Wikipedia:Requests for comment/The Plague

Following on from User:Moreschi's comments at Administrators Noticeboard about "The Plague" (of nationalism, but similar issues can apply on religion), this RFC is to brainstorm/examine ideas which might help with the general problem of nationalist editing on Wikipedia. Any promising ideas would then be developed further in individual RFCs. An example of a prior RFC of this type is Requests for comment/new users.

Rd232 talk 17:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Community Service
Well, to kick things off, here's a suggestion (Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision) that as an additional tool (versus blocks and bans), editors involved in conflict might be given "community service", such as transcribing documents on Wikisource. Equally, editors might be required to do specified maintenance tasks, such as wikifying 50 articles from the relevant maintenance category to a reasonable standard (listing them on a user subpage for easy checking). Particularly appropriate in conflict cases might be identifying tasks which require editors to do substantive maintenance work (wikification requires relatively little thought for experienced editors) on areas other than those where conflict has arisen, such as adding appropriate references to 25 random unreferenced BLPs (excluding any which relate at all to the problem topic). Rd232 talk 17:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Rd232: As suggested by Skomorokh I will try to step back from the current litigation. As neutrally as possible I would note three points on the subject. First, community service must be designed in a way that does not add burden on existing admin forces. Cost of administering/mentoring just one "probation term" is high, imagine two cops watching one crook sweeping the streets, dusk to dawn. Second, community service is not for everyone: some editors are competent enough and may be willing to do the task, but not others. Community service as a tool to retain a disruptive but otherwise valuable contributor is one thing, community service for an SPA not known for content-building - get real... Third. Community service seems to have little deterrent value in it (time will tell) and thus should not replace hard blocks. Rather, it should follow blocks, sort of a get back to life adjustment. NVO (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: the monitoring cost - that's an important issue, which is why I suggested that probationers (?) create a subpage listing work done. Random checks on list items should be enough, given the threat of substantial consequences from claiming to have done the work when they haven't. Plus, for a lot of the maintenance work, if community service were to become a Big Thing, a bot could check that pages on the list don't have the specified problem any more, reducing (though not eliminating) the need for human checking. Rd232 talk 09:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: costs - it also depends on the nature of the "community service". Some forms are obviously going to be easier to enforce then others. For example, John V's Wikisource proposal would be both easy to enforce in terms of quantity/quality of work done and also (and this has been raised as a concern) in terms of NPOV. Other things, like say, requiring that a user creates 4 DYKs a month would also be fairly easy - though a bit harder - to enforce and the quality and NPOV would be enforced through already existing Wikipedia structures (i.e. the DYK page). Removing copyvio would require engagement by an interested party - though I think Moonriddengirl's been asking for people to work with left and right (so I'm sure she'd appreciate a few "work release" editors). Requiring sourcing of articles and things like that would be fairly labor intensive to oversight.radek (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: not for everyone - completely agree with NVO. I think a bit of a history as a content creator would be a pre-requisite. Also, if repeated terms of "community service" don't work (in the sense of making the editor behave better wrt to regular editing) then they shouldn't be applied - use blocks and bans instead. The community service should be seen as a privilege not a right.radek (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: deterrent value - being completely realistic here, it's most likely the case that sometimes they will improve editor's behavior and sometime they won't (nothing's perfect). In the cases where they don't - see my previous point. But they would allow content editors to keep on contributing to the project without radicalizing them (and sometimes bans and blocks DO radicalize some editors), they will show editors that there's more to the encyclopedia then just "battles" (and some might actually come to enjoy this less stress free existence) and finally they will take up time that a particular editor would normally devote to causing trouble (unless of course their misbehavior consisted of outright vandalism and blatant, easy to carry out, violations of policy - in which case, again see point above).radek (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Couple other points: How would these community service terms be handed out, what would determine their nature and length/quantity? Would they be in the nature of "discretionary community service" in the same way as "discretionary sanctions"? I think that could work, provided that a list is made (and since this is a Wikipedia, this can be done via normal editing of the list) of potential projects that can be assigned, so that ruling admins aren't forced (though they may well want) to think up "stuff to do" themselves.radek (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever the merits of this idea as an alternative to blocks and bans, it seems to reflect the "crime and punishment" mindset that has arisen in response to these problems, and which has been found not to solve them. Punishment is not what we do; building a complete and neutral encyclopedia is our goal, and that should be what we concentrate on. --Kotniski (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree. While there's an element of punishment in it, there's obviously an element of punishment in blocks and bans, however much we sometimes pretend that these are just "preventative" - they're certainly often seen as "punishment" by the blocked and banned. And this community service would, if it works, definitely help build a complete and neutral encyclopedia by redirecting efforts from trouble-causing (however well intentioned) to productive, though mundane work (and the lack of labor supply for important mundane work is itself a problem).radek (talk) 10:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record in spirit of being upfront, I am an involved party at the current Eastern European mailing list arbitration case (although not as a member of the web brigade mailing list). In responding to some of the above, what Radek points out is not all that should be considered with such a hypothetical alternative, although he is clearly writing about specific events/editors. Other things that would need to be considered are:


 * Are we only discussing editors here? Or are we talking about admins? Admins, who supposedly have the trust of the community, and are expected to know accepted standards of behaviour and are supposed to help to enforce these standards in an equitable fashion on site.
 * Has the editor been involved in disputes in the past? Have they been parties to previous arbitration cases? If they are, they are likely aware of problems which exist in the area, and may have even been subject to findings of fact or remedies in those cases. If they were subject to remedies, what remedies were they subjected to? For example, if it was a ban from the project, then community service would not be a valid substitute.
 * Is the editor remorseful? Have they acknowledged what they did was wrong? Have they apologised? It doesn't matter how much content an editor may create, if they refuse to even recognise that they did anything wrong, then such an option should not be considered.
 * If there is a combination of both of the points that I have raised, then community service should surely not be considered, and any block or ban would not be seen as punitive, but rather preventative, given the history. It is not all about content, and it should never be that way.

It is my opinion that things such as community service could be used a carrot in some low level circumstances, but not in matters where a stick is actually warranted. In the case that Radeksz is clearly referring to, I can only concur with NVO's opinion, in that community service is something that an editor can do to help them return to editing. I will say, that when I have found myself being stressed onwiki, and knowing that I may get myself in the shit if I don't destress, I will often go to Commons and upload materials there; uploading of materials to commons could be another option; or checking categorisation of files with no categories, etc, but this should only be used for low level offences. --Russavia Dialogue 11:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The "cooling off" element you identify is one of the major attractions. It can serve to draw editors into other areas, where they encounter different people and topics. We haven't said so yet explicitly, but this "cooling off" element might well be reinforced by a temporary topic ban. i.e. "forget about X for a while, explore other stuff, starting with these things". It might serve to give people a break from each other, reduce drama, and allow people to develop new interests. So whilst there's obviously a punishment aspect, for me that's not so important (not least because it's always fundamentally optional, since participation in Wikipedia is optional!). Rd232 talk 13:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Another aspect to think about: it might help problematic editors to learn certain things (about NPOV and use of sources, perhaps), in an environment where the temperature is a bit lower (anywhere outside topic X). And yes, they might end up editing in other areas anyway with a simple temporary topic ban, but some clear productive tasks would make that more likely. Without the community service in addition, just disappearing, or socking, or skirting the edges of the topic ban, are surely more likely. Rd232 talk 13:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I see community service as an alternative to a block/ban. It should be applied to editors who promise to avoid disruptive behavior that resulted in the sanction (such a promise can be further enhanced by restrictions, voluntary or not, such as 1RR or article bans or such). If such editors refuse to do community service or break the restrictions during the period they were set for the community service should be "upgraded" to a block/ban. An important function of the community service is that it shows the community still has (limited, but still) trust and respect for an editor, which is likely to increase his/her productivity and prevent them from leaving the project after a perceived injustice. Even more importantly, it helps the project. A banned editor taking forced wikiholidays helps no one, the same editor doing community service work is an undeniable asset. Remember: our punishments are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. People who express regret at their actions and want to atone for them should be given a chance to do so. Things to consider: PS. Disclaimer: I am currently facing a potential block/ban myself and I'd prefer to help the community via community service rather than take a forced holiday from the project (to which I've contributed for over 5 years and in which I am the 57th most active editor...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) in what instances community service should (not) be offered an an option to blocks/bans (assuming that the editor being sanctioned wants to do community service)?
 * 2) should certain sanctions such as a topic ban be set on an uncertain duration "until a given number of community service tasks is done?" or alternatively, should the "ban/block" sanction be suspended under a condition "it will be removed at the end of the sanction period if the community service was fulfilled or reintroduced if it wasn't"?
 * 3) we need an easy way to quantity and check community service contributions. To make it easy, I propose that each month of a ban equals 100 community service points, that we create a list of tasks that are applicable for community service (for example: transcription of a page on wikisource - 1 point), and that the responsibility for presenting a log of service done is put on the sanctioned user - s/he needs to create a userpage in which a diff of each community service task is logged, so that a supervising volunteer can quickly check if the quote has been reached
 * You can add watching over other "probationers" to the list below. That would reduce the load on admins required to watch the service. I can imagine a brigade of several people providing the community service and one brigadier who counts the points, assigns tasks (to avoid overlaps), collects statistics, writes recommendations, and takes responsibility for every member of his brigade. I'd like to warn you however, that it is precisely the system usually employed in prisons. (Igny (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC))

Comment: whilst it's suggested as an alternative to blocks and bans, some of the appeal of community service is that it might be a measure actually employed for lesser offences where people are reluctant to block/ban. WP:CIVIL violations in particular might spring to mind. In some cases such community service might phrased as recommended "penance" or "atonement" to demonstrate good will, rather than a mandatory measure, and refusal to do it might count against the editor in future. Rd232 talk 12:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to add something here that disagrees with both Piotrus and Russavia. And that's a VERY BIG OBJECTION to the idea that an editor's "remorse" or "confessions" should be a factor in deciding whether community service or a block is the appropriate action. History of disruptive action, or lack of it, YES, of course. But "remorse" and "confessions" definitely NO. Why? Simple - it's a horrible guideline in the making, horrible incentives, potentially (likely) very unfair and wayyyyyyy open to gaming. It builds in a presumption of guilt - that an editor that is being accused of something did in fact do that something. It's taken straight out of the medieval Inquisition playbook where if you confess, you're declared guilty and made to wear the scarlet letter (community service), and if you don't confess you're thrown into the pyre to see if God will save the innocent from the flames (blocks and bans).

Why is it open to gaming? Simple - accuse some editor you don't like who you're in a content dispute with of something totally ridiculous. When they try to defend themselves against false accusations jump in screaming "see, see, they're not even remorseful! Ban them, community service is too good for them!". Collect your spoils. And of course, given the amount of detail and attention that admins actually pay in making decisions in topics they're unfamiliar with, this kind of thing will work all the time and as a result will HAPPEN all the time. This proposal would work AGAINST the very spirit of what this RfC is trying to ameliorate.

Of course, remorse and confession in cases where it is appropriate is a GOOD THING. But trying to build in a requirement/need for these when deciding sanctions is going to do far more damage than good. It would be another instance where Wikipedia makes the perfect an enemy of the good.

Stay away from this idea. Do we really need to repeat every single Institutional mistake from 100,000+ years of human history?radek (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we all know now that even scanned copies of pages are not 100% trutworthy. Having said that, I think one service which might be invaluable might be for individuals to either upload public domain material to wikisource, particularly histories, biographies, biographical or historical dictionaries (my own favorite), preferably from somewhere like JSTOR or somewhere else which can be counted as having made reliable copies, and maybe start work on translating them for wikisource. Such material could then serve as the basis for articles on some of the subjects covered, not only in the English wikipedia but other languages as well. It might require a bit ore active effort in confirming the translations if the editor involved is one counted as being potentially biased, but new good material could still be generated and potentially used in the various encyclopedias. John Carter (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Community service list of tasks to do
Per my comment above, let's create a list of tasks to do and assign them points (or should they all be worth just 1 point)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * transcribing a page on Wikisource
 * proofreading a page on Wikisource
 * validating a page on Wikisource
 * uploading a photo to Commons
 * adding a description to a photo on Commons
 * categorizing a page (media) that is missing a category on Wikipedia or Commons
 * fulfilling a task on a cleanup backlog on Wikipedia
 * creating a requested article on Wikipedia, at least start quality (for that and following option, see point system here)
 * creating or expanding an uncontroversial article on Wikipedia

Content administrators
I believe one of the most pernicious consequences of nationalism and other POV pushing (fringe views on science and pseudoscientific topics, for instance) is that the attempt to combat it using every method EXCEPT actually making judgments about the facts at issue produces perverse consequences. The effort to fight against POV often becomes completely bogged down in wikilawyering over the exact nature of reliable sources and what is synthesis or original research and what is a valid summary, or how many reverts in how many hours - because there is no other ground on which to make a stand. As a consequence, rigid and maximalist interpretation of policies becomes the only way to fight against POV biases, and this in turn acts to make editing more difficult even on topics that are not subject to nationalist flame wars. My opinion is that the current admins who enforce wikipedia policy need to be supplemented by community chosen content administrator/arbitrators with expert knowledge in the area. It's time to face the fact that in contentious topics, editors with a strongly biased POV are often much more motivated and committed than unbiased editors. The nettle of making content-based decisions about the best available portrayal of truth and terminology must be grasped. At present, "the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." Ben Kidwell (talk) 09:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * May I undescore two sets of keywords: community chosen and content administrators. Each deserves a broad discussion and none has a working mechanism... yet. While I support the gist of Moreschi's most recent AN proposal, I am afraid of a slippery slope ending in a "Vote Republican" policy (or, given the demographic base of wikipedians, it may well be the opposite). NVO (talk) 09:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This one is along the lines of the "Tribunes" I suggested at Moreschi's original proposal at AN. As NVO hints at - you're just not going to be able to find enough "content administrators" in troublesome areas, both because people don't want to deal with all the crap and also because a lot of knowledge is pretty specialized (it probably takes far longer to become familiar with a topic area that one hasn't edited much before than to become an admin). I mean, it'd be great if we could find these content administrators, or somehow magically change what people who vote in RfAs base their decisions on but that's mostly wishful thinking.

Rather, having one admin "supervisor" for a particular topic area and devolving some of the most basic admin functions - in particular, page protection and short article blocks - to non-admin editors (the Tribunes) who've shown they know the topic and create content in the area, would work better. The supervisor admin wouldn't have to be a super-expert in a topic area (just some familiarity would be sufficient) and the Tribunes (who'd hold the position for a pre-specified amount of time, not indefinitely) would do the task of putting out the fires before they flame up, and have the knowledge to direct it to appropriate articles/editors. And a successful tenure or two as a Tribune would hopefully be seen positively if the editor ever wants to file an RfA and in the long run (again, being realistic here) would lead to more "content administrators". For more details (probably too many and too sloppily presented) see the suggestion at original threat at AN.radek (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The details of how this would work would obviously need to be discussed at length, but I very much agree with Ben and think this is the sort of path we should be going down. The present anarchic editing model, while it works very well for most articles, is clearly breaking down in certain topic areas where feelings about certain matters run high. We need to make sure that the right editorial decisions are being taken for the right reasons, and that editors are not forced into situations where they have to choose between joining in a fight and getting out altogether.--Kotniski (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Some interesting ideas. May I just point people to a precursor of this RFC, User:Folantin/Userspace Folantin5/Archive1. Moreschi (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In the past, I've been a little uncertain whether programs of this sort might lead to a concentration upon one particular POV. I think this might apply here--the question is, how to select the Tribune. I don't see it as a preliminary step to admin, because I see it as considerably harder.   DGG ( talk ) 02:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that the selection process here is the trickiest part. The key part of it would be that the criteria for selection would revolve around the fact that a particular editor has been active in serious content creation in a given topic area. It would require a presence of a "neutral space" (like Controversial Topic Area/Noticeboard) where various ... factions ... can come and express their opinions. The trick is to allow editors to choose one of their own, who is knowledgeable but possibly even somewhat controversial. I'd say that something like this could work (maybe with modifications): decide on the # of positions for a particular topic area, say 3. People either self-nominate or are nominated. Everyone who's "signed up" as a member of a particular topic area/noticeboard gets 1 vote - which can be used only once during a pre-specified period of time (which would roughly correspond to a Tribune's tenure) and can be used either as a "for" or "against" vote but not both. So if I want person X to be a Tribune but don't want person Y to be one, I got to choose. At that point, once a nomination is made, give it a week and do simple majority voting. Final appointment, given an approval vote, would be subject to veto by the overseeing administrator - for example, on the grounds that a particular faction (and factions will always exist) is already overrepresented, or that a particular nominee is not really a content creator. The fact that editors would have to choose between voting "for" their candidates or voting "against" other candidates would help to ensure that only "serious" candidates are nominated - so that only those with the strongest feelings and POV attitude will waste their vote on voting "against". It would also foster compromise - supposing that this kind of system was in place right now, I can imagine a number of editors that I disagree with quite strongly but would not vote "against" as long as there's a candidate that I would be willing to vote "for".radek (talk) 08:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to note here that, although radek is spot-on about the need for grasping content-related disputes by dealing directly with the content, it'll never happen in a satisfactory way. (Although I wish it could.) The reason is that in many cases to effectively moderate content-related disputes one needs to have more than a working knowledge of the subject. Take the archetype of nationalistic disputes, Israel-Palestinian subjects: I think it is fair to say that each side sees itself as allied with the angels, & the other as allied with Satan himself. At the same time, it is fair to say that each side has been guilty of (to put it mildly) acts of improper -- or unbecoming -- behavior. One side makes an assertion that X happened, & the other responds with denials that X happened, the facts surrounding X are wrong, or that X is not notable -- or a combination of these, either at once or in series. A would-be mediator needs to research the subject of Isreal-Palestinian history/culture to arrive at an independent conclusion, then must have the necessary confidence & willpower enforce her/his conclusion. (Of course, then there is the problem that as soon as one group of disputants is dealt with, a new, equally determined group appears to renew the conflict.) That is why most Admins call in sick when when there is work involving settling disputes between ethnic/nationalities. -- llywrch (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The only way I can see this as working is if it is integrated into the Mediation Committee. For even that to work, we would probably benefit from having it be possible for ArbCom or some outside entity to initiate mediation, even over the lack of consent of some of the participants themselves. However, I can see how it might be possible if the Mediation Committee were given the option of either nominating or designating the neutral Tribunes with the parties of the mediation doing the actual selection. Under those circumstances, I could see it working, although the problem of how to resolve questions which arise after the mediation ends would still be at least a potential problem. John Carter (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Too wikipedian. We need to erect a social hierarchy based on expertise, with an accompanying respect-contempt gradient. We need to allow experts to forcibly resolve disputes in favour of themselves; and where they disagree, chances are they'll be gentlemen and WILL work it out. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 13:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'd go as far as that - although the first sentence I certainly agree with, Deacon - but the extent of Sword-skeleton theory at this project has just got ridiculous. Moreschi (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For experts to be recognized, they cannot be anonymous (vide Essjay controversy and all that). I have long argued against anonymity, but not only I've been a lone voice in thw woods (I am probably the only non-anonymous editor in this discussion), but in the recent weeks I've come to regret my non-anonymity, as I've become a target of serious off-Wikipedia harassment fueled by information that was made available on-Wikipedia. I've also had many interactions with academics who anonymous or not left that project saying that they don't like being flamed/harassed, and certainly don't want certain comments to be made more public on the off-chance their professional colleagues, some of whom don't even know what flaming means, could take them (and most of Wikipedia discussions, with common personal attacks and such...) seriously. Bottom line: until non-anonymity is seriously rewarded and non-anonymous editors protected, this project will never be expert-friendly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Just think about how human beings normally work. If you're a stone age hunting band trying to kill a leopard, then you give most authority to the guy who's been on previous leopard hunts. If you're on a ship, you'll probably give power to the best and most experienced sailor. If you're building an encyclopedia, then you give power and respect to experts. That's how our species works. It's ideological crap like the stuff behind wiki that messes this natural health up. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 13:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am thinking of how people work. In this particular case, absolute power corrupts absolutely is potentially relevant, and is potetially a very real problem in what you propose, particularly given the anonymity which is more or less inherent in wikiedia. How are we to know that someone really is an expert, rather than just a very thorough noobie? Maybe the best specific proposal I can think of is this. If, at the agreement of ArbCom and MedCom, an issue is apparently one that is not going to be resolved through normal means, we allow the two bodies to name a group of (random somewhat large number - 9 or 13) individuals who are generally knowledgable in the broad subjedt, who have not been involved in the dispute. After a predetermined period of time, having had the "sides" present their cases, those sides are polled to determine if there is something they can agree on. If they can't, the appointees select from among themselves, with the non-binding input of the partisans, three (maybe five) individuals who will have the task of making the final decision regarding the specific question(s) before them. This would allow for attrition, which I think is virtually certain to be a very real problem. Upon conclusion, the board is unseated. John Carter (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Too complicated. Deacon, there are good reasons why experts should not be able to arbitrate their own disputes: sysops should have the ability to recognise sword-skeleton theory when they see it, and act accordingly. Experts can and do throw temper tantrums; they should be given leeway but brought back into line when required. Genuine trolls who push sword-skeleton theories should just be banned. It's that simple, but the inability/stupidity of the admin corps, who can't recognise the problem, has not improved any since I originally wrote User:Moreschi/The Plague many moons ago now. In fact, it is depressing reality that I wrote that essay over two years ago now and it's barely dated at all: if you substitute "CSN" for "discretionary sanctions", and "5000 +sysop twinklebots" for "5000 +sysop hugglebots", it still all makes perfect sense. Which is not good at all. Moreschi (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it might be worth, the proposal I made above is basically what ArbCom imposed in WP:ARBMAC2, with the addition of redundancies for attrition which has been demonstrated in some of the other reconciliation plans ArbCom and others have created. And I have been in a few discussions where it is impossible to find outside experts. In matters regarding some minor subjects, in this case little-known or written about religious denominations, the only people who actually are in a position to know anything about the subject are the informed combatants. In those cases, I looked for information, and was able to find very little, even in the local theology/religion libraries. Cases like that, which may well be rather rare, are almost certainly going to be problems in any event. John Carter (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

@Moreschi, I think we should talk more about is than ought at this stage. Yes, sysops ought to be able to recognise all these things, but they won't. Few such disputes are actually so obvious that the average wiki sysop can see the problem. Yes, the experts often throw tantrums, but that's often partly because they know there'll be no easy way to solve the "dispute" ... as I satirise at User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/How to win a revert war. Everything's about power. If we're gonna have things like WP:Edit war, they shouldn't just be used to empower hordes of POV pushing tendies. If you are professor at Harvard, and for some reason you are editing in this place, you shouldn't be subject to a revert restriction nor incur "peer" sanctimony for enforcing accuracy on an article in your field area. If you had to revert 10 times, then that's just because you had to ... AND the content of the article is more important than how it got there, because this place is for the readers, not the editors. But the current wiki discourse community thinks the opposite. And that's because it is ideologically crippled, taken over by a series of meme-monsters, and focusing on the egos of its editors and making the admin's job as easy as possible. Nothing will get better until the biggest meme-monsters are slain and these focuses are reorientated. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 10:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, by talking about professors at Harvard, I am reminded of a rather long-term intermittent discussion at Talk:Athanasius of Alexandria about whether the statements of a Harvard professor in his books implying if not actually stating that Athanasius engaged in gangland behavior with his enemies. As it turns out, the professor did in fact make such allegations in his books, but there seems to be not even any mention of them by anyone else in any professional or topical ournals, includin multiple reviews of the books in question. That to me points out the probable problems of allowing the "experts" control of content, particularly if that Harvard professor is the expert involved in determining the content of tht article. Just being a professor doesn't necessarily make that person more likely to abide by the rules here than anyone else. John Carter (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Appointing experts to oversee certain areas is tricky. Dana Ullmann is an expert in homeopathy; he got banned from our pages on homeopathy, but wrote much of the Citizendium article. Can't we just have relevant WikiProjects mediate on content disputes? Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"One of the most pernicious consequences of nationalism and other POV pushing (fringe views on science and pseudoscientific topics, for instance) is that the attempt to combat it using every method EXCEPT actually making judgments about the facts at issue produces perverse consequences." - very well put, Ben Kidwell. Administrators are the problem. Meowy 20:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Admin Enrolment
RfA is broken. Of importance here is the desire among some RfA regulars to only appoint editors who have no controversies in their histories. Anyone editing tricky areas in wikipedia will have a lot of stuff on their talk page, many ANI links, maybe some blocks, etc. This doesn't always mean they're unsuited for adminship, it may mean they've faced a campaign of harassment. An easy way to fix this is to get more people involved in RfA, and to use the RfA talk pages to discuss the difficulties of tricky WP areas. Using the talk pages avoids the impression of co-ordinated 'badgering' of opposes, and allows many diffs showing discussion, NPOV, reliable verifiable sourcing, etc. It would also help if nominators mentioned in nom statements about difficult areas. This doesn't address the main complaint about RfA, but it's a start. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The argument has certainly been made that we need more admins to face controversy head on, which is frequently both difficult and unpleasant. We need to figure out how to recruit more admins who are both willing and able to do that. BUT I'm inclined to say we should leave the specific topic of promotion to admin status out of this RFC, because it's a perennial issue which has an obvious home at WT:RFA. The value-added of this RFC would be (IMHO) to find new ideas to explore. Rd232 talk 15:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with you. Feel free to remove this if you think that'll be useful.  I thought a brief mention might be handy because there's a link to the discussion on RfA. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:TIGERS
A major problem here is an inability to pick cases of WP:TIGERS: NPOV is guided by WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, as everybody knows. WP:TIGERS dictates that this should be applied to editors. Obviously there are split-down-the-middle cases: Liberalism can and should be written by conservative and liberal Wikipedians, Proto-Indo-European homeland can and should be written by people who follow Renfrew and people who follow Gimbutas on this. Rational application should dictate that homeopathy is not written by edit wars between homeopaths and non-homeopaths, any more than Afrocentrism is written by edit wars between Afrocentrists and non-Afrocentrists, any more than Out of India theory should be written by edit wars between Hindutva and non-Hindutva, any more than tiger is written by both tigers and non-tigers. Yes, there will be marginal cases where "mid-sized minority" isn't quite fringe and isn't quite mainstream, and no one says these are easy. But ultimately admins need to have the ability to get the obvious ones, at least. To pick a really obvious example, there needs to be a strong prejudice against homeopaths editing homeopathy, and the onus needs to be on them to prove their neutrality and ability to write without bias. Not the other way around. This can and should be written into policy somewhere. Moreschi (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * homeopathy is not written by edit wars between homeopaths and non-homeopaths, - isn't part of the problem that it's not "non-homeopaths" editing, but "fiercely anti-homeopath truthers" editing? And that it's not "homeopaths" editing, but "fiercely pro-homeopathic truthers"?  Anyone who could stick to NPOV got driven away years ago by editors *from both camps*.  Do topic bans provide some kind of help for this?  People have to show that they're actually NPOV, (not just "balancing" their opponents edits) or they face topic banning?  Or do ans just get ignored? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not think that anyone who actually knows about a topic can actually be NPOV--in examining a contested article, I usually find myself siding with one group or the other, even if it's something I never heard of previously. If you know enough about homeopathy or Hindutva to judge the article, you have a view on it--and the more you know, the more likely it is to be a strong one.  That doesn't mean it is impossible to make fair edits nonetheless, but it means being aware of one's POV & compensating for it.  DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But what is NPOV? How do we determine it? It is not six-of-one-and-half-a-dozen-of-the-other. We determine NPOV via examination of academic consensus (which, to carry on the example, holds that homeopathy is pseudoscientific nonsense). When push comes to shove, those whose views accord closest with academic consensus, no matter how obnoxious they may be personally, need to have our backing. Moreschi (talk) 08:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Originally, the idea around NPOV was that if there were multiple sides to an issue it's only fair to discuss them all. Take, for example, the matter whether George W. Bush is the worst president the US has ever had. (I only mention this because it is obviously grist for the mills of contention.) A reasonable implementation of NPOV would be to have a couple of paragraphs explaining the reasons for thinking he was, & a few paragraphs for thinking he wasn't. Now, to speak delicately, the answer to this question is apparent to all except a small but vocal minority who have no real defense for their opinion, so are forced to wikilawyer the concept of NPOV so their opinion will be included. (A hypothetical example of this might be to insist in demanding equal space being allotted to both points of view, then because they can't muster more than 100 words to defend their position, insist that the other party be limited to only 100 words.) Because of this, sometimes I wonder if the standard shouldn't be usefulness of the information, not a balance of viewpoints. Used in the example I mentioned -- about George W. Bush -- the issue of the quality of his presidency would be omitted for the large part because it is not useful information (anyone looking for that information already has made her/his mind up on the topic), & the article would then focus on what happened during his administration, how it came about & what has been said about them; a reference on one hand & a beginning for further research on the other. However, I doubt this approach will ever be implemented even on a trial basis. -- llywrch (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * People who show they can't edit an article without bias, or with care and skill should be banned from editing those articles. If you have a conflict of interest, stay away. Good people should do this voluntarily. Others should be forced to. This is supposed to be a frigging encyclopedia, but nationalists editing history articles has turned it into a laughing stock. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 05:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I'm sure if you looked at my first edits on Ethiopia-related articles, they were horrible, biassed & clumsy because I knew very little about the subject. (I know I made mistakes; sometimes I wonder what mistakes I've made which I don't know about.) I think I've improved markedly since then -- yet I have definite opinions about most of the topics related to Ethiopia, & doubtlessly some of these opinions shape what I write. Yet I know what you are trying to say Deacon, & feel that it could be implemented if we could find a solution which can be applied with tact & care. (Once upon a time, Wikipedians thought banning the troublemakers would fix our problems. Sheesh, while looking for something in the Wikipedia-L mailling list a few moments ago, I found a post from mid-2002 complaining that Wikiquette is not being enforced stringently enough; many of our problems have been with us since the beginning, & Wikipedia hasn't collapsed yet.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Prevent spillover
I would suggest that, whatever you come up with here, don't let it spill over into the rest of Wikipedia. I have been in at least a dozen or so content disputes where little or no admin intervention was necessary, and, faced with Wikipedia's "find consensus" directive, editors have actually proceeded (often somewhat unhappily) to do so - there are certain undesirable trends to that system, but by and large it works well. It's important that, when creating a system to address extreme and fractious cases, you don't inadvertently lose the virtues of the current system, which, for all its flaws, invites and encourages participation from all, at least until deliberate baiting towards incivility and admins with itchy block fingers get involved. I think the current regime under ArbCom has been admirable about defining particular areas where admins are given extraordinary emergency powers, and if I have a criticism, it is mainly that these definitions are too often taken broadly rather than restrictively. Ray Talk 02:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Naturally. "Find consensus" works fine if the parties in dispute are honest and reasonably educated (that is, over 90 percent of the time). Admin intervention is only ever necessary if one party is dishonest or just hasn't got a clue (and though the clueless may waste a lot of time, even then they rarely succeed in causing serious disruption. Moreschi (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Precisely. It is dishonesty and bad faith that is the problem here. If someone is willing to acknowledge that other people legitimately hold different views from their own and that these can be reasonably defended, then there can eventually be consensus. If some (more often than not nationalists, or otherwise ideologically committed folk) think that their mission is to promote one pov over another, using all the policy weapons at their disposal, then this is not possible. The problem as I see it is the convention that Admins who are "involved" cannot use Admin powers to resolve content disputes. But an involved admin is the only way to decipher whether an article is being edited in a neutral manner. Someone coming in from outside either won't be able to see through the fog on the talk page, or else they get involved, which then means they can't use Admin powers. It's a vicious circle. Basically the solution is to give back respected Admins some sort of discretionary powers over content, rather than procedure. Jdorney (talk) 12:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I have reservations about the above. As an admin, hopefully one with some respect as well, I think it makes sense for me, or Moreschi, or anyone else to have to at least consult one other party before making such content decisions. Now, if after I consult him, or Dbachmann, or whoever else, they decide that I am right in adjusting the content a given way, then we at least have a bit of consensus or agreement before making the changes we want. Otherwise, even the best of us could, at times, find ourselves pushing a POV which we, as individuals, for whatever reason, don't recognize as POV. This is a real possibility, because none of us are really perfect, however respected we might be. John Carter (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The key word here is nudge. Patriots, by their nature, tend to be a little bit obsessive, and if pointed in the right direction can be extraordinarily useful content contributors as they will happily spend hours referencing and writing for the glory of the fatherland (assuming they have the literacy to do so: we keep around far too many people who just don't). But often some direction is needed. Most often, it can take the form of "these are the obvious parameters of what academic consensus says is acceptable: write within that, please": directed at a specific editor, it could take the form of "you write so well about X: Y is clearly controversial and you may be doing harm; how about some work on Z?". Noticeboards are useful tools for gathering general opinons on parameters of academic consensus: WP:FTN is very good at this, and while the focus of WP:RSN is a little more narrow it's very useful for what it does. I rarely try to gain any real expertise on a subject I am adminning: the key is not expertise but a working level of competent knowledge (which certainly takes some research, and which most admins just aren't prepared to do). And on a subject where I have done much more thorough research and have written substantial content (Ancient Egyptian race controversy), I don't use admin tools, apart from blocking the socks of banned users that crop up now and again to bedevil this topic. Moreschi (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * John I agree wholeheartedly that Admins should seek consensus first. There is no question about that. But what if the person concerned refuses to even contemplate any diminution of his/her pov?Or refuses to discuss the content at all except by citing purportedly relevant WP policy? At some point, the involved admin needs the power to enforce NPOV. Agreed nobody is perfect, the key here is good faith, admitting the other side have a right to their POV, and respecting the factual basis of the articles. People who try to get around these tenets, and use procedure to do so, can only be dealt with by involved Admins (ie someone who has taken the trouble to investigate the incident). What I'm saying is that, if it comes down to and edit war, where discussion and consensus are impossible - the Admin needs to have the power to distinguish between what is neutral and what is partisan editingJdorney (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Simple proposal
Well, this has seemed to stall now (which is what happens all too often with good ideas not carried through), so let me hopefully reignite it a bit by making a specific suggestion. It seems that there is a rough agreement here that all too many administrators are not knowledgeable about topic areas, insufficiently familiar with the problems faced by regular editors, detached and aloof from the "proles" that write the encyclopedia, too much interested in their "Wiki-careers" then in the actual content of the project and so on. So how about this simple rule:

Any administrator whose contribution to the Article portion of their mainspace edits falls below 20% of their total, or if the sum of Article and Talk falls below 25% of their total, will automatically be placed on the Open for Recall list.

With the % being determined simply by Soxred93's.

Since part of the complaint has been that the RfA process is broken because voters focus on lack of controversy and other "vanilla" qualities rather than content creation, this would basically be attacking this problem from the other end.

Yes, yes, I know there's ways to game this (bots and all) but it will be an additional constraint and at least in RfAs it's something that could be scrutinized (i.e. I see that you've got 30% of your edits in Article, but when we subtract bot edits that ends up being like 10%).radek (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)