User:Lightbreather/Push is a myth

Wikipedia articles are meant to be neutral: NPOV in WikiSpeak. Some Wikipedia articles are not neutral. Often, such articles lack balance or give undue weight to certain viewpoints. Someone who edits to improve these articles, following Wikipedia policies, is not POV pushing. Someone who remains civil while editing to improve articles is following policy. Making an issue of another editor's adherence to civility is bad faith editing. Editors who accuse other editors of "civil POV pushing" (AKA WP:CRUSH and WP:PUSH) are attempting to draw focus away from content issues and to make an issue of the editor (it is usually one editor) who is proposing a change or changes. Civil POV pushing is a myth.

Civility is Wikipedia policy, though it does not outweigh the NPOV policy. If an editor civilly proposes to expand an article using language or sources that are incompatible with NPOV, that expansion can be legitimately declined on content policy alone. If an editor civilly proposes to remove from an article language or sources that are compatible with NPOV, that too can be legitimately declined on content policy alone. But many Wikipedia articles fall below the "good article" (GA) grade. (And even good articles can be improved.) If an editor or group of editors cannot give legitimate policy reasons for opposing another editor's proposals or reverting an editor's edits, what should be examined is the POV of the section in question, perhaps even the article.

Editors who accuse others of "civil POV pushing" often have more editing history and/or they may be part of an editorial majority in the topic area in question; they know what comprises true POV pushing. They also know that "civil POV pushing" is an essay. Editors who are accused of WP:CRUSH or WP:PUSH are often newer editors to a topic area, perhaps to Wikipedia itself. Newer editors may not distinguish between essays, behavioral guidelines, and policies, causing them to become confused or frightened by the alphabetti spaghetti. This places them in a defensive position, which can lead to disruptive editing or even the loss of an editor.

To reiterate, if an editor or group of editors cannot give legitimate policy reasons for opposing an editor's proposals or reverting another editor's edits, the problem is not the other editor's composure. In such a situation, the proposals, the edits, perhaps even the whole article, should be properly, politely opened to outside review.

Behaviors
Editors who accuse others of "civil POV pushing" (wikilinks WP:CRUSH and WP:PUSH) have forgotten or chosen to ignore Wikipedia's third pillar: Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit. They are often editors or groups of editors who are also primary contributors to an article or topic area. Because they feel a sense of ownership they wish to defend an article's point of view. However, unless an article's grade is "good article" (GA) or better, there is always ample room for improvement. Behaviors of editors who accuse others of WP:CRUSH or WP:PUSH may include these:

Locality

 * They often edit primarily or entirely on one topic or theme.

Neutrality

 * They endeavor to keep the status quo, maintaining undue weight on their preferred point of view.
 * They attempt to exclude or marginalize prominent, reliably sourced viewpoints despite the NPOV requirement for balance.
 * They attempt to keep or give undue weight to POVs backed by questionable sources.

Editing and Discussions

 * They engage in status quo stonewalling.
 * They use the talk page for soapboxing.
 * They stress their expertise and/or their experience/standing as an editor in the subject area or Wikipedia in general.
 * They dismiss or criticize proposals to use Requests for comment (RFC), a Third opinion (3O), Mediation, or the Dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN). (They may also refer to noticeboards as "drama boards.")
 * They may abuse edit summaries.
 * They may edit war.
 * Single editors may recruit meat puppets; groups of editors may engage in tag teaming.

Civility

 * Wikipedia policy is, Comment on content, not on the contributor. Editors who accuse others of "civil POV pushing" get personal. This may include:
 * Questioning others' knowledge and/or their ability to assess a source. They may cite the "Competence is required" essay.
 * Using "you" statements in discussions and edit summaries.
 * Labeling others or otherwise discrediting their opinion based on their associations rather than the core of their argument. See ad hominem.
 * Misrepresenting others in an attempt to incriminate or belittle. See WP:Casting aspersions.

Locus, principles and suggested remedies
Topic areas most affected by this problem make for a long list, but what they have in common is their controversial nature.

The most important Wikipedia principle is collaborative editing to improve content. This requires following both the civility policy and NPOV. Expertise in a topic area, experience or standing in the community, and being part of an editorial majority do not exempt editors from policy.

Suggested remedies:
 * Accounts, whether individuals or groups, that use Wikipedia for the sole or primary purpose of advocating a specific agenda at the expense of collaborative editing to improve the encyclopedia should be warned, restricted, or ultimately blocked by any uninvolved administrator, regardless of their expertise in a topic area, their experience or standing in the community, or their being part of an editorial majority.
 * Accounts, whether individuals or groups, that treat a topic as their own at the expense of collaborative editing to improve the encyclopedia should be warned, restricted, or ultimately blocked by any uninvolved administrator, regardless of expertise in a topic area, experience or standing in the community, or being part of an editorial majority.
 * If an editor or group of editors insists on accusing another editor of "civil POV pushing" they should be reminded that civility is a Wikipedia policy and advised to review the try to fix problems section of the editing policy.
 * If the editor or group of editors continues to accuse the other editor of WP:CRUSH or WP:PUSH, or to otherwise cast aspersions, they should be warned, restricted and ultimately blocked by any uninvolved administrator.

An "involved administrator"--for the purposes of allowing uninvolved administrators to impose sanctions on problem users--is one who has a recent (past 30 days), personal conflict with a problem user on the issue at hand.'''

Policies

 * Achieving neutrality - The core of the NPOV policy.
 * WP:No personal attacks
 * WP:Ownership of content
 * WP:List of policies - If it's not here, it's not a policy. Not to say guidelines and essays don't count, but it's good to remind ourselves sometimes what officially tops our hierarchy of values.

Behavioral guidelines

 * WP:Assume good faith
 * WP:Etiquette
 * WP:Gaming the system
 * WP:Please do not bite the newcomers

Essays

 * WP:POV railroad
 * WP:Tag team
 * WP:WikiSpeak