Wikipedia:Wikiheresy

Wikiheresy (for the lack of a better word; somewhat analogous to "heresy" - being wrong about something important and refusing to change one's mind) happens when an editor of Wikipedia ("wikiheretic") strongly and persistently holds views that are incompatible with Wikipedia's nature and internal order, and acts upon them. For example, an editor who completely rejects Neutral point of view or No original research.

The presence of wikiheretics in Wikipedia's community is not useful to Wikipedia, nor to its community, nor to wikiheretic. Normally the wikiheretic soon understands that and either adapts to Wikipedia (for example, by softening the views in question or changing them) or leaves it. If that doesn't happen, it might be necessary to encourage the wikiheretic to leave or, in extreme cases, to resort to blocks and bans.

Groupthink
One can object to encouraging the wikiheretics to leave by noting that it might create opportunities for groupthink. But it doesn't seem to be so. Maybe it is even more accurate to say that sometimes wikiheretics themselves encourage groupthink by diverting the attention of the community from something really questionable and forcing it to defend obvious statements.

In a sense the proposals to keep wikiheretics are similar to hypothetical proposal to keep someone, who thinks that Cuba is a landlocked Arab country, or an enthusiastic Castro supporter in the group planning the Bay of Pigs Invasion with the hope that it would be more successful.

Human rights
One can object to encouraging the wikiheretics to leave by noting that human rights include a right to have and express an opinion. But the right to edit Wikipedia is not a natural right, but a privilege, like, for example, a right to drive a car. In both cases the privilege is given to many, but can be removed without any violation of human rights.

Slippery slope
One can also object by pointing to a slippery slope - claiming that encouraging the wikiheretics to leave will lead to censorship, persecution of any opinion that is slightly different etc. But it doesn't look like the opinion completely incompatible with Wikipedia's nature and order is that hard to distinguish from opinion that is just different.

Who can tell?
One more possible objection consists in asking if it is possible to tell when the level of wikiheresy has been reached. But one can also ask similar questions about other undesirable phenomena: vandalism, edit wars etc. Thus wikiheresy can be detected in ways analogous to the ones used in those cases. As with all cases, good faith should be assumed while possible.

Are the policies violated?
It is also possible to object by claiming that wikiheresy violates no policies. But such objection misses the point that wikiheresy is not just having an opinion incompatible with work in Wikipedia, but also acting upon it. That does violate policies or guidelines. Furthermore, wikiheretics may be undesirable in Wikipedia not just because they violate the policies, but also because their presence is pointless and is not useful neither to Wikipedia, nor to its community, nor wikiheretics themselves.

Point out the policies
First of all, one should point out the actual policies. In many cases that will be met with agreement or request for explanation, leading to a more fruitful discussion. In such case, the problems with wikiheresy are nonexistent.

The problems start if links to policies are met with outright refusal to read or follow them. In such case discussion instantly reaches a dead end, for no basis for agreement is left.

If, however, policies are neither accepted, nor rejected, but ignored, it might be a good idea to openly ask if they have been read, understood, accepted and if they will be followed.

Explain the policies
Sometimes it is a good idea to explain how the Wikipedia's policies are reasonable, given what Wikipedia is meant to be. However, one should understand, that Wikipedia's policies are adapted to Wikipedia. Other projects would have different policies. Thus someone who really wants to work in a different project doesn't have to be persuaded that Wikipedia's policies are "best" or "correct".

Point out the futility of editing Wikipedia while rejecting its main policies
If other approaches fail, one should try to point out that it is pointless to edit Wikipedia while rejecting its main policies. Alternative projects should be mentioned, or at least a possibility to create a new project.

Sometimes this step should be repeated a couple of times.

"Escalate" (ask for help)
Finally, if nothing else works, one should ask for help from other users, who, hopefully, would be more persuasive.