussion is usually to present accusations for discussion, i.e. to express negative characterization(s) about specific user(s), and then to allow discussion that may lead to some action being taken.  But the discussion will likely involve disagreement about the charges made, if only by the targeted user.  The accusations can and should be expressed in the body of the section.  But a negative accusation in the title is unnecessarily judgmental and influential.  It will be repeated by default in edit summaries while the discussion goes on, and that will unfairly hammer away with messages disparaging the targeted user.  Most editors who have ANI on their watchlist ( 6,420 watchers as of March 3, 2015 ) will not participate in or read the content of the section, but they all will repeatedly see the accusation repeated in their watchlist, even when the edits are disagreeing with the accusation, and even when the consensus turns out to be that the accusations are false.  And later references to the archived ANI section by its title will carry an implication that a consensus was formed supporting the negative accusation about a user, regardless of whether a different consensus or no consensus was formed.  A section title needs to be neutral and even a bit vague, while specific negative assertions are allowed and indeed are required within the opening statement of the section.

It is prejudicial, and it works. Advertising mechanism. Anchoring mechanism. Self-selection mechanism. (That it works is supported by vast academic/industrial study of psychology, negotiation, marketing, consumer behavior, etc.) (That it works specifically in ANI at Wikipedia is a testable prediction. Testable by breaching experiments, or by simulation study.)

It is believed to work. (That it is believed to work can be established by call for examples/testimonials, or by survey, or by review/compilation of past comments)

It is overtly prejudicial, and this conveys and reinforces the "Wild West" unfair ways of ANI. It is part of ANI as a game, a fun battleground for some participants who enjoy the unfairness, delight in boomerangs and so on. It undermines decorum and respect for the dispute resolution process, in the specific section and in general. In court it would be named contempt of court and it would not be tolerated. It is a matter of embarrassment for many wikipedians (at least for me), that the ANI process is so petty/vindictive/mean, so overtly out-of-control, as any journalist or potential new editor or other outsider can see at first glance by merely skimming the titles. (That it is embarrassing and seems unprofessional to many, can be established by survey, or by review/compilation of past comments)

While it is not a game, not fun, for many victims dragged to ANI unwillingly, who are abused by the process. It is discouraging and depressing for the target, to be hit repeatedly with an unfair/insulting/hurtful statement in the repeated edit summaries. As may well be intended by the accusing opponent. (That it is depressing and hurtful for some/many victims can be supported by call for examples/testimonials, or by survey, or by review/compilation of past comments)


 * Note: when a user is named in an ANI section title (as in "Conduct of user:username"), it is obvious already that the user or his/her conduct will be criticized.  No one is ever praised at ANI;  it could even be a tad disruptive to the purpose of ANI to open an all-positive discussion.  (And note that wp:TALKNEW discourages titles that praise a user as well as titles that disparage a user.)  So expressing a negative characterization is partly redundant already, it is not necessary to clarify that you will express criticism.

It is impolite and perhaps arrogant to put a negative characterization of a user into the section title. It is overstating your case, it is dismissive of other editors who might disagree. It is prejudging the outcome, to give the proceeding a negative label. Note that court cases are labelled neutrally: "Party A vs. Party B". Note that 3RR proceedings are labelled neutrally.

(rough draft, too long) About intent of editors using accusatory titles: Many editors may use a non-neutral section title because they observe that is what is often done, and they are just trying to follow usual practices, and they are not trying to game the system. But of course some ANI participants knowingly and deliberately choose to use the title to express a negative accusation, because they understand how the current practices work, and they definitely do seek to game the system. (While they might disagree about gaming: perhaps they would say they are acting in ways calculated best to achieve their goals, given the existing rules and practices, and this is fair enough because the rules and practices are the same for all participants). It would be incredibly naive to believe that some are not deliberately exploiting laxness in enforcement of rules/guidelines here.
 * Experienced editors may be engaged in a longterm effort to ostracise or expel a user from Wikipedia, perhaps sincerely believing that such an outcome is good for Wikipedia, and that the ends justify the means in terms of using underhanded tactics. Especially when other dispute resolution processes seem to be ineffective or too time-consuming to pursue. They may take some perverse pleasure, they may enjoy the needling of the targeted user that is accomplished by repetition of the negative accusation in edit summaries. They may feel it is just good tactics towards "winning" the ANI incident, or towards winning a longterm battle with the user, or just as a matter of being efficient and "professional" in terms of using all available channels and means to make their communications effective.  As any rhetorical tactic would be "professional" for use in certain other adversarial settings, e.g. by high school debating team members, or by prosecutors in legal proceedings, or by advertising or PR professionals.  A negative accusation that is colorful is all the better for running down the reputation of a targeted user.  They may strive to make it entertaining, or inflammatory, or pithy, perhaps to show their skill, to garner appreciation, or to attract the right kind of editors to participate towards accomplishing their preferred ANI resolution.  And if the practice is not explicitly outlawed, or if it is technically outlawed but in practice that is not enforced, they feel justified in using it.
 * They may perceive ANI to be an adversarial setting, like a high school debating club's debate, or like a legal trial, where all methods not explicitly outlawed are fair and good to use. In such adversarial settings, opposing sides use their best rhetorical skills as well as substantive evidence to present a case, and it is generally believed that outcomes are "fair" and the best outcomes are achieved when both sides have tried their best, using all available means.  However, those adversarial settings are very different than ANI, where judgment is not by a judge who has a professional reputation and credibility at stake, and where targeted user(s) may not be skilled in Wikipedia rules and they certainly do not have skilled legal professional representation working for them, and where in practice there are no consequences to misbehavior.  In practice at ANI there are no remedies such as penalty fees for frivolous proceedings, where there is no equivalent to the potential disbarrment of lawyers or the potential dismissal of too-zealous prosecutors.  It is not fair, it is wild West, it is gang justice.

Policy for opening titles
Best to promote neutral openings. How can that be promoted?
 * 0 Develop essay/guideline with explanations, answers to likely FAQs, for training and for reference. Get this promoted from essay to guideline?
 * 1 Change ANI instructions to briefly state the obligation, with link to essay/guideline.
 * 1a. Change what is displayed at wp:ANI. Is that inside Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader?
 * 1b. Change the message displayed when one starts to open a new section there (or otherwise edits at the ANI page). Current message displayed, with bright orange background, is: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use  to do so. / Also, please provide links and diffs here to involved pages and editors. The templates Pagelinks (for pages) and Userlinks (for editors) may be helpful."  Where is the code/text which displays that located, exactly?
 * Get that changed to, instead: _______
 * 1c. Change admin instructions, where?


 * 2 Run a campaign to give feedback right away to any opener of non-neutral one, towards heading off future such cases. This would be instruction/advice well-targeted to editors "needing" training (i.e. unaware of policy) and well-timed in that their attention is available, as the ANI incident proceeds.  Make this a standard template, a warning with pointer to policy/instructions, plus offer to discuss.
 * 3 Get the feedback-giving into the ANI instructions for administrators, i.e. ask them to take on this targeted training task (at least placing warning template).
 * 4. If repeated non-neutral titles done by one ANI opener, should become an issue, could be raised to some DR forum? Could the repeated placements of warning templates be recorded centrally somehow, as part of the subst process?  Or bot-recorded somehow?  To enable patterns to be studied, then to identify improvements.  Or to prompt actions on repeated "offenders".  But would central recording be too complicated?

Policy for changing titles mid-discussion
Better if done right away, or as quickly as possible, so less damage to target, less biasing of discussion. And less inconvenience in terms of hurting navigation. An item would be under original name in opener's contribution history, but would seem to show no changes, and the link would not work, from the contribution history if the title has been changed. (As noted in Catflap - Hijiri88 situation.)

If done, best to notify ANI opener to avoid misunderstanding. Clarify nothing personal, that separate from ongoing ANI discussion, e.g. this notice + editor response went well. Also avoids ANI opener being puzzled that ANI discussion seems to have disappeared, as their following link from their contribution history will no longer work. They might think the ANI discussion was closed or archived. Seems more important to notify opener to give them feedback, specifically, in terms of their future ANI title choices. Seems also appropriate to notify any targeted user, partly to clarify that no judgment against opener is intended, as well as ensuring they also don't think the ANI discussion has been closed or archived. So, e.g. this notice corresponding to the above diff. These notices must themselves be neutral of course.

Policy for changing titles in closing or after, pre-archive
Seems wise to change to neutral when it turns out no negative judgment is supported by consensus? As done in this close of Catflap by NE Ent, changing to a neutral title, when an ANI item is closed for withdrawal of complaint.

Policy for changing titles in archived discussions
If egregious, can these be changed?
 * Probably would need to create redirect from old title to new one, e.g. within an archive, change #egregious-title to #neutral-title, including note of change being done inserted just below the title.  But also add #egregious-title which redirects to #neutral-title.  To avoid breaking links.
 * This could be done, technically, and could be appreciated/worthwhile as an accomodation for a targeted editor. When?
 * By whom? Archives are not supposed to be changed, usually, so need to get approval.
 * In what cases? Only when requested by targeted user, and when consensus of the archived discussion was not supporting the accusation?  What if was found "guilty" originally, but later processes showed that judgment was wrong?
 * How egregious does the title have to be, to merit change? When clearly a personal attack?  When that plus proven false?

Examples: current cases retitled while open, March 2015
Initial title / suggested title
 * 2015-02-25, -26, doncram: "Kristina451 wikipedia stalker: insert note about section title changes at top. (Username)-(Negative behavior) as header violates wp:TALKNEW" and 2 minor corrections to yield this combo diff. References 2 previous section header changes by doncram yesterday.  I changed title once, an editor rechanged it to something non-neutral but milder ("Kristina451 wikipedia stalker"), and I just left a note about the changes.  A bit later, that was changed to just "Kristina451" by editor Beyond My Ken, without comment.
 * /* Conduct of Mrmike1695 ... retitle per wp:TALKNEW away from (username)-(negative) format (combo diff with signing edit). I changed and left note about change.
 * Also then showing were two other (username)-(negative) titles, but those sections were already closed. 2015-02-27
 * Catflap ANI opened by Hijiri88 as "___". I changed to "____", was reverted. Discussed at this discussion at Talk:Hijiri88 on Catflap ANI opened by Hijiri88.  Interestingly, the section header was changed to neutral "__" in the closing edit by NE Ent.  Closed 3/4/2015
 * this combo of 2 diffs by me at opener Helpsome's Talk page, and this notice at target Haffy881's Talk page, about my retitling to "User:Haffy881 and copyright issues" from non-neutral "Haffy881 and massive amounts of copyright infringements" per wp:TALKNEW, 6 March 2015.
 * March 14 2015 (pi day) i noticed a subsection titled "Administrator Coffee is a bully". It was edited a number of times, including by NE Ent, and closed and reopened a couple times, then the posting person was blocked, either before or after NE Ent changed its title.  NE Ent's change edit was "neutral title" followed by a minor edit to fix the 2nd === from ==.  Is NE Ent waiting to make change when discussion is over, so as not to disrupt? -- do  ncr  am  02:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Examples: egregious closed or archived cases

 * Editorous is on a crusade, not yet archived as of 6 March 2015, but already closed, so not re-titling.
 * Go through all archives? or random sample from them?  From sampling frame: ANI archives numbered __ to __, and number of items in each?

Rough plan of actions on this issue

 * 1) Monitor wp:ANI and intervene lightly to make title changes of the most egregiously inappropriate ANI section titles in ongoing discussions
 * 2) Contribute directly by improving section titles in current, ongoing ANI discussions
 * 3) Don't change the title or otherwise intervene in any ANI section that has been closed
 * 4) Try to avoid undue off-topic interruption of any one ANI section by:
 * 5) When intervene, be clear and polite in communication, in both edit summary and in what appears in the ANI section. Otherwise try to avoid offending section opener.  E.g., reflect original title, so that ANI section opener's wording is still shown and they will be less likely to feel a need to re-express themselves by restoring original title.
 * 6) Making only one title change on a section. If reverted, comment once but do not reinstate title change
 * 7) Offering to discuss a title issue elsewhere, and trying to so, e.g. opening or responding to discussion at my Talk or at another editor's Talk, to avoid derailing legitimate ANI discussions
 * 8) Record test cases in

For a while I'll just try to keep it low-key, not demanding anything of anyone, but getting the idea out there by edit summaries and indented small notes under the (changed) section titles.

Also for a while I will just keep it to the most clear cases, where username and negative characterization are both given and it seems prejudicial. At some point may extend to more marginal cases, e.g. when "alleged" is used or a question mark is used but the prejudicial accusation is still clear.... Before extending to anything less clear, I probably should have an essay/draft guideline in place, explaining, first.

Possible follow-ons: 2. Review past ANI archives for egregious examples. Record at.

3.. Call attention about it to frequent ANI participants? By posting about it at Talk page of wp:ANI (which redirects to talk page of wp:AN)? Or contact them individually at user Talk pages?

4. Check wp:ANI participation instructions, identify where this could be indicated?

5. Bring up importance of this elsewhere, e.g wp:WER? e.g. user talk:jimbo wales?

6. removed to discuss elsewhere

7. Expand re-titling program to titles at article talk pages? Expand to retitle sections at user talk pages? What about bot-given titles, first. AWB and Twinkle automated titles. "good faith edits" labelled by Twinkle always has irritated me as fake/inaccurate/manipulative, and is actually sort of violation of not praising, per wp:TALKNEW.

8. Expand to arbcom case names, maybe already done in practice but not codified? See arbcom archive, not so many cases, can list all. Bias there includes when just one person named, rather than Username1 vs. Username2 like neutral titles of U.S. court cases, in which even the order does not indicate which is plaintiff (opener) vs. defendant (target), right?

wp:TALKNEW text as of 3 March 2015
Copy-pasted from wp:talknew as of 3 March 2015, then edited only to:
 * show section header but make it inactive by putting in quotes
 * change template:shortcut call to be a template link to template:shortcut instead (i.e. to show "shortcut wp:TALKNEW)")
 * show footnote(s) at bottom of section by use of reflist-talk.

"===New topics and headings on talk pages===" WP:TALKNEW wp:TALKNEW


 * Start new topics at the bottom of the page: If you put a post at the top of the page, it is confusing and can also get easily overlooked. The latest topic should be the one at the bottom of the page.
 * Make a new heading for a new topic: It will then be clearly separated into its own section and will also appear in the TOC (table of contents) at the top of the page. A heading is easy to create with == on either side of the words, as in == Heading == .  The "Post a comment" feature can be used to do this automatically.  (If you are using the default Skin, you can use the "New Section" tab next to the "Edit this page" tab instead.)  Enter a subject/heading in the resulting edit page, and it will automatically become the section heading.
 * Make the heading clear and specific as to the article topic discussed: It should be clear from the heading which aspect of the article (template, etc.) you wish to discuss. Don't write "This article is wrong" but address the specific issue you want to discuss. A related article Edit, actual or potential, should be traceable to that Talk-page heading.
 * Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it.
 * Don't praise in headings: You might wish to commend a particular edit, but this could be seen in a different light by someone who disagrees with the edit.
 * Don't be critical in headings: This includes being critical about details of the article. Those details were written by individual editors, who may experience the heading as an attack on them.
 * Don't address other users in a heading: Headings invite all users to comment. Headings may be about specific edits but not specifically about the user.  (Some exceptions are made at administrative noticeboards, where reporting problems by name is normal.)
 * Never use headings to attack other users: While no personal attacks and assuming good faith apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, as it places their names prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. As edit summaries and edit histories are not normally subject to revision, that wording can then haunt them and damage their credibility for an indefinite time period, even though edit histories are excluded from search engines. Reporting on another user's edits from a neutral point of view is an exception, especially reporting edit warring or other incidents to administrators.
 * Create subsections if helpful. Talk page discussions should be concise, so if a single discussion becomes particularly long, it may then become helpful to start a subsection (to facilitate the involvement of editors with a slower computer or Internet connection). Since the main section title will no longer appear in edit summaries, choose a connotative title; for example, in the section References used more than once, the subsection title References: arbitrary break might be used. If creating arbitrary breaks, ensure that sections end with a clear indication of the speaker. (This method is preferable to using templates like hidden.)

(end of copy/pasted wp:TALKNEW section)

DRAFT new guidance for ANI headings
Write to address, explicitly, ANI headings. While ANI headings is addressed within wp:TALKNEW, it is a bit confusing because ANI incidents are not actually on Talk pages, they are on a Wikipedia page (and Talk:ANI is reserved for discussion about the ANI process). ANI headings matter a lot, are very salient internally and externally, tend to be set in the midst of emotional times for opener and/or target(s), due to conflict ongoing somewhere.

what about RFCU type ANI items?
About patterns of behavior, not just one hot current incident. Since RFCU, unfortunately, done away with.