Wikipedia talk:Civil POV pushing/Archive 3

Subheader for editing
I went back to read this section through, but didn't get any farther than reading the links referred to in the first paragraph of the first post (from GTBacchus): "I had an interesting interaction with Raymond over at Guy's page the other day, which you can see here. (The conversation starts out between Martinphi and Guy, but keep reading)"

It's curious to me that GTB finds that exchange interesting or enlightening in any way. It's just Guy being Guy and Martinphi being Martinphi, and GTB saying something ineffectual in the middle, reminding me of my tiny Quaker mother pleading to her towering, arguing teenage offspring, "Children, let us love one another." A sweet thought, but not terribly useful in the situation.

Guy will be Guy and Martinphi will be Martinphi and neither one of them can be expected to change very much; they represent two opposite and incompatible philosophies of Wikipedia. GTB's solution, to get them to respect each other and work together, is unworkable, since the two philosophies are mutually exclusive and cannot be reconciled. Of course they both believe that theirs is the right philosophy, but that's beside the point. The community needs to decide which philosophy it will embrace: that of a serious, reliable encyclopedia, or something else. Woonpton (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you don't see more there than my saying "Children let us love one another". I can only ask that you trust that I'm going somewhere with this, and not assume that I'm on a pointless path just because you can't see where I'm headed. Could you, Woonpton, please give me the benefit of the doubt, that I'm saying something more serious and nuanced than "children, let us love one another"? If you don't see it, maybe it's because I haven't been sufficiently articulate (I haven't even stated my main point), but I'm not wasting all this time over some effete desire for hand-wringing. I certainly give you credit for more maturity and reasonableness than to suggest that your position boils down to something so vapid. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Goodness. I don't need to give you some blind benefit of the doubt. I am quite well aware of where you're going with all this; you've been fairly open about it. You have this grand plan to transform the Wikipedia, with the help of a dispute resolution group from UW, into a place where everyone from all sides works together happily and productively. I'm just not sure where your authority to do all that comes from; isn't Wikipedia supposed to work from the ground up? I'm not seeing a lot of consensus about this, but maybe you've been commissioned to launch this project by some higher body of the wiki. I've shared my opinions already very freely; I've said I think you're asking the wrong questions and thus addressing issues that aren't central to the problem. I've said why I don't think this effort can work. You're not hearing me. But don't worry, I won't stick around to be a burr under your saddle; I'll just ride off into the sunset and leave you to your project. It might be interesting to come back in a year or two and see where you've got with it. I'm a data person; the data always speak for themselves as far as I'm concerned, and I'll be the first to congratulate you if the data prove me wrong. But if you really think that anything that anyone personally thinks is "correct" belongs in the encyclopedia (as you seem to be suggesting below) then we have a very different idea of what constitutes a successful (not to mention reliable and serious) encyclopedia, which is what I've been saying. Those two philosophies are not compatible and can't inhabit the same project comfortably, and it seems to me that the inevitable result of your project will be to empower those who hold one philosophy and drive off those who hold the other, not to the betterment (IMO) of the encyclopedia. Woonpton (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course you don't need to give me any benefit of the doubt. That's why I said "please". You're wrong about my goals, too. I think I am hearing you, but you haven't convinced me that I'm wrong. Should I shut up without being convinced that I'm on the wrong track, just on your say-so? "But if you really think that anything that anyone personally thinks is "correct" belongs in the encyclopedia (as you seem to be suggesting below)...". Well, there's a grand failure at mind reading. I think nothing of the sort. I don't know what I said that you imagine suggests that. Thanks for assuming, rather than asking, though. Finally, there is no "my project". I've talked to this guy at UW, two times. We haven't talked about any kind of plan or "project". I have had a fair amount of grass-roots ("ground up") discussion with other Wikipedians, on my talk page and elsewhere, and we've started a page at meta, where nothing has happened yet, but I've got stuff in the works. I'd like to make it your project, everyone's here, by asking some wrong questions, and making some suggestions, and listening to what people tell me here (I am listening, and I'm learning a lot). Maybe someone from here will get involved, to help balance out the hand-wringing mincing from inexperienced fools such as myself. Whether or not anyone here helps out directly, I'll be pushing for testing your strategies, whatever they are, as well as anything I think up. Woonpton, you seem to be jumping to incorrect conclusions about my motives and goals. You'll make fewer mistakes of that nature if you ask more, and assume less. You don't know me. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Gracious, now you're doing what you accuse others of doing: jumping to conclusions about what people are saying. I certainly wasn't suggesting that you should shut up or give up your project, far from it. Saying I'm not convinced to join up, myself, is hardly the same as saying that you should shut up and admit you're wrong "on my say-so" --that's ridiculous.  I even said I'd be the first to congratulate you if it were successful.  How could you possibly make that into my saying that you should shut up?   And no, I didn't call you an "inexperienced fool" I'm sure I don't know where that came from.  As to your motives, I've made no speculations, either unspoken or spoken, about your motives and goals; I've simply expressed my concerns about the direction the project is going and whether what you're proposing might hasten that downward spiral rather than slowing it down.  I'm certainly not jumping to a conclusion that that's what you intend, in fact I'm quite sure your intentions are only the very best.    As I said, when I check back later, I'll be pleasantly surprised, and pleased, if you manage to  implement your ideas and they turn out not only to make everyone happier but also to improve the quality of the encyclopedia.   That will be just great.  Be happy,  enjoy your project, but don't expect me to jump on board "just on your say-so" :--). This is a volunteer project, is it not?  As far as the quote from below that I cited,  if you didn't agree with the sentence you wrote,  "What they believe about their point of view is that it is correct, and therefore necessary in a serious and reliable reference work. "Serious and reliable" is precisely their goal, and they have a very different idea of "reliable" than you do" then that wasn't clear.  If that's not what you think, then maybe you should say what you do think.  I think I'm about done here for the time being; this has deteriorated from being an unproductive discussion to something even less useful. Have a pleasant evening.Woonpton (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Woonpton, we seem to be misunderstanding each other. I apologize for jumping to conclusions about your position. I was reacting to what I perceived as unfair or uninformed negativity in your previous post. Maybe I was dead wrong about that. As for the speculations you haven't made about my motives, I was just referring to, "You have this grand plan to transform the Wikipedia, with the help of a dispute resolution group from UW, into a place where everyone from all sides works together happily and productively." That is simply and flatly false; it's a fair enough guess, but it reveals your utter ignorance of what I'm up to. It is a speculation you made about my motives, and it is incorrect. Am I missing something here? You also said, "the inevitable result of your project will be to empower those who hold one philosophy and drive off those who hold the other, not to the betterment (IMO) of the encyclopedia," without having any idea what "my project" is. You couldn't have any idea, because I've never said it, and I imagine it's something everyone here would agree with. It sure as hell won't have the "inevitable result" you name, because there's nothing inevitable about it. I know you never called me a "fool", and that's why I never said you called me a fool. I didn't even imply that you called me a fool. You're not my only audience here, and you needn't take things I say as personally directed just because I say them in discussion with you. It's like on the other page, where I never once said you were arguing for incivility, and yet you protested about 15 times that you weren't arguing for incivility, and I was like, "duh". -GTBacchus(talk) 21:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There's much that wants to be said in response to all of that, but as I said before, this has deteriorated (for reasons I can't fathom) from an unproductive discussion to something even less useful, and I don't think there's any point in continuing it. But one thought:  you might want to work on your dispute resolution skills a little more, if that was a demonstration.  Woonpton (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I assure you I'm taking notes. If anyone can help me understand the above conversation, I'll pay you money. I'd love to know what you're saying and what you think I'm saying. I'm lost. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed this discussion has long passed the point of diminishing returns and crossed over to negative incremental value. GTBacchus continually tells us that he has ideas for addressing the problems we've been trying to discuss (to the extent he will agree that there's a problem), but he continually declines to let us know what those ideas are. As a result we're doing nothing but going around in circles. I'll now take this off my watchlist and go do something productive. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there really someone who wants wikipedia to be not serious and unreliable?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, lots of people. They may not think they're making it unreliable. But it's better to deal with observable results than to try and peek inside someone's head to discover their motivation. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. There are people who see Wikipedia as the world's largest megaphone through which to spread their pet theories about general relativity or onion juice as a cure for cancer. Those people do not particularly care that Wikipedia is serious or reliable; they prioritize using Wikipedia to advance a point of view which has little support, credibility, or prominence outside of Wikipedia. It's not that they get up in the morning intending to make Wikipedia worse - it's that their goals are at odds with the project's. They're not interested in general improvement of the encyclopedia, but in advocacy for a narrow and specific product, claim, or agenda. As Raymond says, extrasensory perception is unecessary. MastCell Talk 20:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. Thank you for saying it so clearly and succinctly.Woonpton (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No. "Those people do not particularly care that Wikipedia is serious or reliable; they prioritize using Wikipedia to advance a point of view which has little support, credibility, or prominence outside of Wikipedia" What they believe about their point of view is that it is correct, and therefore necessary in a serious and reliable reference work. "Serious and reliable" is precisely their goal, and they have a very different idea of "reliable" than you do. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you know that's "precisely their goal"? And why does it matter? Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As for how I know... that's how people work. People don't put so much time an energy into something unless they believe in it, and believing in it means believing that any accurate encyclopedia would tell people about it. That's just an easy train of thought for someone who already has blinders up regarding preponderance of evidence. Their believing that their POV belongs is any serious and reliable encyclopedia is the only explanation consistent with the observed behavior. Otherwise, they're somehow being naughty, and trying to knowingly break rules. If a homeopathic practitioner didn't genuinely believe that the jury was still out, and that the evidence wasn't overwhelming against them, then how could they do what they do? That's what cognitive dissonance is for. Most people do it to some extent, about something. The more important question is, why does it matter? It might not. I think it does. I think there are different strategies that one would use to address good faith editors who happen to be deluded about reality than trollish editors who are bent on making the encyclopedia inaccurate. I may be dead wrong about that, but I'm asking the question, and it seems to bug people. We'll see, because we've got to get organized about NPOV, and that means putting specific ideas to the test in a mindful and scientific way. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The proof is right here on this page. In several spots. --Filll (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To whom/what is this a reply? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

GTB reply to Filll, in 3 subheaders
I've refactored extensively for replies. It's all ordered by content, in a way that I think works. Filll, if it seems I've butchered your post in an unacceptable way, please feel free to revert, and I'll reply in some other way, I guess. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Nature of POV pushers - not giving ammo

 * F: Only very rarely are they trying to game the system just as a joke or for fun, I would say. Only rarely are they try to create disruption purely for its own sake, I would guess.

I agree 100%


 * GTB: what's the point it telling someone "stop pushing a FRINGE POV" when, as far as they're concerned, they're not doing that at all?
 * F: It might do no good, but the basic reason is they are so convinced they are right they will ignore all evidence that they are wrong, or that they hold a FRINGE position, even up to discarding all peer-reviewed sources and sources like the New York Times and so on as inadequate or unreliable.

If it does not good, and it gives them ammo, then why do it? What you just offered as "the basic reason" didn't contain a reason to do it. You don't have to do it, and it doesn't help, so don't do it. It gives them ammo, unnecessarily. Surely that's not prudent? One basic principle should be not to hand ammunition to one's opponents, right? What am I missing? From what I've been able to gather, a "Civil POV pusher" is simply someone who is pushing for undue weight in coverage of some fringe belief, and who knows not to step into bear traps by making personal attacks. Surely we would also avoid the bear traps? If they take it a step further, and try to push us into bear traps, that's different; see below under "policy abuse".


 * GTB: Well, as I said above, I disagree about it being immaterial, especially if we're going to be making a bunch of claims aloud about people's good faith.
 * F: I do not care about their good faith or not. Most of them have good faith. But they also abuse the policies over and over and over and we have no way whatsoever to stop them from doing so in the current climate. We are impotent. And they know it.

If you "don't care" about their good faith or not, then don't hand them obvious ammunition by bringing it up. Is that unreasonable? Now, if they abuse the policies, let's stop them. I am an admin, standing here offering to help stop this, and I am confident there are others who will help. Would you like me to find them? When I offer to help with this, I'm not sure why you argue with me, rather than accepting it. Let's change the "current climate". Let's find a situation where someone is taking advantage of our conduct policies, and let's stop them. Where do you want to start? I'll make a subheader for it... -GTBacchus(talk) 22:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Stopping policy abuse

 * F:And we let them, because we cannot really stop them given our current climate and rules. That is the point of these pages. We are unable to act given our present situation and culture. We are impotent if someone claims that NPOV does not mean "in proportion to their prominence", no matter what the policy says.

"we cannot really stop them given our current climate and rules". Here I would disagree strongly, and reply with, Please let me help you stop them within our current climate and... "rules". Do you really want to commit to the paradigm of "Wikipedia as rules-game"? It benefits the wikilawyers at the expense of the rest of us.


 * F:There are even administrators who are essentially FRINGE POV pushers I have encountered. I have seen these admins make it clear that anyone who advocates including the mainstream view in a Wikipedia article, and especially making it the most prominent view in the article, will be the subject of administrative sanctions. This is a somewhat disconcerting situation, but it does happen. It would be nice if mechanisms existed to address this. No ordinary editor can do a thing about this.

"I have seen these admins make it clear that anyone who advocates including the mainstream view in a Wikipedia article, and especially making it the most prominent view in the article, will be the subject of administrative sanctions." I've never seen this happen, and after repeatedly requesting examples in various fora for months, I have to conclude that it's a rare beast indeed. I susptect it's so exaggerated as to be outright false. If it is true, I'd like to initiate an RfC on that admin. If someone doesn't want to name names publicly, email me. The behavior you describe is unacceptable for any admin, and I'm on your side to stop it. I just have to see it first.


 * Haemo:This is exacerbated because our policies are generally pretty good at limiting fringe theories, they find it very hard to meet the guidelines for sourcing and due weight, which creates the adversarial relationship to policies that often characterizes their argumentation.
 * F:Our policies are not that good really, because FRINGE POV pushers do commonly misinterpret the guidelines for sourcing and due weight, and it is very hard to disagree with them because they will charge you with violating WP:AGF or WP:CIVIL etc for disagreeing with them.

Now this part, we can work on. Let's agree to not let this happen, ok? Let's get on the same page, that WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL are not weapons, and are not to be used that way. Let's get on the same page, that wikilawyering is not to be tolerated. If people are doing it, let's stop them. This issue is independent of how we deal with POV pushing. Policy abuse is not to be tolerated from any editor, regardless of POV. We're all agreed on this, yes? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This page just blew my mind
Raul654 and JzG are complaining that there are too many crazy, pedantic idiots on wikipedia, who use passive, systemic rudeness to win arguments, and it is harming the quality of this excellent web site. Is that what's going on here?

Can someone summarise this page for me, and explain what is the goal of this? What am I missing? I'm so confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyoip (talk • contribs) 20:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the problem is that we have too many POV pushers who are sufficiently civil to avoid being sanctioned or blocked for incivility. The dispute resolution process is geared almost entirely toward dealing with incivility, and falls down whean dealing with people who remain civil even while editing in a highly biased way. Raul654 (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Somewhat off-topic because it doesn't necessarily concern POV pushing, but what is the dispute resolution process for content? I read through WP:DR and it only seems to apply to reasonable editors. Reason with them (step 1), ask for help in reasoning with them etc. (steps 2-11), and finally at the end of all of that if they are still being unreasonable take it to arbitration (final step). Since ArbCom doesn't rule on content, is there actually a content dispute resolution process? -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 23:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sort of, but it fails in many ways. For example, no one is forced to take part in mediation, which sort of handles content disputes. Also, several cases that I know of never received proper attention from the mediation organizations although assistance had been requirested. Also, there is no method for forcing people to behave reasonably in content dispute resolution procedures.

Also, when should these methods be applied? Where is the line? Suppose someone refuses to abide by WP:NOR or WP:NPOV, or quotes the wrong definition of WP:NPOV. Even if 10 or 20 or 50 other editors tell them they are wrong, they still politely maintain they are correct. Even if 100 other editors disagree with them, they still just ignore that and claim they are correct and everyone else is wrong. Suppose they quote the wrong definition of NPOV 10 times and are corrected. And still advance the wrong interpretation. Should someone do something after 10 times? What about after 50 times? What about after 500 times? What if the stonewalling lasts a week? Should one act? What if it lasts a month? What if it lasts a year? What if lasts 3 years? At what point does one act? And what does one do?

There is an immense body of editors at Wikipedia and Wikipedia Review that claim that as long as the person never typed $#@% during a discussion, then they should be allowed to continue without restriction on Wikipedia. Even if this unproductive editor never produced a single positive edit in 5 years, they should still be allowed to continue unhampered. Even if controlling and answering the disruption of this one editor drains the energies of 3 other editors away from productive work, nothing should be done to them. Even if they waste the efforts of 5 other editors or 10 other editors, they claim that since this unproductive editor never said $#@%, they should not have anything done to them. And if anyone suggests anything else, people scream that Wikipedia is too mean and too harsh and too draconian and Wikipedia has to be more lenient to let anyone do whatever they want and all rules are bad and all policies are bad and all references and citations and sources are bad.

That is the question that has to be examined. And that is the purpose of this page. If you want to get a little taste of what we are discussing, some of the exercises listed at User:Filll/AGF Challenge might be of interest to you.--Filll (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I know it doesn't really work, but I've yet to see a single place that describes how it would work if editors non-disruptively refuse to give up their position. To me, that's more disturbing. The entire dispute resolution process for content disputes has no end, at all, written anywhere in the policies. This isn't even about POV pushing, just content disputes in general, which is why it's off-topic but sort of also spot-on. If two neutral editors hard-headedly and civily disagree on grammar, for example, there is no end to the process of disagreeing. It just keeps going on until someone eventually burns out. That's per policy, which is the scary part. It's no wonder the burn-out rate on Wikipedia is so high. Btw, I already did the AGF questionaire. You may not recall, but I left some suggestions on improving one of the questions on your talk page : ) -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 00:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok...I'm confused by the repeated phrase "superficially civil". I think it's important to define the scope of this rule very narrowly.  If you limit it to POV pushers, you will solve a particular problem that has been written about endlessly and so far nothing has been done, while limiting the ambiguity that allows POV pushing to persist.
 * But you're not really talking about civility. You're not talking about the people who randomly delete useful information for hours everyday.  You're not talking about the obnoxious, antisocial people who post on policy pages.  You're not suggesting we enforce actual civility, are you?  Who will be left to make the rules, when everyone on the Arbitration Committee is banned?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyoip (talk • contribs) 00:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That last sentence is a huge non-sequitor and makes no sense. Raul654 (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why it's a waste of time to argue with Davkal. :) Sorry, sorry... "Tyoip". MastCell Talk 04:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocking tendentious fringe editors
I have to agree that I think it would be pretty much impossible for a truly outside admin to discern fringe pov pushing without help. If you aren't familiar with the nitty gritty of the sources/controversies in a subject, when you visit the talkpage it just looks like arguing. And it's not apparent from an argument that it's the 99th time that argument has happened, due to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, or how many people are staying away or have left simply because it's the 99th argument, or that it isn't a content dispute per se but a fringe deal. Maybe it would be simpler to designate "tendentious fringe pov pushing" as a blockable offense, with a staged series of warnings, like for vandalism. Editors at the article could make the case on AN or AN/I, by citing the common features with diffs: source mining, trying to use unreliable fringe sources, trying to reconfigure WP:WEIGHT by source-mining and using fringe sources, re-arguing the same points over and over. The onus could be on the complaining editor/editors to provide a source demonstrating that the view is fringe. TFPP is a serious thing, which does harm the encyclopedia, both by creating a poisonous editing environment, and by skewing articles. I personally think it does more damage than NPA/people who get momentarily mad and call someone else an a**hole--tendentious fringe pov pushing is more insidiously and pervasively harmful. Extensive dispute resolution shouldn't be necessary for every instance of TFPP--they look like content disputes, but they're essentially not; they're about disruption (and trying to give a pet bias a high Google rank). And requiring extensive dispute resolution that can only be ended with an Arbcom ruling is a barrier so high that a lot of people just leave, instead. Right now, you can go to AN/I with a diff that shows "he called me a whore" and so and so will be blocked; but if you go to AN/I with diffs that show he's a TFPP, it's a "content dispute," and pity the admin who wades into it. I think TFPP should be codifed/described via a "duck test" standard, so people can make informative complaints, for which there can be escalating warnings that don't require extensive dispute resolution or an intervening admin becoming an expert on the subject/involved in the "dispute". Wikpedia is not a free speech exercise, we are not experiencing a shortage of fringe povs, and no matter how many were warned/blocked, someone new will always come along to bring up the fringe pov again. If there's anything fringe worth including someone is sure to make the case for it. There's nothing to lose really (except skewed articles and alientated productive editors). A series of four warnings seems reasonable--they get feedback and chances to stop. (I've never actually seen a TFPP get feedback except from "the other side" of a dispute, which they ignore out of hand...) -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this is a great idea, if it can be boiled down to something workable. I have suggested similar things a few times.


 * 3RR is pretty straightforward. You go to AN/I with your 4 or 5 diffs, and you show you have applied a warning and that the behavior continued after. No muss, no fuss, easy to do... and a quick sanction for a few hours or a few days. Gets your attention.


 * CIVIL is quite straightforward. A diff with some profanity directed at someone else, and you get a nice quick clean block for a short period.


 * NPA is of a similar nature. A warning, and then a block. Easy as pie with a couple of diffs.


 * violating other principles of WP having to do with content (NPOV, NOR, RS, V, CON, DE, TE, etc) are almost impossible to deal with, because we have created very high barriers:


 * need for an uninvolved admin
 * need many many diffs in an RfC or Arbcomm proceeding
 * preparing for an RfC or Arbcomm proceeding is frustrating and wasteful and exhausting
 * long drawn out mediations are rarely of value
 * content RfCs draw almost no attention so are almost worthless


 * If there could be an easy guideline, or set of checkboxes on a standard form, and simple warning system, with some guarantee of a short sanction if some threshold was clearly crossed, it could help to change the culture. For example, one of the most common complaints on controversial articles is that if there is negative or critical material about the subject matter (conspiracy theory, alien abduction, alternative medicine, ghosts, reincarnation, polywater, cold fusion, zero point energy, time cube, other pseudoscience, etc), then it is claimed that this violates NPOV because anything negative is not "neutral". And an editor, who is often a SPA, can repeat over and over that having negative material in an article violates neutrality and/or NPOV. And they can have 10 editors and admins explain this to them, and then use WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to ignore it and continue to maintain that any negative material in an article violates neutrality and/or NPOV. This can go on for days, or weeks, or months, or years. This argument can go on for hundreds of kilobytes if not megabytes. This sort of dialogue will drive away productive editors from the article. This sort of dialogue will discourage experts from the outside from joining Wikipedia.


 * But if the SPA makes this claim 10 times, 50 times, or 500 times, we currently are essentially powerless to do a thing. If we attempt to do something, there will many who claim it is unfair or it is censorship or we are not sufficiently lenient or we are beating up on someone unfairly. But why is such a thing permitted, and even encouraged by a large contingent at Wikipedia?


 * I believe that it is the lack of experience in controversial areas, for the most part. Some of course just want to create havoc on Wikipedia. But if an editor personally has never dealt with this sort of thing, and the longest "talk page argument" they have ever had is maybe 40 posts, how can they even appreciate one that lasts for 1000 posts? If they have never dealt with serious wikilawyering, how can they even understand what it is like to deal with someone who wants to misinterpret WP policy and use it as a weapon against others?


 * That is why I have worked on the AGF Challenge, which is just a start. We need almost an Eliza-like program on IRC for admins to train on (that sometimes is a machine, and sometimes a human, arguing tendentiously). The completed record could be then be evaluated and graded and suggestions made. There is nothing like trying to get someone to obey those content policies when they are dead set against them in a controversial area. And they argue and argue and argue the same intentionally misunderstood bit of policy and misinterpret sources for hundreds of kilobytes and many days. After you have had a few experiences like that, then you start to understand a bit. From my observations of these sorts of discussions about "unblocking SPA X" or "unbanning troll Y" on AN, the vast majority of people weighing in have little to no experience in controversial areas and long arguments of this sort.--Filll (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was thinking along similar lines.
 * The key is to define clearly what the problematic behaviour is. If it can be described and defined objectively enough that in most cases, everyone, even the POV-pusher, can recognize whether the behaviour fits the definition or not, then it can be easily controlled with warnings and blocks.
 * Here's a possible remedy:
 * Choose a subset of the editor's edits: this could be
 * All their edits.
 * All their edits to a particular page.
 * Specific material being edit-warred over, e.g. "all your edits that change 'states' to 'asserts without proof that'"
 * All edits that add material about theory Y to an article
 * All edits that make the article more sympathetic to theory Y or less sympathetic to theory X or both
 * Or any other clearly definable subset of their edits.
 * Point out that all or almost all of the edits in this subset have been reverted (by more than one different editor at times), and request therefore that from now on, the editor get consensus on the talk page before editing for any edits in that subset.
 * If the editor continues that type of edit without getting consensus on the talk page first and their edits continue to be reverted, then escalate to a warning from an admin that further such edits will be considered disruptive and may result in blocks.
 * Basically, the problem is that people say "stop doing that!" and the POV-pusher says "stop doing what?" The more clearly we can define what needs to be stopped, the more easily we can ask (or force) people to stop.  It's not necessary for every POV-pusher to understand why they're being blocked (though ideally, all would), but it's reasonable to explain why they're being blocked clearly enough that almost any person would understand; this also increases the chance that they will change their behaviour for the better rather than being blocked.
 * The description of the undesirable behaviour should be such that if the person stops doing that, then they really do become significantly easier to get along with. In other words, we need to work on putting our finger on exactly what the problematic behaviour is. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me though that unless there is an objective definition of what constitutes a "POV-pusher", any discussion couched in such terms is bound to fail. --John (talk) 05:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's the thing--there's a difference between a garden variety pov pusher (which everyone sometimes is) and a fringe pov pusher (and between content disputes, which can be fruitful...and endless argumentation from a fringe pov pusher trying to change the weight of opinion on a subject via Wikipedia, which is not fruitful). I think three things that would be crucial to a definition are 1) proof that the view being pushed is fringe 2) proof that the same argument is being had more than 2x 3) violations of undue weight (and RS)...? -PetraSchelm (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything here though that improves on our existing WP:NPOV policy. We need to be careful and judicious in our application of the policy as regards "fringe" theories. Sure, we don't want our encyclopedia to be a laughing stock by over-emphasizing minority beliefs. But we should be careful too. As a science graduate and science educator, I've been around long enough to be cognizant that in science as on here, consensus can change. Pre-1970 or so, global warming and continental drift, pre-1990 or so, ball lightning, would all have very much been considered fringe beliefs, yet now they are accepted by a broad consensus. Nobody currently editing here can accurately foretell what people in 10 or 20 years will think about cold fusion or parapsychology, just as nobody in 1980 could have foretold that in 2008 we would all be here editing an online encyclopedia from our homes. We need to be especially careful on certain topics to present a genuinely balanced view that reflects the contemporary scientific consensus, sure. But we also need to avoid being or even looking like either the Spanish Inquisition or red-baiters in the process. --John (talk) 06:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're going off-track/talking about something completely different: that the consensus changes doesn't make the consensus on a topic different now, and Wikipedia can only reflect what the consensus is now. (That's the problem, in some respects--there are people who would like to use Wikipedia as a means to reconfigure consensus to suit themselves. This especially seems to be the case not for people representing views on the vanguard, which will someday be accepted, but people pushing views that have a snowball's chance in hell of ever being mainstream, like pedophile rights to have sex with children, aids denialism, onion juice therapy, electronic voice phenomenon...) -PetraSchelm (talk) 07:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that I'm talking about something different, I think this realization is key. Of course we can only reflect the consensus now; but we need to be careful about branding people we don't agree with as POV-warriors or the like. As I said, as nobody can accurately predict the future, we cannot know with total certainty which views will or won't be accepted in a few years. Science is not religious dogma, and therefore does not contain orthodoxy or heresy. Wikipedia should bear this in mind. --John (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

John, while you clearly have a lot of editing experience overall, you definitely have very limited experience editing controversial articles and in particular articles where these FRINGE concerns are paramount, such as articles which have to address pseudoscience and science. So I am afraid I think this is the origin of some of your lack of understanding here. I might also point out that while all scientific understanding is temporary by definition (see demarcation problem.) However, that does not mean we should discard all articles on science since we are sure that the current understanding reflected in almost every single science article on Wikipedia will be superceded in the future. In fact, we could even state, not too inaccurately, that all our science articles on Wikipedia are wrong. That does not mean we should remove all science articles, however.

In addition, of course as I am sure everyone here knows, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. So although some of these ideas might come back at some point, we should not treat them as though they are current viable theories. Because that is inaccurate. And for every discredited theory like plate tectonics that is revived, there are literally thousands, or tens of thousands of discredited theories that are never revived, like caloric or phlogisten. --Filll (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Your observations on my editing experience are inaccurate; I have been a substantial contributor to Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories, for what it is worth. I agree that it is unlikely that caloric or phlogiston will be recreated any time soon, and I am glad that you appreciate the provisional nature of all scientific knowledge. It may be helpful to focus, not on discredited 18th century theories, but the main environmental challenge the world currently faces, which is global warming. As you are no doubt aware, there are still those who would wish to discredit the anthropogenic theory of rising temperatures, for whatever reasons. This is a discussion towards a better way to avoid the unproductive conflict which ensues when editors disagree about the nature of a scientific consensus. I would propose that any such solution will recognize that scientific consensus can change. In the case of global warming for example, the scientific consensus has only become really clear in the last few years. If we were working on this project in, say, 1988, there would be a reasonable case for debunking GW as fringe science as it was not yet almost universally accepted by the scientific community at that time. Now, in 2008, these same arguments would more likely be deployed against the GW skeptics. The nature of the problem has not changed in the interim, but the nature of our understanding of it has.


 * There was an interesting article in New Scientist recently which explored the philosophical underpinnings of this debate (link here; subscribers only). It suggests that the long-standing idea of Popperian falsifiability may need to be re-examined in the light of theories like dark energy and the multiverse flagrantly failing to conform to it, yet being considered as useful or even essential to explain observations by many scientists. As the article states, "During the 20th century, Newton's theory of gravity was repeatedly "falsified" by observations: for example, by predicting only half the observed bending of light by the sun's gravitational field. Yet scientists are not about to ditch Newton any time soon, as his laws work perfectly well in everyday situations." However unsatisfactory some people here may find it, science is not immune to such relativity; what is pseudoscience today may be accepted fact tomorrow, and vice versa. Any policy which hopes to improve our coverage of science and pseudoscience will need to recognize at its core that these terms are not fixed in stone, and that one person's NPOV is another person's tendentious trash. Such is the nature of scientific debate. A solution which merely tries to make it easier to ban or block those who strive to alter articles in a particular direction will end up in the same trashcan as WP:BADSITES did. It's a complex problem, and a solution which fails to recognize that complexity is doomed to failure. --John (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with much of this. However I might note that (1) Falsifiability has long been discredited in the philosophy of science as a useful concept. For a few decades really. You might find it interesting to look into it. (2) Scientific consensus changes of course, as we both noted, and scientific consensus is only ever provisional. However, the role of Wikipedia is to reflect the consensus after it develops, not to anticipate it or be on the leading edge of any change of scientific consensus.--Filll (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course you're right about falsifiability. I wonder how many of our editors here, and how many of the proponents of initiatives like this one and WP:SPOV are aware of this though. I agree too that we need to take a conservative position on such issues. A simplistic, black-and-white approach that talks in terms of "POV-pushers" will not answer though, it seems to me. Here's a salient quote from the same NS article which I found very thought-provoking and addresses this exact issue.


 * "Take the mysterious force said to be driving the ever-faster expansion of the universe. Theorists are exploring the idea that this "dark energy" may have varied over the course of cosmic history, rather than stayed constant. Such ideas might keep theorists in work but they also make for a more complex model of the universe, says Andrew Liddle at the UK's University of Sussex in Brighton. "The question is whether the observational data support a simple or a complex model."


 * He and his colleagues have applied Bayesian methods to assess the plausibility of the intriguing idea of varying dark energy and found that the standard model with constant dark energy remains a far better bet. That could change, but the smart money is on variable dark energy being a dead end.


 * Talk about "best bets" and "smart money" might not sound very scientific, but it's much closer to how real-life research priorities are decided. With Bayesian methods, that process is captured in rigorous, quantitative detail - the black and white of falsification being replaced with the shades of grey of the real world. "I think it's absolutely the way to go," says Liddle."


 * --John (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I nominate John to mediate the debate at the State Terrorism article for at least three weeks, and to put in time as a regular commenter at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard for a month. (And I mean this in all good faith and seriousness.) -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your comment, and take it in good faith. Sometimes, sadly, simpler isn't the same as better. This seems to be one of these occasions. --John (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

John, I will admit you have some very casual experience at a mildly controversial article, Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories, where you have 29 edits on the talk page. However, I and others who deal with controversial articles like intelligent design and different subjects in alternative medicine rack up 10 or 20 times as many edits on each talk page. And Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories has a burst of activity around the summer of 2006, but for the most part has been pretty static. You have also a couple of dozen edits on pages about US government terrorism and the 911 conspiracy, but again that is not really that great an involvement. And it is not quite the same as working on creationism or evolution or electronic voice phenomenon and compiling 600 talk page edits dealing with FRINGE advocates.

Also reading your little snippet from New Scientist strikes me as not particularly supportive of your position. It just describes a garden variety hypothesis test; ho hum. What might be more germane is to discuss the question of whether string theory or its current incarnation as M-brane theory is really science or not, given that there is no data associated with it or supporting it. The reasons it is of interest are far far more esoteric and closer to mathematics than physics, or other kinds of science. But so what? This does not mean we should give any priority to pseudoscience here, over mainstream current scientific understanding. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry too, as I thought you had "got it" about the problems with these articles. You may well find that you don't need to make as many unproductive edits to talk pages if you can help craft a decent compromise position on how Wikipedia approaches the science-pseudoscience interface. The key part of the second quote is the idea that "shades of gray" are an inherent part of the scientific method. So, with respect, asking whether string theory or parapsychology is "science" or "pseudoscience" is missing the point, for our purposes at least. It is like debating whether someone is a terrorist or a freedom fighter; you will often find contradictory sources which say different things, and you will find editors here who will passionately defend one source and its position over another source and its one. Rather than try to nail down definitively who is "right" on these occasions, it is often more productive to say something along the lines of "source X calls him a terrorist, but source Y calls him a freedom fighter". As long as undue weight is avoided (no easy thing I realize), we then have a well-balanced article which accurately reflects what credible sources in the real world say. I think we need to seek a similar approach here; really just a special case of WP:NPOV. --John (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

John, I am sure you are a wonderful editor and contributor to Wikipedia with almost 30,000 mainspace edits. With all due respect, even the wording of your response tells me you have essentially zero experience in this area, and zero experience in the kind of editing that is relevant for this talk page and the corresponding mainspace page on civil POV pushing. You frankly appear not to have ever encountered anything like what we are discussing.

The very wording of your statement:

indicates to me that you believe that compromise positions are actually possible in some circumstances on these science/pseudoscience articles. You appear not to have the depth of experience with 30 or so talk page edits to a mildly controversial article or two to understand this.

It is very typical for people to appear at these controversial articles and to refuse to ever compromise and to wikilawyer for hours and days and weeks and months and even years. Discussions go on for 100 or 200 or 500 or 1000 edits or longer, with editors refusing to abide by NPOV, or NOR, or RS, etc. I have made a partial list of the kinds of repetitive arguments one can encounter, which you can find here. And even if you dismiss one of these arguments once, your adversaries will repeat the same argument again, two, three, five, 10, or 50 times, as though you had never made it. Then one of these disruptive editors will leave and be replaced by two others, and you will have to go through it all again. And again. And they will show up at the policy pages to change policy to favor their viewpoints. And you will deal with a steady parade of sockpuppets and meat puppets, some of which are paid to disrupt the page by public relations firms. And so on.

I suspect your exposure to this world is minimal at best. But it is reality in many corners of Wikipedia. And our tools are really not adequate to deal with it. So that is what these pages are about. If you want a little more exposure to this in a sanitized environment, take a look at the exercises at User:Filll/AGF Challenge. More will be added later.--Filll (talk) 00:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the invitation; I had actually already seen your interesting challenge and mean to complete it in the next days. I agree that the existing strategies for dismissing POV-pushing are often inadequate to do the job. I assure you that I find it as frustrating as you do; the majority of my experience of work like this has been on Ireland-related articles, and I can think of at least three editors who I strongly feel would only benefit the project if they were banned or restricted from contributing to certain areas. However, this is not a job interview, and I do not require to convince you of my experience, credentials or even good faith in order to have a well-developed opinion on these matters. You may find it will be more productive to focus less on your perception of my lack of experience in "this world", and focus more on the merits of my arguments. If this current exercise is purely focussed on banning editors with certain POVs from editing, I can say with absolute confidence that it will not succeed and will merely contribute further to the lynch-mob mentality that certain of our editors have. If, on the other hand, we are to make genuine progress, I still contend that we should refrain from acting as though falsifiability was still the touchstone of scientific credibility that it was in the 1970s or so. Science is not in a special area, bounded on one side by ignorance and superstition; instead it exists as part of human society and human knowledge, and is thus not very much different for our purposes from history or politics. If we can recognize this, we can perhaps begin to make progress. If we are instead to cleave to a doctrine that the world is black and white, it will be to the detriment of our project and perhaps our patience. I have certainly avoided certain areas of the project up until now because of the fraught atmosphere that surrounds them; perhaps now I will be more inclined to join in editing them, as PetraSchelm suggests above. --John (talk) 00:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I could write a lot more, but the best thing you could do is to follow PetraSchelm's suggestion to start with.--Filll (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with John that it's best not to use the phrase "POV-pusher". Well, I use the phrase on this talk page, but if you look at my post carefully you'll see that the phrase doesn't appear within the description of the remedy, and personally I wouldn't use the phrase on an article talk page.  No one is going to admit they're a "POV-pusher", so the phrase is useless to communicate with them.  They may admit to more objective things such as that 9 of their last 10 edits have been reverted by people citing policy.
 * I also agree with John that it's not a good idea to try to ban people with certain views. Instead, let's think of banning people with certain behaviour.
 * I agree with PetraSchelm that a series of four warnings is reasonable. The warnings need to be clearly understandable: that is, they have to be phrased so that it's almost certain that the warnee will know whether certain behaviours fit the definition of what's being warned against or not.  The warnings also need to be authoritative: that is, it has to be clear to the warnee that they're not just receiving a request from a single user, but a message from the community that they might be blocked.
 * Here's a description of the behaviour we're trying to eliminate: taking up peoples' time with futile persistence.  Persistence can be good, but one needs to realize when the chances of anything productive coming out of an argument are so small that it's not worth the time of the people participating – or when it will seem so to the other participants with different expectations and value systems.  It's fine to continue to hold opinions about subject matter and article content, but it's not fine to keep repeating the arguments when nobody is being convinced.  It's fine to have a long argument if it looks as if it might go somewhere, but it's not fine if it's futile. It's fine to post on an article talk page, but it's not fine to post things so long or repetitive that others find them tiresome.  Posting on an article talk page is a privilege, and posting irrelevant stuff or personal attacks are not the only ways to get kicked out:  posts have to have an element of potential usefulness, or at least of novelty.  One has to be sensitive to one's audience or one will get gonged.
 * There may be ways of interacting with the persisters (if I may use such a term here) such that one doesn't have to have long, futile interactions. There may be ways to do it briefly:  (1) "I'm not convinced." (2) "Stop repeating yourself, please." (3) "Stop repeating yourself or you'll be blocked." (4) (block)
 * See the book "Setting Limits" by R. Mackenzie. It's about disciplining children, but I think some of the ideas can also be modified to be useful for handling persisters on-wiki.  He discusses situations where parents get into long interactions with their children, and tells how to act differently so that the interactions become very short and go the way the parents want.
 * Well, maybe we should be more open to their ideas than that, but still there may be relatively brief ways to do it. We can decide what is the appropriate amount of time to spend listening to their arguments, and then choose a method partway between the above and long argumentation, so as to spend the appropriate amount of time.
 * If someone wants to make a repetitive argument, a good way to do it IMO is to lay out the argument in a well-organized way once on an article talk page or in user space, and from then on make very brief remarks each with a link to the argument. That way, people who want to ignore the argument can ignore it.
 * In my proposed remedy in my earlier post above: it's not just whether their edits have been reverted, but whether they've been reverted based on policy. If there's dispute about that, experts can be consulted at some appropriate noticeboard or policy talk page. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo's endorsement?
Jimbo endorsed this? How? Where?--Filll (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Further up this page - Because my opinions are often given more weight than they deserve, I am reluctant to say very much. But I will say this: I am generally supportive of conservative movements in this direction.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Raul654 (talk) 03:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This has been archived, btw, but can be seen at /Archive 1. I will say though that Jimbo was clearly not "fully endorsing" something, but simply saying that he was generally supportive of a direction.  Let's not read more into it than that. --Elonka 16:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I just came across this; it was probably in response to a comment I made in passing. Elonka's right, he was just expressing here his generally supportive attitude toward a direction that's being taken mostly elsewhere, but aided by suggestions that came from here; if it seemed I was making more of it than that, I apologize. Woonpton (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

CIVILity examined
I have often heard it claimed that uncivil behavior is responsible for driving away new editors, and creating an unproductive editing and working environment.

However, I think it would be good to get some data on this. We have some anecdotal evidence that is a bit contrary to these claims:


 * Militaries, such as the United States Marine Corps, seem to be quite productive and have not done anything over the centuries to try to squelch incivility in in the interests of a better and more productive working environment. If this contributed to winning wars, surely this would have happened.


 * Academia itself is very uncivil. And yet, it seems to do good work. Wikipedia tries to emulate academia and uses peer-reviewed academic work as the gold standards in its references. And yet, this has not been the subject of any civility drives and movements.


 * The halls of Congress and Big Business are quite uncivil. And yet, there are no massive drives to stomp out incivility.


 * New York City, London and Paris are famous for being rude uncivil environments. And yet, these cities function and attract new residents. People do not flee these cities because of incivility for the most part. In fact, New Yorkers who move to other places frequently state they miss the incivility.

I do think civility is important, but not for those reasons. Clearly, being the 7th most popular website on earth and the number one destination for all kinds of information, Wikipedia is very visible. And just like Al Jazeera and CNN and the BBC and the New York Times and Google and Yahoo and other high visibility information sources, we are under scrutiny as a result. And just like other high visibility sources, we have to present a certain inoffensive public image. A public relations disaster is just around the corner if we allow uncontrolled incivility and profanity behind the scenes at Wikipedia.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 15:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Surely those examples are based on stereotypes or are not applicable to this environment. The Marines are a military body designed to engage in war. Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Academia is civil and respectful of peers. Congress is civil and respectful of peers (well, maybe not Cheney, but mostly). Big Business is a competitive environment and again Wikipedia is not that in principle. Regional places like New York, again stereotype, but even if not, an equally popular stereotype is that Mom and Pop from Midwest Ohio wouldn't last a night in New York, and Wikipedia would like Mom and Pop to feel comfortable editing as well. Even in the literally cut-throat ancient Rome, one of the bedrocks of Ancient Civilization, the idea and guiding principle was civility if not in practice at least in policy. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 15:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What – the military doing nothing to squelch incivility? I very much disagree.  Surely, for example, someone of lower rank being uncivil to someone of higher rank will often be punished rapidly in the military.  In my experience, academia is almost always very civil.  In each of those milieus described above, there are forces tending to maintain civility: incivility has a cost in terms of losing friends, experiencing retribution etc., and extreme incivility may result in being kicked out of a room or arrested for disturbing the peace or whatever.
 * Wikipedia has special reasons for maintaining civility. If people passing each other on the street are uncivil to one another, they may gain an advantage such as getting to walk in a straight line while the other person is intimidated into stepping out of the way.  While this may constitute a small cost for the intimidated, it really doesn't affect the rest of society much at all.  However, when intimidation is used at a Wikipedia article, it is not only the person who is intimidated from making a certain edit who experiences the cost, but also all the readers who would have read the edited article.  To maintain NPOV, it works best if editors with various POV's edit on a relatively equal basis rather than a few intimidating the rest. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * People in the military, in academia or in a city usually have strong economic reasons for being there; but Wikipedians are editing on a volunteer basis, can very easily and quickly leave (if not Wikipediholic) and probably have many other useful activities competing for their time. Someone leaving Wikipedia doesn't have to find another job or another house: they just stop editing.  Therefore, if there are no special controls on civility, Wikipedia would tend to eventually contain mostly uncivil people, the civil ones having been driven away. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well this might all be true, but we do not have much evidence, do we? I think we have to move in all these questions away from assertions based on just intuition and other similar gratuitous claims to actual data. And by the way your statement In my experience, academia is almost always very civil is so wrong it is laughable. I guess you had a very different encounter with academia than I have had. And I am sure many professional academics could back me up on this in detail. Maybe you just had a short encounter, at some low level institution? I do not know.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 16:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Magnificently nasty, that last line. Filll, you outdo yourself regularly.
 * In the more general case, militaries are remarkably polite, but hardly provide a relevant structure for comparison, given that we are a non-hierarchical website. Academia certainly values politeness and - er - collegiality in certain fields. In the subfield in which I have some (non-short, non-low level) experience, universities in the Northeast and Europe are much more traditional in interpersonal interaction than universities around the Great Lakes, which creates some interesting problems at seminars and when new hires are involved. Incidentally, "collegiality" is now considered an important factor in tenure decisions. -- Relata refero (disp.) 20:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We have evidence in studies about other social networks that are easily obtained through Google. MySpace and YouTube, for example, have virutally no moderation and the former is in the news frequently as a place where teens bully each other. The latter... well, pick any popular video and read the comments. It's verifiable that not caring about civility leads to a hostile environment. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 20:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, in genereal, for the much-studied link between collegiality/civility and productivity:
 * So, how does it feel to be pushing a fringe theory :)? -- Relata refero (disp.) 21:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're mean. :) Those are very interesting, and might even be useful on the WP:CIVIL page itself as background. Are you aware of any literature on civility specifically as it applies to online environments? I ask because the behavioral norms and standards online are quite a bit different from at my workplace, anyway. MastCell Talk 23:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So, how does it feel to be pushing a fringe theory :)? -- Relata refero (disp.) 21:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're mean. :) Those are very interesting, and might even be useful on the WP:CIVIL page itself as background. Are you aware of any literature on civility specifically as it applies to online environments? I ask because the behavioral norms and standards online are quite a bit different from at my workplace, anyway. MastCell Talk 23:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So, how does it feel to be pushing a fringe theory :)? -- Relata refero (disp.) 21:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're mean. :) Those are very interesting, and might even be useful on the WP:CIVIL page itself as background. Are you aware of any literature on civility specifically as it applies to online environments? I ask because the behavioral norms and standards online are quite a bit different from at my workplace, anyway. MastCell Talk 23:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So, how does it feel to be pushing a fringe theory :)? -- Relata refero (disp.) 21:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're mean. :) Those are very interesting, and might even be useful on the WP:CIVIL page itself as background. Are you aware of any literature on civility specifically as it applies to online environments? I ask because the behavioral norms and standards online are quite a bit different from at my workplace, anyway. MastCell Talk 23:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're mean. :) Those are very interesting, and might even be useful on the WP:CIVIL page itself as background. Are you aware of any literature on civility specifically as it applies to online environments? I ask because the behavioral norms and standards online are quite a bit different from at my workplace, anyway. MastCell Talk 23:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This is all great. However, I believe we have to move past "Intuition based management techniques" to "Evidence based management techniques". A lot of the stuff we do on Wikipedia is based on intuition, or gut feeling, or some sort of abstract argument that everyone repeats blindly and mindlessly. Two or three editors brainlessly repeating contradictory arguments just get into ridiculous conflicts, with no facts to back any of it up. Each has an intuition about how things are. Many who dish out advice (even on this page) have zero experience in the appropriate area but are glad to make unsubstantiated claim after claim, based on no evidence, no data and information. Frequently, those who know the least are the most aggressive and obnoxious about trying to spread their ignorance. We have to move past this. And these fables about CIVIL are just that; fables. It is particularly amusing to see people claiming that militaries are very civil and polite. Yeah right... tell me another.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 19:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * One way to move past all of this would be to stop making vague statements like "many who dish out advice" and "those who know the least" and so on. If you think that's a way that to get around NPA, think again.
 * Can I take it as read that you accept the overwhelming mainstream view is that decreased civility hampers productivity? Because otherwise, we have nothing to go on about your intuition about what's true, and you know where that leads. -- Relata refero (disp.) 23:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and about the military - it is probably the organisation in which social interaction is most structured and etiquette most respected. I really don't know what you're talking about - perhaps you've watched too many movies with a foul-mouthed drill sergeant? :) -- Relata refero (disp.) 23:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have one word for you. Data.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 23:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a very informative word without context, I'm afraid. Data of what? Etiquette in the military? Really? -- Relata refero (disp.) 07:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Let this stand in mute testimony to your deep insight in these matters and penetrating analytic abilities.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 16:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why thank you. I am as unworthy of being complimented for my analytical ability and insight as you are worthy of being complimented for your graciousness in discussion. -- Relata refero (disp.) 21:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding repetitive arguments
I had been intending to post something within a day or two suggesting the use of FAQs associated with article talk pages, containing the arguments that tend to come up repeatedly on those talk pages, when I coincidentally ran across this draft essay by Filll which describes that very idea among others!

Nealparr above says there is no end to the process of disagreeing. I'm not sure about that. Looking at WP:Consensus: once something has been decided somehow, the issue shouldn't be re-opened unless there is new information or new arguments. Therefore someone who tries to re-open an issue using an old argument can be told that that's inappropriate. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

—Apis (talk ) 02:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)''
 * Yes I was also thinking about a FAQ or something, and I think I have already seen one at the top of a talkpage somewhere, don't remember where though.
 * As for telling someone that re-opening an old discussion is inappropriate... Well that would work on most of us (I hope), but not on a civil POV pusher, that's why they are tricky. =) ''


 * FAQs can be useful in some cases. That is why I suggested the FAQ at evolution and wrote the first version. It might have been the first on Wikipedia, but I do not know. However, anyone who thinks that this will stop a "CIVIL POV pusher" clearly has no experience on a really controversial article, or with a CIVIL POV pusher. A CIVIL POV pusher will engage in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and repeat the same argument over and over 50, 100, 500 times, maybe in slightly different words, but essentially the same argument. They will be polite, but trying to drive you over the edge where you make a mistake and then get you sanctioned for violating CIVIL or NPA or whatever. Many will claim that to even disagree with them is a violation of CIVIL!! Not wanting to reopen a closed conversation is about the same. It will never work on a CIVIL POV pusher, who will reopen it dozens if not hundreds of times over days, weeks, months and even years. --Filll (talk | wpc ) 19:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Therefore someone who tries to re-open an issue using an old argument can be told that that's inappropriate. - yes, that sounds great in theory. Unfortunately, in practice, it doesn't quite work that way. Raul654 (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, can you point me to a few examples? Because in my experience, focusing an objection towards a talkpage archive where that same objection has been civilly addressed and answered is quite effective. The mailing list is discussing a possible mediawiki alteration to help this. -- Relata refero (disp.) 23:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at talk:Global warming, of the 11 sections there, I count 4 -- 1 (What, no "Criticism" section?), 2 (Non-NPOV and old climate data), 3 (Problems with the Page), 7 (Rename article) -- which rehash things that have already been talked about, are in the achives, and probably in the FAQ too. Raul654 (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Except people don't exactly point people to the FAQ, do they? Nor do they update the FAQ based on the asked questions... there need to be behavioural changes as well. -- Relata refero (disp.) 07:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Except when POV pushers are pointed specifically at the FAQ, they simply ignore it. Raul654 (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * He didn't ignore it. He read it, and objected to the Orestes meta-study on principle, saying it was an "opinion about an opinion". An objection that is not reasonable, as the Orestes study is a reliable secondary source aggregating and analysing information about the primary sources (the opinions expressed in the individiaul studies.) In which case, you point that out, say that nothing less than an opinion about the set X of opinions is acceptable per OR when we are describing the features of X. (And change the FAQ to reflect that objection.) There's also a point about timing, which is not per se disruptive. Again, shift the onus onto the dissenting editor: has a new meta-study been produced altering the conclusions of Orestes? If not, we go with the sources we have. -- Relata refero (disp.) 23:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That thread now has in excess of 2,500 words, and Sirwells shows no signs of easing up. He keeps bringing up misinformation (like the Oregon petition), forcing others to debunk his nonsense. I trust this has illustrated why trivial advice like "Point civil POV pushers to the FAQ" is not just unhelpful, but insultingly vacuous to the people who actually have to deal with this problem. Raul654 (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What's insulting is the apparent decision to ignore my point above. If he's bringing up misinformation regularly brought up and not in the FAQ, find the last discussion of it, point him in that direction, ignore him till he frames it in terms of that disussion, and add it to the FAQ. If he's bringing up new misinformation, it needs to be rebutted on the talkpage anyway. If he's bringing up misinformation that is in the FAQ, then you're not doinitrite.
 * What's even more insulting? Calling carefully-worded advice from people who deal with POV-pushers daily "trivial". Have fun. -- Relata refero (disp.) 08:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I will have to agree with Raul654 on this point. Of course I am an advocate of FAQs; otherwise I would never have written what I believe to be the first one, at the evolution article over a year ago. However, the idea that the FAQ is a cure-all and will fix all the problems or even most of the CIVIL POV pushing problems and that we are all too stupid not to know that just is an incredible implication. Wow.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 16:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the first. If you don't think it will solve a good proportion, explain why not, while taking into account the points made elsewhere on this page. Looked at Talk:Muhammad recently? Wow. -- Relata refero (disp.) 08:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't see Sirwells as much of a problem. Global warming and associated articles are well-policed, and Sirwells is arguing against a strong consensus of editors (not to mention Wikipedia policy); any edits he makes to the articles are going to be reverted. His posts on the talk page are annoying, but what harm are they actually going to do? I mean, when I see a single-purpose account carrying on like this, I do long for the ability to perma-ban them, but I don't see that this particular editor is causing a problem with the actual content of the articles.
 * I have to echo Relata Refero in saying that he, Dbachmann, and other editors who frequent Fringe theories have to deal with POV-pushers all the time, and usually in articles that are less well maintained than Global warming and Evolution. I wouldn't say that they're successful all the time, but they have a good track record of maintaining quality articles in the face of nationalistic, tribalistic, sectarian, etc. editors. Many of the people who are posting to this page seem to think that the problem is science vs. pseudo-science, but the problem is much broader. The underlying structure of the issues that Relata Refero deals with at Jawaharlal Nehru and problems at Global warming are the same: what reliable sources say vs. narrow, sectarian viewpoints. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly true. A lot of things sound great in theory, but do not work very well in practice when you are dealing with a dedicated CIVIL POV pusher.

I have been exchanging emails with one that was just banned, and it is amazing the machinations he wants to still go through. He never ever heard any warnings (although he was given warnings for 8 months by dozens of other editors). He misunderstood all the instructions by assorted admins. He misquoted sources, and was caught and claimed he never did it. He argues and argues and argues that his view is not a FRINGE point of view but in fact very very important and even deserves to be treated as the majority point of view even though its prominence among experts is probably way way less than 0.01%. Even among the public (which we typically do not use to establish prominence), his position ranks at 0.5% prominence worldwide, and even in places where it is most popular, it is way less than 10% prominence. But he still argues and argues and argues and argues and argues and argues and cajoles and cajoles and pleads and twists words etc to try to "prove" his point. He even misquotes other editors here on Wikipedia, is caught by the editor in question, and claims he never did it. If this editor was not blocked, he would continue for another year, or two, or 5.

And I guarantee, even after suffering through months of misery at the hands of this editor and his associates, there will be several here on Wikipedia that will complain and moan about how unfair it is that he was blocked/banned. They will say that Wikipedia is far too unforgiving and that he did not mean any harm (although he drove away several other editors and several others were banned or blocked because of his antics). They will go on and on and on and on and on about it. We have several here who are nothing but semi professional whiners who do contribute nothing at all to Wikipedia but complaints and whining and recriminations.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 23:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh. You really need to stop impugning everybody else -see my remark above- and focus on the problem this page purportedly addresses. -- Relata refero (disp.) 23:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting response. Let's let it stand as a tribute to your incredible insight and perspicacity, and unmatched experience in these matters.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 23:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How the hell is saying you need to stop griping about everybody else impact my "expertise"? Please. Two totally distinct things, as no doubt you now realise. If you're making no sense, presumably because you're lashing out wildly. Don't. Continually claiming that everyone else who works in contentious areas doesn't really understand the way you do is not going to get anyone believing you, or even particularly sympathetic.) -- Relata refero (disp.) 07:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Having had an exchange or two with you in the past and seen your peerless levelheaded rationality, I think I will decline to discuss much further with you. Thanks.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 16:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I guess I didn't make my suggestion clear, i.e. explaining what would happen after telling the person their behaviour is inappropriate. Once they've been told, there are two possibilities:  either they'll stop it, or they won't.  I'm imagining an interaction something like this:
 * User A: (repeats old argument)
 * User B: It's inappropriate for you to bring that up because ... blah, blah, blah, explanation, link.
 * User A: (repeats same old argument again)
 * User C: You've already been asked not to repeat that argument. That's not just a request: it's a requirement of the community.
 * User A: (repeats same old argument again)
 * User B: Please stop repeating that argument, or you will be blocked.
 * User A: (repeats same old argument again)
 * User D: (blocks user A)
 * In this scenario, user A repeats the argument 4 times and is then blocked after having violated clear warnings. User A doesn't have the opportunity to repeat the argument 50 or 100 times.
 * I think in most cases, user A would stop repeating the argument, but it doesn't matter whether I'm right about that or not, because either way, user A would not repeat the argument 50 or 100 times before being blocked. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That is a great idea, if we can make things clean enough and regular enough with warnings and procedures so it actually happens. Of course, they can confuse the issue by spreading it out over several days, or having their friends make it for them in rotation, or changing the wording slightly, or claiming that they were not told properly or whatever. I am sure all sorts of strategies and tactics will be tried. This needs to be reduced to something very simple, and then tested extensively in practice. And then maybe proposed as a standard once the rough edges are worn off.


 * As above, I have to warn you that there are legions of people on Wikipedia that will fight this tooth and nail as unfair and uncalled for and too harsh. And there will probably be many who will claim that user B is in violation of the same principle since he repeated the same explanation several times.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 00:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Data? -- Relata refero(disp.) 07:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * More like prognostication in this case. Informed as well in this case.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 15:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha, so when you do it its informed prognostication, but when anyone else does it its "assertions based on just intuition"? :) -- Relata refero (disp.) 21:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * When you have actually contributed anything of value, or have something to offer, then maybe it will be worth responding to you. Thanks.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 21:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome.
 * You actually haven't responded to my copious evidence of mainstream views above, you haven't accepted that close mentoring is considered appropriate by the community, and you've dismissed FAQs... in return you have offered... er... -- Relata refero (disp.) 21:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Per above.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 21:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Above where? -- Relata refero (disp.) 22:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. No doubt many problems remain to be worked out. The main problem I see is how to ascertain and clarify whether a given warning has community consensus backing it.  ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the goal of this proposal makes sense, in that it would be nice to have a better way of dealing with editors who obsessively repeat the same argument regardless of how many outside editors tell them it's unconvincing or inappropriate. The problem I see is that any block which is tinged with "content dispute" will get segments of the community riled up. It's hard enough, in the current climate, to make a block stick for straight-up obvious edit-warring or out-and-out disruptiveness, so the idea of a block for lower-level tendentiousness seems a bit idealistic, though I'd like to see things move in that direction. MastCell Talk 21:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with MC here. Now where are those who will attack him visciously for offering that opinion?--Filll (talk | wpc ) 21:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're agreeing with him, then nobody's likely to attack him viciously. He has a point, but it would be more relevant if I had actually seen a neutrally-presented report that didn't have some form of action taken recently. -- Relata refero (disp.) 22:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * By "report", do you mean WP:AN/I report? I'm actually in the process of writing up my 6-month interaction with User:Strider12 as a case study in where I think Wikipedia is failing, and it goes to these points, including several WP:AN/I reports which died on the vine. Of course, as an involved party, perhaps I've got blinders on with respect to that particular case. By the way, if you want to see an example of relentless, tendentious fringe POV-pushing unlikely to ever reach blockability, take a look at Talk:Passive smoking and the history of the editor posting the extensive tabulation of "bias" at the bottom of the talk page. MastCell Talk 22:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * someone asked for data. There's at least one person who is going to fight this, not tooth and nail exactly, but the way I usually do when I care about something. I've see enough cases of 1 against a group when it was clear group ownership.  someone keeps insisting rightly that something is COI or unsourced or whatever, and everyone with a stake in it says, go away, giving enough different reasons that he's the one who looks like 3rr.  DGG (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we'd be talking about situations where dispute resolution and outside input have been provided, and even the outside input has consistently gone in one direction. In most (though not all) cases, truly uninvolved outside input from the widest audience possible has been the antidote to both tendentious POV-pushing and "gangs" of WP:OWNers. However, after such attention subsides, it's not uncommon for the editor in question to resume pushing the rejected arguments. But I sense we're coming at this from different angles. MastCell Talk 22:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course sometimes a group takes over an area, and pushes some non-NPOV, or some original research or some unsourced material, or some other problematic views. No doubt about it. I have seen it many times, and anyone with a little experience on Wikipedia will have seen it for themselves.

So how does one distinguish this type of group from a group defending NPOV, for example? Well this is similar to the discussion we had earlier about what is a POV pusher. First, one has to understand what NPOV actually is, which I have noticed is a very difficult concept for most people on Wikipedia. That is why I suggested (on the mainspace counterpart of this page) some nomenclature changes to try to help with that understanding a little, and help to reduce the confusion. Then, one has to recognize what the views are on a given topic, and their relative proportions. If one finds that a group is defending some narrow minority view as the mainstream view, or not allowing criticism of some minority view, or even significant other views from the mainstream view, then there is probably a problem with the group. If the group is defending a well-balanced NPOV article and set of views, then there is not a problem.

For the most part, this discussion on these pages is about situations where one or more editors is trying to maintain or implement some non-NPOV version of an article. --Filll (talk | wpc ) 23:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've worked with this almost as much as you--non-NPOV is in many of these cases in the mind of the beholder. I see POV pushing a minor problem here as compared to OWN. The only remedy for both is keeping editing and criticism open & encouraged. Nobody should have to fear that if they challenge an article they're going to be blocked for it, as in fact happened to me when I first came here. As for repeated disruptive editing, I've just given one of my own very very rare blocks to someone doing it. It happens and we can deal with it. DGG (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think part of the problem is that what you mean by NPOV, and what I mean by NPOV, and what many "CIVIL POV pushers" mean by NPOV, and so on, are not the same. For example:
 * Is NPOV just the absence of criticism of any idea?
 * Is NPOV the mainstream view, and the mainstream view only?
 * Is NPOV the mainstream view among the public, or among experts?
 * What are the experts that should be consulted? Experts in a FRINGE topic? Or mainstream experts in academia?
 * Is NPOV the uncritical positive promotion of FRINGE areas?
 * Is NPOV a proportional mix of positive and negative material about the major views of a given topic? What should the proportions be?
 * Is NPOV a balanced mix of positive and negative material about the major views of a given topic?
 * Are NPOV articles about FRINGE topics mainly positive descriptions of these topics, with very minor inclusion of conflicting mainstream views?
 * Since the proponents of FRINGE topics do not want to describe them as FRINGE, should we describe anything as FRINGE?
 * Are NPOV articles about FRINGE topics mainly positive descriptions of these topics, and some mainstream views but also material that rebuts these mainstream views showing the mainstream views in the worst possible light?
 * Are NPOV articles about FRINGE topics mainly negative descriptions of these topics, and some positive FRINGE views of the proponents, but also material that rebuts these FRINGE views?
 * and so on and so forth. This is why I would like to make the entire situation and its name much more clear. This is something we can do and it will reduce a huge amount of discord if we do it.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 14:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am also currently facing an WP:OWN situation. Chiropractic is an article that is about a WP:FRINGE topic that is clearly WP:OWNed by a group of WP:FRINGE proponents. The article reads like an advertisment for this WP:FRINGE treatment and there are constant efforts to make it less and less critical, drawing on unreliable sources. However, this is closely coupled with a complete confusion about what NPOV means. The same was true at homeopathy. The same was true at intelligent design. The same was true at evolution. The same was true at Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The same was true at dozens and dozens of other similar controversial articles.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 14:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

As an example consider this thread: The text on scientific consensus. That discussion is now split over three different sections (on that page), including one RFC. The same user has brought up the same discussion on other pages (e.g. Global Warming). This discussion has involved at least 10 different editors now. I thought he had finally stopped but recently made a new edit on the Scientific opinion on climate change page with the following edit summary: "revert away, o ye gatekeepers of global warming gospel....". Questioning whether there is a scientific consensus is a reoccurring topic on all global warming related pages it seems.

DGG: OWNing might be a bigger problem for you, that doesn't mean this isn't a big problem for a lot of other editors. Any remedy should of course be constructed in such a way as to not cause any new problems (with wp:owning or otherwise).

Anyone who doubt that this is a problem should consider the challenge (made above by PetraSchelm) to "mediate the debate at the State Terrorism article for at least three weeks, and to put in time as a regular commenter at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard for a month. (And I mean this in all good faith and seriousness.)".

I don't have a problem with someone raising a topic for discussion even if it is to reopen an old discussion, the problem is when the same arguments are being repeated over and over again and nothing new is added to the discussion (except insults (although not quite uncivil enough to get any negative consequences)).  —Apis (talk ) 08:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's see. We have a single editor insisting that in the absence of a poll of scientists in the appropriate field structured the way he wants, he has the right to put in a statement that no such poll has been taken. Does he have a reliable source that has undergone appropriate peer-review attesting to the relevance and truth of that? If not, he doesn't get to put it in. Instead I see an unnecessarily long discussion that doesn't focus on that specific point. Like everywhere else, there are POV-pushers in this field who argue from single exceptions; our structures are sufficient to deal with that, if applied properly.
 * Yes, it is sometimes taxing dealing with such people. However, that's exactly the process we have to keep us honest. FWIW, I have posted in the past at State Terrorism and would be more involved there if I didn't disapprove of WMC's handling of it - though I agree with him on the direction the article should go - and I'm a regular at FTN. I do so, as do most regulars there, to keep fringe views, such as of those challenging the GW consensus or those claiming that the Templars were Buddhist, out of our main articles. This means that you take the minimum-effort approach, using our policies, to deal with these individuals, not by discussing the truth or falsity of their claims, as seems to have been done on that talkpage, after the first two posts.
 * For example, in the RfC section, he says "I do question an authority figure such as the IPCC if they say there is a consensus of all scientists with knowledge of climate change since they have not taken a poll of all scientists with knowledge of climate change nor do they have any valid basis of claiming so." To which the response is simply that the IPCC says so, the IPCC is eminently reliable by our standards, and unless he can bring a source of equivalent reliability to the table disagreeing, the conversation is over. Instead people try and explain to him about polls, who comprises the IPCC, and so on... this is precisely the kind of thing where a FAQ should be used, and regularly updated. -- Relata refero (disp.) 13:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. All good faith editors, however unconventional their opinions, think their POV is the correctly neutral NPOV. If they are impolite about it, as is very often the case, we can deal with it through the usual sanctions. If they are polite about it, we simply have to be polite back. Polite behavior under stress is necessary for effective participation in the user community. If someone expresses the same opinion incessantly, they can be answered briefly and ignored. If they keep reverting an article, they can be blocked. DGG (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If someone expresses the same opinion incessantly, they can be answered briefly and ignored. Sometimes this works. And sometimes it does not. It depends on how much disruption there is. It depends on whether the editor allows himself or herself to be ignored. It depends on if they are successful in recruiting others to their cause. It depends on the number of meat puppets and sock puppets that might be accompanying them. And so on.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 15:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. To pick up something talked about earlier, if an editor is showing politeness and (through the contrib history) single purpose, what are the throughts on limiting the reverts of such an editor to one/day/article? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What process would we need for the 1RR to be approved? Who'd implement it? -- Relata refero (disp.) 20:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * All good faith editors, however unconventional their opinions, think their POV is the correctly neutral NPOV. This is what I have said over and over. Most editors who are FRINGE proponents do not understand what NPOV means. They think it means that their ideas and their ideas alone get to be presented and no one better dare disagree with them or else. And the idea that NPOV is a mix of views just escapes them. And a lot of this is because NPOV is an awful name for this policy and misleading.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 14:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Umm, you're quite wrong on one of the points there. Most "fringe" editors that continue to edit after NPOV has been explained to them or linked do so because they are convinced that even under NPOV their pet subject is getting a raw deal, and not being represented as it is due. That is not at all what you imply. In this case, they need to have SYNTH and RSes explained to them. About naming NPOV, I don't have an opinion. You may be right, but this isn't the place to discuss it. -- Relata refero (disp.) 14:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well there are of course a variety of things that can happen. Many exhibit WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Many try to redefine WP:NPOV. Many claim that the consensus interpretation of NPOV is wrong. There are a wide range of tactics that are used. I have made a very incomplete list here. Our policy materials do a bad job of explaining it and appear confusing and contradictory. And I think renaming NPOV is reasonable to discuss. I suggested it on the mainspace counterpart of this page. I think it would reduce some of the weapons in the arsenal of CIVIL POV pushers, which of course is the subject of these pages.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 15:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you two are arguing against here? You think there are good ways to deal with such users? Great! that's what this page is about, please show us! Apparently, the now 11 editors who's trying to argue with that particular user aren't aware of how to deal with this so I think it's obvious this isn't a piece of cake for most ppl. And yes, everyone have a POV, that is not the problem, and it's not a problem to bring up concerns you might have, even if they are fringe. The problem is how some users deal with not getting their POV represented. It wastes everyones time, patience, mood and energy. It certainly don't help anyone keep honest, it's more the other way around, the next time someone shows up and asks a question similar to what's being discussed now, hes not going to get a warm welcome and a message pointing him to the archives (I've seen this happen several times). (And, I'm sorry but my experience tells me that referring someone to wp:npov and wp:v etc and then ignoring them is a terrible solution).  —Apis (talk ) 19:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I did suggest a method. If you want a reason for why I think that most of the editors didn't go through it, let me point out what happened: the chap made an edit, someone reverted it and explained properly in terms of WP policy why it was wrong - and then the process went off-track by focusing on why it was wrong but in real-world terms not in WP terms. I'm not sure why 11 experienced users would let that happen. The way to handle such editors without losing energy is to make them do the running in terms of gaining consensus, proving reliability, demonstrating mainstream-ness, etc. I'm not sure personally that more is needed - and nowhere has a case been made that more is needed. -- Relata refero (disp.) 20:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The people who always claim that these situations are trivial to deal with are always the editors who have never dealt with them. Interesting huh?--Filll (talk | wpc ) 21:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. I've been dealing with editors like this for years, many of whom repeat talking points and quotefarms sourced to advocacy sources and may have a CoI. So has DGG. I believe I have mentioned this before. Several times. -- Relata refero (disp.) 08:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I would second the invitation of Apis. Some of these "superstar" editors endowed with magic powers are welcome to go into the most controversial discussions at the most controversial articles that they claim are trivial to solve, and show the rest of us how it is done.


 * One admin who has bragged and bragged and bragged and bragged about how fantastic he is in this regard and claims that it is all trivial has implied or stated that everyone else is completely %$#%^@ stupid compared to him on these sorts of problems (but yet he  has zero experience). So I have invited a good half dozen times to demonstrate his self-proclaimed skills. Not once has he come through. He has never ever shown that he can do anything. He has never even tried. I did get a few profanity laced emails attacking me for my trouble, however. His theory is that one has to just show the POV pushers "respect" and be "professional" and that everything will be alright. As an aside, I notice how professional he has been to me. Not very, frankly.


 * So I am still waiting for someone to show me that they have magical techniques that work perfectly and that those of us who contributed to this page and its mainspace counterpart are just chasing our tails needlessly. If someone has some perfect technique, we would all love to see it demonstrated in action. Let's see it. Let's put it to the test. Let's measure it and see how well it works compared to other methods. Don't be shy. Show us.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 21:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

—Apis (talk ) 22:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)''
 * Yes if someone can show us "how it should be done" then that person would do all of us a tremendous favor (seriously!). If you would edit articles, in the GW categories for example, for a couple of months (there should be plenty of opportunity there and any help would be much appreciated) then we can analyse the results and finish of this page! (And to whoever suggested respect will solve this: I think everyone have been very respectful, professional and patient in the example I provided. I don't think that's the problem here). ''


 * I'd happily edit articles in these areas, as would many, many others I know. It isn't the civil POV-pushers that scare me off. -- Relata refero (disp.) 08:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

—Apis (talk ) 09:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)''
 * Great! :) I hope you will prove me wrong then. ''

(ec) If someone would have asked for a source, it would take a day and we would have a couple of links to sources that's not reliable or relevant (to the issue). Then we will have to spend a huge amount of effort reading through irrelevant reports, checking the origin of reports from pseudoscientific and lobbying organizations. Trying to explain why "the extremely highly esteemed and honorable viscount bla bla of bla bla" isn't notable in this case and why he's not a reliable source and so on. It takes much less effort to provide a few links than to conclude and explain why they are not good enough as sources, so it's not the pov-pusher thats doing the footwork. Unless of course we just discard them without checking properly, but then were not much better then the pov-pushers themselves. But I expect that's what's going to happen in the end: editors will get tired of this and just disregard anything that sounds dubious to them without checking properly, and that will certainly hurt NPOV in the long run. (And the pov-pushers would most likely try to raise an arbcom case against the first editor (especially admins) to make a mistake in this regard). And as Fill has said, the typical civil pov-pusher is an expert at gaming the system with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, misunderstanding (or not reading) WP:NPOV / WP:V / WP:OR / WP:RS. The discussion will go on endlessly until someone just gives up. This is a serious problem that WP is not handling well at the moment and discussion to help fix this is much needed and appreciated in my opinion.  —Apis (talk ) 22:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Umm. Perhaps you didn't notice, but I said that the crucial point was that you need to frame the debate so that making the case that the source is reliable is the job of the pusher. The onus is not on you to demonstrate unreliability. -- Relata refero (disp.) 08:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

—Apis (talk ) 09:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)'' —Apis (talk ) 03:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)'' —<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">Apis (<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">talk ) 07:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)''
 * Sounds great, but how do you enforce it? More seriously though; I should tell the civil POV-pusher to show that his sources are reliable? The civil POV-pusher will then say they are reliable and from a respectable source, expressing incredulity that I haven't heard about this prominent source before (etc). Then what? ... I will have to demonstrate that the source is not reliable. And will most likely spend the next couple of days discussing the reliability of some ridiculous source. Or the pusher will use a source that looks relevant but when examined it's clear it's not really saying what the pusher is indicating. In my experience cherry picking quotes from sources is pretty common. The only way (that I know of) to denounce that, is to read the source and show that it's not really saying what the pov-pusher indicates. Although "The onus is not on you to demonstrate unreliability" sounds sensible, I have never seen this mentioned in any policy? And anyway, all this presumes it's possible to reason with the civil POV-pusher, thats generally not the case (as have been pointed out now several times), it's not like hes just gonna accept that someone says his source is not reliable? He can go on for ever as long as he don't break 3RR or NPA. This is why it would be great if someone could illustrate how to deal with such users, because in my experience it's never that charmingly simple. ''
 * Policies do unambiguously state that the onus is on the person inserting material to demonstrate that it is properly sourced. I usually use that.
 * About making them do the running: don't demonstrate the source is unreliable yourself. Ask him to read RS and demonstrate how it meets each of the criteria. If it does superficially meet those criteria, but only superficially, ask him to get consensus of posters at WP:RS/N.
 * About misrepresentation: yes, that's not easily fixable. I usually ask for a paragraph to be quoted on the talkpage so we know at least some of the context; that is a perfectly acceptable demand per WP:CITE. Again, make the pusher do the work.
 * About not accepting that a source is unreliable, yes, I've seen that happen. The worst example on WP for years was Koenraad Elst, whom all sorts of FRINGE-ists liked quoting, from Hindutva people and Ayurvedics to neo-Pagans and nationalist Flemings. I just had to remove him recently again from Denialism or somewhere. However, sustained misrepresentation of an RS once all other processes is fixable with reference to the OR noticeboard; armed with that, a neutrally-worded AN/I presentation, focusing on misrepresentation of sources rather than problematic content will solve the problem.
 * As should be obvious to the rational, I have some experience with editors of this sort. -- Relata refero (disp.) 12:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Policies do unambiguously state ..." No? ... wp:proveit says that material likely to be challenged should be sourced, yes, but nothing about demonstrating that a source is reliable. That might be a logical consequence, apparent to you and me, but no self respecting pov-pusher would adhere to that. And again, the pov-pusher is not reasonable, it's basically pointless to explain the errors in their reasoning, show them counter instances to their claims and so on, because they do not care. They are typically pushing their POV based on faith alone. A pov-pusher won't do any serious running, he would just bombard you with bogus claims until you give up from exhaustion. If he did check his facts or started to examine his claims, he wouldn't be a pov-pusher, then it would be possible to reason and come to a conclusion, maybe that he is right, and the article could be improved upon.
 * In the end, If the pov-pusher don't respond like you say he will, I don't see how to enforce any of what you suggest. I'm reluctant to cite policies to someone like that because that typically just teaches them that they can wikilawyer inexperienced users. I have never made a post to AN/I and have never seen it done either, so I have no clue what to expect from that, but I would suspect a lot of drama on AN/I and if lucky the pov-pusher might get a warning. What typically happens is the pov-pusher editing the article, being reverted (by several other editors) and eventually some admin will lock the article because of editwaring. If we are lucky it won't get locked in the pov-pusher version. (Typically the pov-pusher is editing just slowly enough for that not to happen though, and jumping between pages in the same category). Then there will be some drama on the talkpage, things will calm down a bit and then the article will be unlocked and things will start over again. That is very disruptive, and it's really hard to do any real work to improve these articles while that is going on; the discussions are wasting a lot of otherwise productive editors time. Sensible users won't put up with it in the long run, they will leave the project, and that will definitely hurt WP. ''
 * The crucial, first part of WP:V: All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.
 * The way to handle POV-pushers is never to tell them their faith is wrong. Its always just to tell them that they will get no justice for their claims here because of the unfortunate way that WP is set up, to favor mainstream science/conventional wisdom/Eurocentric history or whatever. Which is why even those who are irrational about their claims can sometimes be persuaded to be rational. -- Relata refero (disp.) 06:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree it's better to argue whether material should be included according to policy or not (in the end that's all that matters). In my experience that doesn't change the outcome of things anyway though. Maybe the policies needs some work? Fill suggested something along that line. Perhaps we are talking about different kind of users? In my experience a pov-pusher would ignore what is being said and misinterpret or ignore the policies. If it was as simple as explaining policy and then they would agree and say "oh, I see, according to wikipolicy my fringe beliefs don't belong in the article", then they are not much of a pov-pusher. But I am repeating myself now, aren't I. ''


 * Exactly. I have several thousand edits at this point on highly controversial articles dealing with this over and over, and watching others try to deal with it. I have watched editors with years of experience and tens of thousands of edits just spin their wheels. I have watched senior admins just bound up in knots and unable to do much. I have watched supposed mediation experts fail miserably. Over and over. I have had many long private conversations with sitting and former arbitrators, with mediators and experienced editors on this topic. None of them think it is trivial. Because they all have experience. Only those with no experience claim it is trivial.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 22:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Untrue, and by this point, a really, really boring claim. See above. -- Relata refero (disp.) 08:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I would beg to differ. It is not untrue. But that is not the interesting part. You have seemingly been willing to claim that you are one of those endowed with special skills to solve any CIVIL POV pushing situation. Ok, then I would like to see it clearly demonstrated. And if so, we should all learn from you. You should write essays on it and give classes. We should not be wasting time discussing it. You should be working instead of fighting with everyone about it.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 17:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Can't speak for Rr, but I find I succeed at least partially about half the time; and there are people here who do better & who mostly have the sense to just go about it and keep out of this sort of discussion. It does take a good deal of work in patiently explaining things to people repeatedly, and effort against one's instincts to always respond calmly, no matter how many times it takes. It isn't trivial, but it is possible. Typically the most difficult people do not keep civil, but then we can deal with that, especially once it is explained that 3RR is not a license, and that people can get blocked for violating the spirit of it even if they technically avoid violating it literally.   My experience is that I can do maybe one every month or so, not more. I've also learned that it helps not to try to follow up indefinitely, but at some point hand it over to somebody else. Work too long on one, and you've usually formed fixed sympathies. As an example, I'm going to keep patiently explaining here. Once a day, as I usually do. Going beyond that tends to cause me some anxiety, and what I'd do with the 3RR rule is change it to 2RR as the limit.  The problem is the uncivil POV pushers. The people who object to the civili ones are typically those pushing POV in the opposite direction. DGG (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I respectfully suggest to you that this is not just a problem of incivility. In fact, I would love to see evidence of that. Frankly, it sounds excessively simplistic and astoundingly ill-informed.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 16:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

—<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">Apis (<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">talk ) 03:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)''
 * I've never ever seen anyone blocked for slow edit warring so far. And if this "at some point hand it over to somebody else" is the case, it sounds like a really serious problem to me. The uncivil ones would be a huge problem if they were allowed to continue unhindered. Luckily, as it is, they are not, so they are not a problem (once they start being uncivil (uncivil typically meaning making personal attacks in this case)). If you look at the example I provided, you will see that almost everyone is very civil and polite and patient. But it's still a problem because it drains everyones (more than 11 editors in this case) energy that could have been spent improving articles instead. ''
 * I am working on it regularly. Currently, I'm defending sourcing at Jawaharlal Nehru (see the recent history of that page, and the talkpage for some slightly older concerns); at Stalin, Caste system among ICs or any of dozens of others of articles. Many, many editors work in these problems all the time without the numbers of the Global warming people or ID people. Follow Dbachmann around for a while to learn how even a short-tempered person handles this with relative care. I'm not going to waste time writing essays when I, DGG and PS have already explained at length how these things can be handled. -- Relata refero (disp.) 23:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)