User:Evad37/Signpost draft/Community view


 * (placeholder for a neutral-ish introduction by Signpost eds to the two pieces. Reminders that this is an *opinion* section, presenting differing views on the topic from two individual members of the community. Not an endorsement by the Signpost – readers invited to critically evaluate both, discuss in the comments, and make up their own mind, etc etc). – User: 

(header for Dlthewaveis piece)

 * By Dlthewave

From 2007 through 2018, a small group of editors successfully enforced the WikiProject Firearms advice page as if it were policy and prohibited the mention of mass shootings in articles about guns. This practice was maintained by corralling discussions to the project page, citing prior consensus "Turtles all the way down"-style, and framing the project-level guidance as an unenforceable opinion piece whenever it came under scrutiny. Community consensus to decide mass shooting coverage on a case-by-case basis was reached in 2018.

My experience
While editing US current events articles in early 2018, I became curious about "The AR-15", a weapon that had received extensive media coverage for its prevalence in mass shootings in the United States. I was surprised to find that our AR-15 article, which at the time was titled with the "Modern sporting rifle" euphemism, did not make any mention of mass shootings. As I dug deeper, I found talk page achives filled with comments from editors who were similarly surprised by the lack of "criminal use" coverage across numerous firearms articles. These comments were almost always rebutted by a small group of editors who made accusations of POV-pushing and cited a "WP:GUNS guideline", which was said to prohibit criminal use content in all but the most noteworthy cases. Editors who challenged the "guideline" were directed to the WikiProject Firearms talk page, where any proposal to change the advice page was quickly shot down by project members. This coordinated effort to exclude neutral, well-sourced content stretches back to 2007. It was carried out openly on Wikiproject Firearms, article talk and official noticeboards with no effort to conceal its intent.

The Wikiproject Firearms advice page
This "guideline", established in 2007, set the groundwork to reject mentions of criminal use in numerous articles about guns with no further explanation or justification. A typical example: "Sorry, that dog won't hunt. WP:GUNS#Criminal use is quite clear on this issue; this incident, unfortunate as it was, does not meet the criteria for inclusion." (See more examples here.)

The Ruger Mini-14 is a rare example of a weapon which meets the "legislative change" requirement. Following the use of a Mini-14 in the École Polytechnique massacre, new training, screening and registration requirements were implemented for gun owners in Canada. When a criminal use section was proposed, project members responded by moving the goalposts and invoking an unwritten "major legislative changes" requirement. They successfully argued that this legislation was irrelevant because no guns were actually confiscated and owners were allowed to keep their weapons as long as they filled out the necessary paperwork.

Criminal use was first discussed in May 2007 and finally added as the result of a "Major incidents" RfC in October 2016. The closer had to discard a number of non-policy-based arguments, including some that cited a recent discussion in which "consensus" had been achieved through stonewalling and !votes of "I Object and Oppose" with no further explanation.

The RfC did not end the debate at this article. In April 2017, hidden text referencing WikiProject Firearms was added to the criminal use section: "READ FIRST: Entries in this section must abide by the criteria in Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms#Criminal use". When the text was challenged, editors were directed to the Wikiproject Firearms talk page. Editors claimed that the hidden text hadn't actually prevented anything from being added (which makes one wonder what its purpose was), while also arguing that it was added in response to a specific attempt to add content: "It is meant as a first line to prevent recurrent problems such as this." ("This" links to a content discussion about a picture of a memorial plaque, which isn't a discussion that we should be trying to prevent.)

"Colt AR-15" vs "AR-15" vs "Modern Sporting Rifle"
Like many readers, I searched for "AR-15" after the Parkland shooting and was redirected to Colt AR-15. This page received over 200,000 views on February 15, 2018, the day after the shooting, but at the time it consisted entirely of technical descriptions and made no mention of mass shootings. You see, the weapon used in the shooting wasn't actually an "AR-15"; it was a generic "AR-15 style rifle" (or "Modern sporting rifle", the politically-correct term coined by the National Shooting Sports Foundation and title of our article at the time) made by Smith & Wesson. Directing readers to the right article seemed like it would have been a simple matter, but it was resisted every step of the way. Could we include a paragraph about the prevalence of AR-15-based rifles in mass shootings, since they are based on the Colt design? No, this article is about the Colt-branded model only. What about changing the redirect to "Modern sporting rifle" instead of "Colt AR-15"? No, this would be a copyright infringement since Colt owns the AR-15 trademark. Pageview statistics show that there was a problem: Smith & Wesson M&P15 (the weapon used in the shooting) received just over 9,000 views on February 15, and Modern sporting rifle had about 14,000. Most readers never made it to the article about the weapon used in the shooting or even its parent article.

When editors pointed out that readers were being misled to Colt AR-15 by the redirect, project members argued that editors should not come to "Colt AR-15" expecting to find information about generic AR-15s: "Should be redirecting to the Colt article, since that is their trademark. Most gun familiar people know this, and those that don't know this should learn it, as it is a specific model, not just a style of gun. We already have an article for the style. Second choice would be a dab page. There is some confusion about COMMONNAME, but within that industry, that is the common name for the Colt version." That's right, it was the readers' fault that they were being directed to the wrong article, and folks should school themselves on guns before trying to learn about them on Wikipedia. "AR-15" was finally retargeted to AR-15 style rifle on March 5, 2018 following an RfD discussion.

Meanwhile, Smith & Wesson M&P15 made no mention of the shooting. An unregistered editor did add three instances of criminal use on March 17th but was reverted almost immediately "per previous discussion on the subject". The "previous discussion" turned out to be a 2017 RfC which proposed adding several examples of criminal use. The RfC had been closed as "Consensus not to include the content" after being open for only 18 days, and the closer did not mention that most of the "Oppose" !votes incorrectly cited WP:FIREARMS as a bright-line policy. There was no further discussion of Parkland on the talk page until October 2018 when it was pointed out that the April 2018 Village Pump RfC had invalidated the WP:GUNS guideline which the 2017 consensus relied heavily on. This was derided as "an attempt to back door inclusion" and "forum shopping".

When a new RfC was opened, the first !vote was "OPPOSE AGAIN AND AGAIN" with no explanation. Another !vote cited the deprecated WP:GUNS interpretation of WP:WEIGHT: "Not significant in terms of any impacts on changes in laws. By weight, therefore, there is no reason to include this information." To date, the article does not make any mention of criminal use. In contrast, there seems to be no objection to including a handful of police departments which use the M&P15.

Project and community discussions
The guideline was added to the Wikiproject Firearms advice page in May 2007 following a project-level discussion, setting an arbitrarily high bar for inclusion that had not been discussed by the community and was not supported by existing policies and guidelines. This is in contrast to other advice on the same page such as the "users" section, which simply requires that police and law enforcement entries be sources: "When listing users of a certain weapon, only include users that have a citation to go with them. This citation must specifically say that the force/unit in question uses the weapon."

When editors sought to change the guideline through Wikiproject Firearms, the discussions were usually dominated by project members. The first major challenge, in 2008, is typical: An editor opened an RfC asking "Does the "Criminal use" section in the WikiProject Firearms guidelines conform or contradict our content policies, namely WP:NPOV?" and pointed out that the guideline is not supported by NPOV or UNDUE. They were met with accusations of trolling (a common theme) and claims that the criteria are "only examples", even though the legislation requirement was already being enforced as policy at this point. It was also suggested that the firearms topic should be treated differently than the rest of Wikipedia: "This is a specialized encylopedia subcategory and therefore should and does read like any other Firearms Encyclopedia." (Do firearms encyclopedias list every police department that uses each weapon?)

A 2011 discussion at Village Pump received a fair number of responses pointing out that WP:GUNS is non-binding, and one editor helpfully added an "Essay" template to the WP:FIREARMS style guide. Paradoxically, the advisory status of the page gave it a certain level of immunity: uninvolved editors felt that the advice was not problematic because it was clearly labelled as "just a recommendation." This consensus was ignored by project members aside from a single complaint that the proposer was trolling.

In October 2016, an editor provided a list of about 20 examples of misuse of the guideline and proposed that the guideline either be brought into compliance with policy or deleted. Similar to the 2011 Village Pump discussion, editors pointed out that the advice was in compliance because it carried a "just an essay" disclaimer. "I'm afraid I see a lot of opinions above about the material in question, but absolutely no policy basis to back them up. Are you suggesting that your opinions regarding the group's essay supercede some policy in some way, and therefore...what, exactly? The project be barred from posting an essay that is identified as an essay, because some people refer to it when editing? Again - describe the policy that the essay violates. It's a simple question."

Village Pump RfC
In February 2018, following a string of mass shootings in Las Vegas, Sutherland Springs and Parkland, controversy broke out at multiple Firearms articles and editors decided to consolidate the discussions at WikiProject Firearms. At the advice of others, I opened an RfC at Village Pump (Policy) which proved to be a turning point: "Should articles about firearms include information about mass shootings?" I also included a secondary question of whether or not criminal use should be included in AR-15 style rifle specifically. The discussion was very well-attended with over 60 editors weighing in, resulting in consensus to "determine whether the use of a particular firearm in mass shootings should be mentioned within the article for that firearm on a case by case basis, and in the case of AR-15 style rifle, it should be included. "

This should have put the matter to bed, but I encountered further resistance (including illustrations) when I proposed a rewrite of the Wikiproject advice to reflect current consensus. Most of the responses were simply complaints about the RfC or repeats of the same arguments against inclusion of criminal use. However, unlike past discussions, these hostile comments and refusal to change the guideline were clearly against community consensus, and discretionary sanctions could be used to counter POV-pushing. In the end, I changed the advice page to the following (bold for additions, strikethrough for removals):

This version is far less prescriptive, reflecting the outcome of the RfC. It provides several examples while pointing out the fact that this is to be discussed on a case-by-case basis in compliance with Wiki policy. More importantly, it cannot be used to shut down a discussion. This has led to more productive article-level discussions with fewer editors pointing to the project style guide as a "policy" or "guideline." Although there have been several attempts to remove content or label all criminal use as irrelevant, the RfC provides a clear indication that these blanket removals are against the wider community consensus.

Lessons learned

 * Talk page conduct matters. Consensus determines article content and talk pages are where consensus is built. Problematic article-space edits often trigger admin action by crossing a hard line such as 3RR, but false consensus achieved through filibustering and misapplication of policy tends to receive far less scrutiny even though it has the same effect. Walls of text and personal attacks are not part of our consensus-building process; they are behavioral issues which should be addressed promptly.


 * Project space content matters. Concerns about Wikiproject Firearms guidance were often dismissed because it was "just an essay" with no formal standing. The fact is that advice which goes against our policies and guidelines does not serve a valid purpose and should not be tolerated. A project's interpretation of a guideline should reflect community consensus, not prescribe it, and project pages should not be used to host the opinions of project participants.


 * Consensus should not be based on a majority vote. When closing a discussion, editors almost always announce that it is not a vote before proceeding to count up the !votes and declare the side with the most !votes the winner. In Project space, project members can easily win the vote due to higher turnout. We need to do a better job of assessing policy-based arguments even if they come from the "losing" side. In the few cases where a closer actually evaluated the arguments made in a criminal use discussion, it turned out that many of the !votes on the majority "do not include" side were counter to policy.


 * Diversity is important. Often, the folks who are the most interested in and knowledgeable about a topic are also be the ones who push a certain POV. Firearms articles in particular are full of descriptions and statistics that are boring and bewildering to the average editor, and the few outsiders who dared to dip their toes in the water were often asked not to edit in this area due to their lack of specialized knowledge. However, experienced editors can recognize and call out policy and guideline violations with only a minimal understanding of the topic. Long-term ownership behavior should have been obvious to anyone who gave these articles more than a cursory look.

(header for Springee's piece)

 * By Springee
 * Note: taken from talk page comments at WP:POST/SUBMIT. Need to check Springee is okay with this. Could also be further developed, formatted with subheadings, etc.

I previously addressed the flaws with the Verge article on a user talk page ([]search for the paragraph starting, "So I have a bit of time and thought I would share my take"). The OpEd author read and appears to have agreed with my criticisms of the Verge and Verge parrot articles.

The shortish version is this was simple a confused mess regarding where information should actually go, not a conspiracy. In 2005 the "AR-15" article was created and it talked about the Armalite AR-15 and it's derivative rifles. "AR-15" is actually a trademark of Colt and at some point the article became "Colt AR-15" and editors wanted to limit the scope of content to only that which specifically involved "Colt" rifles, not AR-15 clones. At the time AR-15 -> Colt AR-15 the Armalite specific material was spun off into its own page. Generic discussions of AR-15 clones appear to have been moved to the already existing Modern Sporting Rifle page. At the time the MSR page would include AR-15's as well as semi-auto rifles that aren't based on the original AR pattern, for example some versions of the Mini-14. When the AR-15 page was split into the brand specific Colt and Armalite pages it appears no one created a generic location for "AR-15" searches. Thus editors who searched for "AR-15" found the Colt AR-15 page (as mentioned in the OpEd).

Not unreasonably, involved editors said the page should only cover material involving "Colt" manufactured rifles. Consider that "Coke" is often used as a generic name for cola drinks (get something out of the "Coke machine"). It certainly wouldn't be OK to include a generic discussion of say removing "cola" from schools on the "Coke-a-cola" page. A similar situation had developed with editors trying to add "AR-15" material that didn't specifically involve a Colt product to the "Colt AR-15" page. My first involvement with the area was in these discussions. Editors suggested this could be addressed by creating a generic "AR-15 clone" page. Being as this is Wikipedia, pages only get created if someone actually takes the effort to make it happen. Editors who wanted to avoid the constant fights trying to keep generic AR-15 crimes out of the Colt article could have created a generic page sooner. Editors who wanted a place to put such information into an AR-15 page also could have created the page. In, I think 2017, someone did take initiative and, incorrectly, redefined the scope of the MSR page. Rather than saying AR-15's are a type of MSR, they changed the definition to MSR=AR-15 (Colt and clones). This still wasn't a complete fix. Editors such as the OpEd's author were rightly confused when a search for a generic AR-15 article went to the Colt AR-15 page which lacked any of the generic topics they felt should be included. It didn't help that some felt the "generic" page had an obscure, euphemistic name. So after debate in March 2018 the MSR page was changed to the generic AR-15 page and gained a section talking about crimes and mass shooting. It should be noted that as a result there is no page for the broader topic that used to be called MSR.

What should be the take away from this?
 * 1) If you are constantly seeing editors pushing back and saying that content doesn't go here perhaps the correct solution is figure out where it does go.  While the current solution didn't come about easily it was actually both "sides" working together that made it happen.
 * 2) Sometimes it isn't a conspiracy... unless you consider a bunch of editors waiting for someone else to fix the problem a form of conspiring.  This is where the Verge article got it so wrong.  They assumed the reason for any content rejection must be due to coordinated censorship.  They didn't consider that sometimes insertions are just low quality or the information really doesn't fit in that article.

Final note, the OpEd suggests that a change in Project Firearms guidelines opened the door to fix these issues after a "landmark" RfC but also suggest that editors are still defying the outcome of that RfC by mentioning the Smith & Wesson M&P15 article. In fact many were critical of the landmark RfC due to the muddled and confusing nature of the questions being asked. In the end the changes to the guideline were slight and really just removed a single sentence (rightfully in my opinion) that had been part of the article for less than a year. The outcome was actually in line with some of the previous discussions of the subject. The OpEd mention of the M&P-15 page was given as sort of a "more work ahead". In 2017 a RfC resulted in a consensus to exclude some crime coverage into the article. A little over a year later, an editor attempted to insert nearly identical information. Editors in favor of insertion argued that the landmark RfC negated the previous RfC citing that some editors (but not the closing editor) had cited the project guidelines. This was covered by the OpEd which also lamented that the material is, to this day, not in the article. It failed to mention why. A new RfC again found a consensus against inclusion. I hope this sheds at least some light on the issues with this OpEd article. Springee (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)