Wikipedia talk:Civil POV pushing/Archive 4

Efforts to unblock disruptive editors
One of the defects of Wikipedia is that there are a large body of editors who are unfamiliar with disruptive editing and controversial articles, but who are willing nonetheless to lecture those with extensive experience in these areas about how they are wrong. Now this in itself would not necessarily be bad, except the inexperienced editors have the ability and the will to force other editors to deal with disruptive elements, wasting their time. There are no consequences for this.

As a community, we have only limited resources. Is it reasonable to volunteer 100 hours of someone else's volunteer time to deal with a mess you helped create? How about 500 hours? 1000 hours? Currently, there are no clear consequences to this sort of behavior. The enabling of destructive and disruptive editors is almost as negative for the project as the editors creating the disruption, if not more so. One enabler can help introduce 20 disruptive editors onto Wikipedia, burning up countless hours of other's time to deal with the ensuing nonsense. And they can do so with impunity. There is nothing to stop them from doing it again and again and again.

However, this gets worse. Many new editors encounter disruptive editors, and leave an article that they have expertise in. Or leave Wikipedia altogether, disgusted. Some respond with uncivil comments and are quickly blocked. Although many claim that civility problems create a bad working environment and discourage new editors, there is no evidence of this. Many of the new editors themselves exhibit civility problems when they encounter a tendentious editing environment, with edit warring, obvious trolls and disruptive editors pushing unencyclopedic agendas.

How many productive editors or potentially productive new editors is Wikipedia willing to sacrifice to introduce one disruptive editor into Wikipedia unfettered? How many hours of other editors time is Wikipedia willing to waste to cope with the introduction of one disruptive editor? These are important considerations and it should not be thought that there are not subtantial costs to the project to allowing disruptive editors to have free rein.--Filll (talk |  wpc ) 15:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Filll on the above. I think the key is in recognizing, defining as objectively as possible and naming the undesirable behaviour. That which can be named can be controlled. When people know they will be consistently blocked for certain well-defined behaviours, they will usually avoid those behaviours. A recently unblocked editor should not take up hours of peoples' time before the undesirable behaviour is recognized and the editor re-blocked. Work needs to be done in "setting limits": describing and objectively defining the undesirable behaviours. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that does not happen in practice. Have you changed your position on this since you advocated unblocking some disruptive elements? If so, I think that is a good change. Of course, my information on this might be faulty since I have not investigated it fully. If it is incorrect, I apologize of course.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 16:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Or, of course, at the time he advocated setting parameters and speedy re-blocks if necessary, and got piled onto later for no reason... -- Relata refero (disp.) 20:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

For those who have to deal with disruption, it is a different matter than for those who want to only impose disruption and pain on others. And just because it is possible to reblock quickly does not mean it will happen, or that it will be easy. The community is justifiably relucant to let someone who was surpremely disruptive back to do it again. Ever hear of "three strikes" ?--Filll (talk | wpc ) 19:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Umm, no. Is WP:THREESTRIKES a redlink?
 * I think you missed the point, which was that nobody paused to pay attention to what Coppertwig might or might not have actually thought at the time before piling on to him in the manner they did. Most disturbing, especially when a large proportion of the same people have been at AN recently complaining that nobody mentors tiresome editors... -- Relata refero (disp.) 23:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Since you have not heard of "Three strikes" then I think it is quite obvious who has missed the point, isn't it?


 * Of course I paid attention to what Coppertwig said. I think most of what he has posted is right on target. However, I think that some of past history is a bit at odds with this. And I offered a reason why that might be true.


 * People do not like to deal with nonsense. And anyone with no experience in these situations who says "I will dump 5 tons of horse manure on your front porch for you to clean up. Good luck." and then thinks that you will be grateful does not quite understand the situation. Of course it can be cleaned up. That is not the issue. The issue is, how much time and trouble will you have to devote to solving this mess someone else has created for you? Not that the manure might not be good fertilizer and useful in some circumstances. However....--Filll (talk | wpc ) 23:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ummm. I pointed out that saying "ever hear of three strikes", and claiming the "community" is "justifiably reluctant" to violate it without context is hardly likely to move the conversation further without an explanation of how it could apply here, why it should, why three, what sort of strikes, who judges they're strikes, and whether it applies already. I rather think that I'm not the one that missed the point....
 * Why should you have to clean up someone else's mess? I believe nobody claims that one of the unblockers should not be involved in mentoring... its been mentioned several times, I believe. Did you miss it? Perhaps you should read the conversations again. (Which is, of course, the point I said you missed.)
 * Your interpretation of Coppertwig's being at "odds" with past behavior is also perhaps based on not reading the past behavior. Always good to familiarise yourself first.
 * Now, anything further, or can we accept that unblocking and mentoring are unacceptable, and in fact should be carried out by the uninvolved, rather than those who automatically think of any addition to the articles they own as manure? --gee I guess I forgot to sign huh? 07:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again an interesting display. And incorrect in almost all particulars. Willfully?


 * Let's dispell some misconceptions here. Few if any would object to useful and appropriate additions and corrections to articles they work on. Few if any would object to giving someone disruptive who has promised to reform a second chance if adequately supervised and monitored. Few if any would object to keeping a formerly blocked or banned user who has returned on a very short leash, with the promise of rapid reblocking or rebanning if disruption reoccurs. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous, obviously.


 * However, the difficultly clearly arises in how these things have been executed in the past, so the community does not feel particularly reassured by any representations by many who advocate leniency and wikilove and forbearance of any difficulty (by others, not themselves of course). Unfortunately, in practice adequate supervision and monitoring is a bit difficult to come by. Many who are unblocked make no promise to reform and have no intention of reforming or conforming to community standards. It can be extremely difficult to go through the necessary processes and to get consensus to block or reblock anyone, or to ban or reban anyone, consuming immense amounts of time and other resources. In my observation, there are always large groups of editors who have not directly experienced the disruption caused by these difficult editors, and who are willing to volunteer the time and effort of others to deal with the problem editors they want unblocked or unbanned, since the advocates of unblocking and unbanning themselves are never effected in a negative way.  No matter who is blocked or banned and for what reason, there are always those who will assert vigorously that it is unfair and inappropriate, etc.


 * Where is my "proof" that such a thing is true, instead of just pure greed and nastiness of a bunch of stupid ^%^$# pieces of %$#^& that do not want others editing "their" articles? I have no "proof" per se, but I have observed what goes on and had conversations with many others who are reluctant to unblock difficult editors. And frankly, I believe that the model I have laid out makes a lot more sense than the one you claim above. However, I suppose we could try to develop a test to see which of the two is more accurate. Are you up for it?


 * By the way, if you do not know popular culture and current events, then do not ask me to teach it to you.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 16:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for agreeing you don't really have any basis for your assertions. Don't worry, they're interesting reading nonetheless, even if not very helpful for that reason.
 * More generally, I think you underestimate the number of people exposed to disruptive editors of this sort. I believe you've been told that before. Disagreeing with you is not a prima facie indication of inexperience. -- Relata refero (disp.) 21:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * But the records of past performance are a bit harder to cover up, aren't they?--Filll (talk | wpc ) 21:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I catch most of your policy-skirting snide insinuations, but that one totally escapes me. Do you think you could explain, if its on-topic? -- Relata refero (disp.) 21:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Coppertwig 16:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC) that defining the unwanted behaviour is key. I for instance am currently topic-banned for "tendentious editing" while I believe until shown otherwise that I was upholding policy, and those that violated it got me banned for trying to uphold it.  So unless I am a complete idiot, what we need is more clarity. Most editors are reasonable people: the fact that edit conflicts are so wide-spread must be a lack to communicate (as the prison warden said...)  &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Having watched this now for many many hours at many controversial articles, and in depth at articles on racial topics, alternative medicine and intelligent design, creationism and evolution, I think we have several problems:


 * the instructional materials on the policies are not particularly clear or well organized or easy to read or otherwise accessible (we maybe should have audio or video materials as well)
 * we do not have enough examples, well organized and accessible, of our policies in action
 * Our policies do not always have very useful names, like NPOV (as I have noted on the main page here)
 * Many people see the name, and just assume they know what it means (again like NPOV, or even CANVASS which I recently found out is far more complicated than I knew)
 * When more experienced editors explain the policies to assorted POV warriors and SPAs, they do not believe them, because they policies are all meaningless in the face of The TRUTHTM
 * When they are warned by experienced editors, the POV warriors and SPAs just blow the warnings off as meaningless or think they are tricks being used by adversaries who want to keep them from writing the articles in a way that reveals The TRUTHTM
 * Those who the guardians of The TRUTHTM would rather put their time and energy into developing assorted POV pushing strategies rather than learning the real policies and trying to make the article conform to these
 * From what I have seen, over and over, from User:profg, and User:Moulton and User:Whig and User:DanaUllman and many many others, is that the POV pusher never thinks that anything bad will happen to them. They are drunk with their superior attitude and positive that since they know The TRUTHTM that everyone around them is a &^%$ moron. And we give them 2nd chances, and 3rd chances and 4th chances and 5th chances etc. It must seem to them that they will get additional chances forever, since all the warnings never seem to result in anything, right? And then when their editing privileges are restricted, they cannot believe it. What me? Why me? Huh?
 * The POV warriors always think they are in the right, no matter what. Always the policy is wrong, or it has been interpreted wrong, or the admins and Arbcomm and all the other editors are just stupid and do not know the policy they way they do. After all, they are special since they know The TRUTHTM, right? So although I do not know Xiutwel's case in detail, I have watched him edit a little, and I believe that he shows all the same characteristics the others I have listed and observed exhibit.

It is an interesting phenomenon, and perhaps we could learn more by observing them more often and seeing patterns in their behavior and interviewing them etc. But after you have heard essentially the same story over and over and over, and you have tried your best to help the disruptive editors to understand policy, it gets tiresome.

I know that when I was new and did not understand the rules very well, I was very nervous about making a mistake. And I made lots of mistakes. And other editors told me. And admins. And I stopped. The POV pushers and SPAs do not stop. They are quite sure they are correct and everyone else is wrong in spite of all evidence to the contrary; even editors with 10 or 100 times as many edits as them are wrong about policy or just stupid according to them. In some cases of course, it is more complicated because these SPAs and POV pushers are literally paid to be disruptive and to introduce nonsense into Wikipedia, but that is a different story...--Filll (talk | wpc ) 22:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Fill, your observations are quite perceptive, and useful, I think. What I am missing in this analysis is that experienced editors have a POV just as your "POV-pushers". So the thing to look at might be: are the edit wars between a POV(pusher) and NPOV, or is the "POV-pusher" pushing POV-1 and are the experienced editors pushing POV-2 ?  The fact that a lot of people have the same POV-2 does not make that view the NPOV - far from it.  My experience is that quiete a few of experienced admins suddenly stop understanding WP:NPOV when that means they have to abandon their own POV.  Can you share this analysis, and if so, how can we improve wikipedia editing?  &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I will agree that editors often have their own POV. It would be sort of hard to imagine that they would not. However, good editors do not let their own POV affect how they edit the article, or at least try to minimize it. Editing with other good editors with different personal POVs, and abiding by WP:CON is likely to make the article closer to "NPOV".

The fundamental problem I see in your post, which I have noted over and over and over, is a basic misunderstanding of what NPOV is. This is due to the name, in large part I believe. NPOV not only means using "neutral language" but also presenting views "in proportion to their prominence":


 * the "neutral language" prong means that I cannot write "911 truthers are $#@$% morons" in the article. I can possibly write, in some circumstances, "Prominent person X (or prominent organization Y or notable publication Z) stated that '911 truthers are $#@$% morons' " with an appropriate reference to a reliable source. However, in many instances I would probably leave such inflammatory statements out, or minimize them. This is particularly true if the WP:BLP concerns are an issue of course.


 * the "in proportion to their prominence" prong is what hangs most SPAs and other POV pushers up, and I think from your post is what has you confused. If among the relevant experts, a certain belief is prominent, then that belief gets more of the attention in Wikipedia articles according to this prong of NPOV. I have found that people like yourself get confused about this, or purposely ignore it, or try to find some other loophole in the policy that allows them to dismiss this requirement, and therefore eventually get burned.

Suppose you hold POV-1. And you believe that your "adversaries" on WP hold POV-2. And the vast majority of the "experts" in the relevant field also hold POV-2, then NPOV will be mainly from POV-2. It has nothing to do with whether you thik your "opponents" on WP hold POV-2 or not. It does not matter if most of the public holds POV-1. It does not matter if a group of enthusiasts like creationists or 911 truthers or theosophists or Big Foot hunters or chemtrail fanatics or homeopaths or UFO-ologists or ghostbusters or naturopaths or anti-fluoride lobbyists or grassy knoll conspiracy theorists or whatever just love POV-1 and are positive that POV-1 is The TRUTHTM or not. The situation is, that a good WP editor, and good WP articles, must be mainly POV-2 according to NPOV. It does not matter whether the editors themselves agree with POV-2 or not. That is not the point. The point is, what do most of the relevant experts in the relevant field subscribe to? And that is what determines NPOV.

This is why the expression "verifiability not truth" so neatly captures what WP is about. You might know The TRUTHTM. But until you get most of the relevant experts in the relevant field to agree with your version of The TRUTHTM, you cannot force Wikipedia to reflect your version of The TRUTHTM. It just does not work that way. Wikipedia only reflects what the majority of the relevant experts in the relevant field believe, not The TRUTHTM.

I know this is hard to hear, since you are in possession of The TRUTHTM, but you have to realize that there are large numbers of other WP:FRINGE beliefs that you might dismiss as nuts, like alien abduction and Ouija boards and yogic flying and the moon landing conspiracy and on and on; literally thousands upon thousands of them. But behind each of those "crazy" beliefs, there is someone just as committed as you to their own version of The TRUTHTM. And Wikipedia cannot accommodate all of these people who know The TRUTHTM. First, it is impossible since these versions of The TRUTHTM sometimes conflict with each other, and so we have no idea which version of The TRUTHTM to really make most prominent. And second, we would not be much of a respectable reference work if catered to every single person who knows The TRUTHTM.

Does this mean that Wikipedia will be wrong sometimes? Sure it does. Of course, the experts are wrong sometimes. Even lots of times. But Wikipedia is not the place to put speculative material about a given belief of the experts that might be wrong. There are many places for this kind of material, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. --Filll (talk | wpc ) 15:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Twitching
I've just scanned through the last week's comments. I keep being surprised by the people who think that tendentious editing and POV pushing is really not a problem on Wikipedia. Surely I didn't just spend a week arguing with an editor over really basic issues, like whether you can use a dictionary as a reference? (He finally got blocked today for edit warring.) Surely there isn't yet another mess at Orthomolecular medicine, currently requesting a third opinion?

I keep having this mental twitch: I read these comments and mentally decree that the author is required to shadow a handful of particularly tendentious editors for a month, or to bring a controversial topic area up to GA status, and then see how they feel about it. I have a few in mind, of course, but I'm sure others could add to the list.

So, dear friends, please consider yourself warned: There's nothing like experience to understand the issue, and the urge to say, "Great.  You've just volunteered to re-write Orthomolecular medicine so that  Tim Vickers, TheNautilus, Jeffire, and Alterrabe all approve" is increasingly difficult to resist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have also been reading through this discussion and I'm not sure that anyone is claiming that "tendentious editing and POV pushing is really not a problem on Wikipedia." I think some are suggesting that there are already several workable solutions in dealing with said problem.  I think some also suggest that on contentious entries it isn't the civil POV pushers who are entirely or perhaps even mainly to blame for driving away reasonable editors.  I believe a third suggestion has been that people backing these positions, despite what Filll keeps on declaring, do in fact have serious experience on these types of entries.  Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If these solutions actually work, then why is there still a nasty fight at Orthomolecular medicine? It's been going on for months.  There have been RfCs, there have been third opinions, there have been Wikiquette complaints, several editors have left in disgust -- and the editors are still fighting over how the lead should present critics of this idea.  If these solutions work, then why isn't this problem already solved?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, all your pleasure in attacking me aside, I do not really care if you or anyone else has experience in these sorts of difficult situations. The question is, can you solve them? If you can, get to work and show us that you can. Announce that you will go into contentious situation X and use your special skills to solve a situation the rest of us have been unable to. Let us watch you in action and learn. Maybe we can even develop statistical tests to evaluate your approach. If your approach works better than other approaches, fantastic. We will have learned something. So let's stop with the snide remarks and personal attacks. Stop fighting and start showing us what you have to offer. Otherwise, it is all just hot air...--Filll (talk | wpc ) 17:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Filll I'm not sure how an attempt to summarize a perspective someone else has presented within a conversation I have not myself taken part in constitutes either 1) and attack on a third party or 2) a claim to have "special powers." My point was simply that both "sides" here recognize a problem (in response to WhatamIdoing's suggestion that one does not).  One of these sides claims that new remedies are needed while the other seems to be reiterating what it claims are existing remedies.  I have not made any opinion on the validity of either or on my own ability to solve these types of disputes.  I have myself edited some contentious areas (mostly in relation to Islam) and have at times been less and at times more capable of level headed behavior in response to POV pushing.  I do understand the frustration in these circumstances but I do also think that some of the existing venues have been of much help.  For instance when there are disputes over the reliability of fringe sources, and there is a talk page stalemate due to the overwhelming presence of POV pushers then the RS/N has been very helpful.  Here I agree with Relata.  Sometimes the talk page argumentation follows onto the RS/N but when that happens it becomes clear which is the fringe POV.  After the RS/N comes to a consensus about a source it becomes much easier to keep this fringe source out of the entry, and it becomes much easier to ignore the trolling of POV pushers, who tend to back off at that point as well.  The key here is that disputing editors respect the notion that uninvolved editors probably see the dispute with less bias than those on the talk page.  It is also important when outside opinions come from an RfC or a noticeboard that those involved accept their opinions as 3rd party ones, not simply lumping them, for convenience, into one side of the existing dispute.  That is in fact a sure fire way to nullify or attempt to nullify the usefulness of outside observation and commentary.  The POV pushers I've dealt with in relation to Islam, despite sometimes claiming that third parties are themselves POV pushers, actually tend to give up on these issues when this process is followed.  Not sure that's helpful but that is the only experience I've had that relates to this.  I have no magic powers.PelleSmith (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. But if you know things the rest of us do not, and can solve these situations easier, then please feel free to set up a test so we can observe.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 17:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If "Look, all your pleasure in attacking me aside" and "So let's stop with the snide remarks and personal attacks", wasn't directed at me then my sincerest apologies for assuming that in my response. I shared with you my only experience in these matters.  Is there anything you would like me to clarify about it?  If you don't agree or don't find it useful then so be it, but if you actually "have no idea what [I] am talking about" I can try to explain further given some more directed questions.  I do not have magical powers nor do I have a magical process that will work in every situation.  The one type of experience I'm used to has in the past, for the most part, been aided by third party commentary.PelleSmith (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have plenty of reason here and previously to know you despise me. Fair enough. You are allowed to hate my guts for whatever ideological reason is driving you.

But that is all besides the point. I can't understand the material you posted above and I will not waste large amounts of time trying to decipher it. In any case, I invite you to solve some of these difficult problems on these contentious articles so we can observe. Just claiming a third party will do the trick sort of dodges the question. What third party? When? Perhaps you can be the third party? Go ahead. I would love to see. --Filll (talk | wpc ) 18:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Filll the relevance of your initial three sentences perplexes me, but I wont take offense and the initial offer stands in case you wish to take it--just say the word and I'll do anything I can to help you "understand the material [I] posted". I'm looking over the talk page WhatamIdoing posted above presently and will gladly share my views of the matter should they be welcomed.  Perhaps I can pay particular attention to how the involvement of "third parties" did or did not help the dispute.  Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As you sew, so you shall reap, as they say. If this difficulty is really just trivial and third parties can solve everything, and you can demonstrate this, then I am sure everyone would be interested in seeing that. This has not been true in my experience and those of others. But if all one needs is some outside party to solve the problem of CIVIL POV pushing, then by all means show us so we do not continue to try to come up with novel approaches to what seems like a vexing complicated problem.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 18:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Filll, just to be clear I do not hold the position that POV pushing is "trivial" and I do not hold the position that "third parties can solve everything" only that in my very limited experience integrating third party commentary in a particular way has been helpful in solving POV disputes where one group clearly backs a fringe theory or source. In other circumstances such commentary may not have lead to similar results.  Comparing behavioral differences may at least suggest part of an answer.  Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Seeing is believing. Pretend I am from Missouri. Show me. Pick a set of horrible disputes and bring in whatever third party you want into them (mediator, outside editor, yourself, whatever), and show how the problem goes away faster and more easily with your approach. We can try to develop a testing procedure to see if there is a benefit or not, and what its nature is.

I do find it somewhat interesting that there is some qualification in your claims now. Interesting... but that is irrelevant. If you are sure of what you have stated, then, let's set up some experiments.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 19:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Its not as easy as introducing one outside party. To qualify further, my experience involves "a series of outside parties", and whatever authority their opinions have is not only derived from their supposed neutrality as third parties, but perhaps more specifically from the ability to come to a consensus as a group of uninvolved editors.  One rogue commentator is not capable of holding that much social capital.  I note that an RfC was held at Talk:Orthomolecular medicine and the result was a clear consensus of third parties in support of one lead version (#2), yet one editor battled on against this consensus.  While doing so this editor also summarily argued against established policies (RS and V) in order to make his/her point.  Here it might have been prudent to disengage the problem editor while making two points clear 1) there is clear consensus, back by uninvolved parties, for one version of the lead and 2) one cannot argue against policy for the inclusion of content or sources.  One does not have to repeat explanations over and over.  If the editor only wishes to troll the talk page then let him/her do so whilst talking to him or herself.  If they edit war either 1) against consensus or 2) against policy then it prudent to go to AN/I or if applicable 3RR.  I note that excessive and disruptive trolling despite being ignored could also end up in the attention of administrators. Here other third party commentary could be gathered, and this time about editing behavior as opposed to content, and backed by whatever authority is afforded the commentary of an uninvolved admin or two.  If problems persist stronger measures would then be supported by the initial warnings.  To generalize, perhaps unfairly, what I see happening on that talk page instead is an engagement with the problem editor that only escalated the problem behavior, drove some editors away, and ended up in an RfC of that editors behavior.  Ignore, ignore ignore.  Good faith attempts to bring the community in through RfC of content and through RS/N should be rewarded when administrative action is sought, particularly when those efforts afford third party opinions that are summarily ignored by warring POV pushers.  That is my initial opinion.PelleSmith (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well perhaps you are right, although it is hard to tell exactly what you are advocating to be honest since it is so complicated, except for maybe ignoring POV pushers. Or maybe the best answer is just to give up and let the POV pushers do whatever they want. It is just too difficult to stop them under the current circumstances.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 20:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Not that complicated. Let me condense it. There are two notable advantages here when adminstrative action is sought: 1) The opinions of uninvolved parties help support the claim that the POV pusher is pushing a fringe theory (which isn't likely if all admins see is a "content dispute") and 2) ignoring the POV pusher makes it clear who is being disruptive and minimizes any uncivil reactions towards him. Ignoring also leaves the POV pusher with two options: a) angrily edit warring or b) letting it go.PelleSmith (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Utilize available resources to gain outside opinions
 * 2) Firmly establish that the POV pusher is arguing against consensus (backed by third party opinions) and if applicable against other policy
 * 3) Ignore talk page rants
 * 4) Ask for further administrative action when the POV pusher disrupts the entry through editing warring or disrupts the talk page with excessive trolling

And what if the consensus is that you are the one who is the POV pusher?--Filll (talk | wpc ) 20:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) Yes, this algorithm has the advantages of being both generally effective and endorsed by Wikipedia's dispute resolution policy. The problem I find is that it is very labor-intensive. On many topics, agenda accounts may outnumber regular editors, and running through this algorithm on more than one subject at a time can quickly consume all of one's Wikipedia time. Can we streamline the process so that constructive editors waste less time dealing with clearly disruptive or POV-driven accounts? That, to me, is the question. If I ever get around to it, I'll write up my experience with User:Strider12, in which following the above algorithm to its messy conclusion took over 6 months. MastCell Talk 20:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, Step #2 is often complex in practice. For example, in the case I mention above, my attempts to obtain outside input were somewhat frustrated by the fact that Strider12 identified and canvassed specific editors who dislike me. These editors obligingly showed up on the article to support her. Thus, it was somewhat difficult to clarify that there really was a consensus against her edits and behavior, if one subtracted the canvassed grudge-holders. MastCell Talk 20:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)If third party consensus comes back and turns against me, naming me as the POV pusher, then for the system to be optimally effective I should accept this consensus. MastCell I think agenda accounts at times may outnumber regular editors on a given entry, or in a related series of entries, but they do not generally outnumber regular editors in the vast space of Wikipedia outside of particular entry.  This is why the opinions of uninvolved editors should be cherished, and when POV pushing is clear cut, should be relatively easy to gather against the POV pusher(s).  Another benefit to the idea of using venues like RS/N is that gaining consensus on the RS/N helps not only establish precedent for taking administrative action against the POV pusher (e.g. refusing to give up on an unreliable source) but also established precedent for future uses and abuses of unreliable sources.   The latter benefits not only content, but also it paves the way for less future disruption since it eliminates disruptively utilized fringe sources.PelleSmith (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with MC. There are a lot of drawbacks to this approach This can easily take 6 months. Or 18 months. Or longer. And outside opinions are not easy to get always. Many do not want to get involved if it is controversial and ugly. Who needs the hassle? And in some cases, even death threats? Ignoring or userfying talk page rants can be useful, but they can also lead to the POV pusher filing administrative actions against others on the page for their "hostile" behavior. And sometimes admins are proponents of the position of the POV pusher and misunderstand policy. If there are 4 or 5 POV pushers on a talk page, "ignoring them" will just end up with them WP:OWNing the article. And this is just for starters. I am sure if I thought about it a little longer, I could come up with a much longer list of problems. If the conventional approach worked well, do you think that there would be any reason to have discussions on a page like this?--Filll (talk | wpc ) 20:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC) —Apis (talk ) 05:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)'' —Apis (talk ) 07:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)'' —Apis (talk ) 00:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)''
 * Ignoring their talk page rants is not the same as letting them have free reign on editing the actual page. I'm not sure it has failed as often as you believe it has.  My point with the example given above is that these steps were not followed.  Step one was followed, but instead of ignoring until such time that the POV pusher clearly started violating policy s/he was engaged and allowed to argue more and more and more, at points drawing angry an uncivil responses from the consensus crowd.PelleSmith (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also I'm reading MastCell here to say that often this approach does work ("this algorithm has the advantages of being both generally effective ..."), but in some instances it is not as effective and can translate to a whole lot of wasted time. Not to be argumentative, but I think the point is not that "this can easily take 6 months. Or 18 months." But that it can take 6 months on rare occasions.  It would be good to evaluate supposed problem cases in light of this basic process to see if and when the process has actually failed.  I would suspect that many times it has actually instead simply been abandoned.  I might be wrong, but case studies of disputes where the data has already been generated should be undertaken before we go about testing random new procedures, which is what is implied when someone is asked to insert themselves into a dispute in order to apply their pet process in real time.PelleSmith (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. -- Relata refero (disp.) 23:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So all the editors saying this is a problem that wastes a lot of time for a lot of users and providing several examples of this isn't enough indication there is a problem? The arbitration committee appears to agree as well: "The apparent failure of Wikipedia's traditional dispute resolution system—including the Committee's traditional past approaches". And I don't understand why you are arguing here if you don't think it's a problem?
 * (The editor in my example is now back at global warming in a new thread called "Time to put up or shut up on Overwhelming consensus" – one user now "challenge these so-called 'reliable sources' directly" making sure everyone gets to do a lot of running). ''
 * I don't think anyone disagrees there is a problem, merely that whether the solution requires new procedures. (If ArbCom is failing, it has only itself to blame for handing out over-generous amnesties. I believe the Mantanmoreland fiasco has taught them something. Which case is that statement from?)
 * I deal with the specific case above, Raul mentions it too. -- Relata refero (disp.) 05:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow: we have a problem that doesn't require a solution? Or do you mean that all the people who have a problem with this simply isn't following the established dispute resolution process (i.e. the old procedures)? But didn't we just agree there is a problem with those procedures?
 * (Sorry, didn't see your comments above, it seems those cases overlap) (The arbitration committee quote was from homeopathy) ''
 * The "procedures" in question don't always work as well as one would like. There is no dispute here.  What I think Relata and I both doubt is that in quite a few of the places where it is suggested that the these procedures are inadequate that the procedures were actually followed in a reasonable manner.  For instance, that was exactly my point regarding the example you brought to us above.  To investigate further I have suggested that the appropriate starting point would be to look at other problem cases and see if this process has in fact been followed.  If too many cases go to arbcom, the last resort at the end of the line, then there is indeed a problem, but where exactly is the problem, and my suggestion is that more often than not the process isn't being followed.  Another place to investigate what is happening would be AN/I.  When problem cases occur how are editors at the disputed entry utilizing AN/I, how are admins responding?  The first part of the question suggests also understanding what the dispute looks like at the point one may take it to admins, since if the response to POV pushing has been uncivil and argumentative, then I highly doubt that uninvolved admins will be able to look at a situation and do the right thing.  Most likely they will dismiss the "drama" as a mutually destructive dispute.  Importantly note that this also means one step of the process was not followed.  It is also possible that  even when the process was followed, that admins do not respond well for a variety of other reasons (personal politics, the involvement of other admins in the actual dispute, etc.), which is equally problematic and means that the community is failing to apply the process adequately.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm just not seeing the empirical evidence here that the process has failed, only that problems persist.PelleSmith (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My example wasn't to illustrate failure of proper procedure, it was merely to demonstrate that there is a problem with civil pov-pushers causing a lot of stress and wasting the time of numerous editors effectively preventing constructive work in those areas. If someone is aware of working solutions then please enlighten us, write an essay or illustrate by helping out in a problematic category, several have been suggested. I believe there are many reasons why 'proper procedure' isn't followed in the example I showed. Among other things, the discussion I linked to wasn't this users first about this subject by this user, it was the one that was currently active. I would like to suggest the possibility that involved editors had already experienced that 'proper procedures' where ineffective and where trying alternate approaches (or just grasping at straws to see if anything will work). I'm pretty sure all relevant policies has been mentioned and that sources have been explained in detail. Nothing seems to work. Since there has been an RFC going for a long time, if the user continues, is the next proper step to report to AN/I? What would happen if he continue after that? Haven't this already wasted way to much time, and it's hardly unique. So again, if someone would be willing to write down (in an essay) or illustrate (in one of the many problematic areas suggested) this secret recipe it would be much appreciated. ''

You have been confronted by the input and the suggestions of several who are experienced in these matters. You have responded with disbelief and even uncivil hostility. Well, believe what you want. I am not going to argue with you. Do whatever you want. Who even cares? This is just a website, and it is not worth being killed over.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 13:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Filll to whom are you directing: "You have responded with disbelief and even uncivil hostility"? Also can you explain what, "it is not worth being killed over," is supposed to mean?  I did not disbelieve Apis, in fact I went directly to the example he brought forth and looked through it rather thoroughly.  I put forth my basic observations and suggested an explanation that apparently is not to everyone's liking.  Do you believe that in the afore mentioned situation that the current process was adhered to but still failed?  Also, more generally, do you disagree that the most productive starting point is to break down the case studies and have a look at the behavioral dynamics of those situations?  My current disbelief is that the empirical evidence shows in most of the discussed situations, that the process itself has failed.  Would you oblige me with one example which shows clearly the process failing?  MastCell, for instance, is apparently working on a very detailed case study of an example where this is exactly the case.  Of course for our discussion here a very short example would suffice.  In terms of my behavior I believe I have have been behaving with utmost respect and civility and will, as always, welcome diffs or direct quotes showing any misbehavior.  Given evidence I will apologize for any wrong I may have committed.  I will not repeat that point however, since I believe stating it clearly once is more than enough.PelleSmith (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Do whatever you want. I have had enough of your threats and harassment. And everyone else's too. It is too little too late.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 15:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me say to "Who it may concern": You have demonstrated repeatedly an deep-seated loathing and irrational personal animosity towards me, and that probably accounts for your appearance on this page, if you were at all willing to be honest. You have freely admitted and exhibited your complete lack of knowledge or experience with the situations being discussed on this page.


 * All that you have offered are vague meandering vacuous arguments that amount to nothing more than standard practice, which has been widely discredited for use in these situations. That is the very reason this page and the associated mainspace page were created.


 * You should (1) offer any exotic, novel or nontraditional approaches to dealing with these problems that you might have, which is the purpose of these pages, and/or (2) be willing to design and implement scientific statistical tests of your claims so that they can be carefully examined, as you have been invited to do repeatedly, and have so far been unwilling to do. All that you appear to be doing is wasting your time and everyone else's time trying to create altercations. I have personal had the enough of such pointless drivel and baiting. Either contribute something constructive to the conversation, or don't bother.--Filll (talk |  wpc ) 17:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why should I offer exotic approaches when I believe that there are pretty boring and standard ones that work quite well? As someone with experience in social science as opposed to experimental science I don't agree with your approach.  We don't need to generate more synthetic data in experimental settings when we have case studies at our hands with data generated in natural settings.    Again, I will ask you to produce evidence of your claims about me.  It becomes more difficult to trust your generalizations about group dynamics and human behavior when you do not produce any data for the rather specific claims, like those you make about me.  In either the general or specific settings, please do provide some evidence.  I will wait.  Best.PelleSmith (talk) 03:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So you have clearly chosen option 2. I might also ask, who has asked for "synthetic data"? And what exactly are synthetic data? I would like data, as I have said before. And just raw subject anecdotes of course count for nothing in a quantitative analysis, as you should be aware. So if you want to make a compelling argument, you better have the goods. Otherwise, what you are doing is wasting everyone's time, including your own.


 * If you want me to generate "evidence" of your hostility and harassment, it will be in the form of some administrative action. I normally try to avoid those as unproductive. I do not believe you are completely unaware of your own attitudes or the impressions you have gone out of your way to produce, but you are free to try to maintain that. It does not fool me particularly, although you can hope that others are deceived for the moment.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 13:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Filll, I'm no statistician, but synthetic data, the meaning of which has apparently recently gained some specificity in quantitative statistical social analysis, more generally refers to data that emulate true data without having been collected from actual human subjects. My point, was simply that we have already have data, from actual behavioral situations.  Perhaps it is unfair for me to insinuate that you propose instead to create speculative data so that you can play around with some exotic model or another.  Perhaps you see this as a social experiment in which human subjects generate data for you in a controlled environment, while you or others test various approaches.  If that is in fact true then it is a waste of time not to first utilize the available data to determine the best set of exotic approaches to test.  Personally I think the entire approach is a waste of time  because it will likely not be equipped to deal with the even some of the simpler complexities of human behavior.  It also notably breaches basic ethical standards usually followed in human subject research. BTW, do you have a cadre of sociologists or social psychologists at your beck and call to help you design this social experiment of yours?  My own expertise is far afield from this type of quantitative research (cultural anthropology mainly).  I would instead suggest a qualitative approach, focused on case studies (and we already have the cases).  BTW, any data you collect from entry talk pages is equally "anecdotal" unless you have a systematic means by which to code various types of behavior (discursive or otherwise).  When, in this discussion, you seem unable to even produce other "anecdotal" evidence that suggests a different pattern of behavior than that one I have claimed, then in all likelihood the various examples I decided to mention from the case at hand are not behavioral outliers of some kind.  In other words calling then "anecdotes" seems more like a suggestive rouse.  I welcome this type of discussion instead of hearing again and again about how much I must hate you, something you still have no evidence of apparently.  Odd that part, quite odd.PelleSmith (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever...--Filll (talk | wpc ) 21:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Examples
I'm not finding the above conversation very informative or helpful toward resolving the issues at hand, and I don't enjoy reading discussions that seem to be fueled or made more polarizing by old animosities or misunderstandings, so I'm starting a new section to try to get back to the question of examples.

The difficulty of late seems to be people coming late to the page, and perhaps not reading the entire discussion (the main page especially, as well as the talk page), and seeming to dismiss the problem or to say that "both sides" are equally culpable in the situations where controversial articles become battlefields, and that if "both sides" would be more collaborative and understanding of each others' positions, that would solve much of the problems. I can see why people might draw that conclusion from a cursory look at articles that have already become battlefields, and I can also see why that facile conclusion might annoy people who have been working for a long time to try to keep obvious POV and advocacy out of articles.

On the other hand, if the 4-step solution proposed above were possible, I can't imagine that it wouldn't have been implemented long ago. If that were a valid option, I'm not sure we would even be having this conversation. But if I'm wrong and that's all there is to it, let's get going, let's just do it!

I agree that in some cases, pro-NPOV editors haven't helped their cause by their behavior, but the problem that we're addressing here is how to deal with editors who resist NPOV. I think probably the best way to separate the issues of civility violations from the issues of core policy violations (NPOV, RS, etc) so civility doesn't become a red herring that clouds our consideration of the real issues, is to consider cases where civility has not been an issue, where the editors causing the problems by their misunderstanding or deliberate distortion of policy (it doesn't matter which; the end result is the same) have been met again and again with civil and patient explanation of policy, with third party opinions, with requests for comments from outside reviewers, with mediation, and so forth ad infinitum, and the problem still remains, unresolved. In other words, examples in which current practice and traditional means of resolving problems have simply failed, or have worked only after months and months (or even years) of exhausting the patience of editors, mediators and even arbitrators.

A good place to start would be Mast Cell's example of a case where he was able to get resolution of a problem only by carefully going through all the prescribed hoops, and it took six months. I haven't followed that case but will look forward to the summary. I think anyone who has observed MastCell in action would have to assume, as I assume, that MastCell's behavior and demeanor throughout this ordeal was professional and civil.

An example that I've followed through much of the talk pages and attendant dispute resolution pages, that is not resolved after a long history of tendentious editing and simply annoying and frustrating behavior, that has been met almost always with civility and patience (and the lapses are perfectly understandable given the context) is the case of Kingsley Miller and Attachment Theory. He has an unusual idea of how reliable sources on attachment theory should be represented in the article, and simply resists all efforts by involved and uninvolved editors to help him toward more productive editing and toward accepting a more neutral presentation of the topic, according to its presentation in reliable sources. The interesting twist in this case is that he seems to be the one who is always asking for outside opinions and taking things to dispute resolution, apparently in an effort to find someone who will agree with him. I don't know if his is a record for bringing frivolous cases to ArbCom that have been rejected out of hand by the committee, but off the top of my head I can think of three that have been submitted and rejected in the last couple of months. The latest was when an administrator trying to help set up a mediation case, frustrated and baffled by the talk page discussion, said "What the f^&* is going on?" That was taken to ArbCom as a case against the administrator; that's an example of the kind of stuff this guy takes to ArbCom. In the meantime, there's a case at Mediation Cabal, which as I recall he brought, but now is refusing to participate in, which has recently been merged with two separate mediation cases he also brought. All of this is just smokescreen as far as I can see; the real issue is his uwillingness to allow the articles on attachment theory to be written in a neutral fashion, and his dismissal of all editors and mediators who don't agree  with him on the content issues. Here is a case where the system is obviously not serving the goal of writing a quality encyclopedia. That might serve as a good pilot study for the 4-step approach; to the best of my observation this case hasn't been tainted with the kind of "consensus-destroying" insults that may somewhat obscure the real problem in some of the other cases.

Another example is Satanic Ritual Abuse and the editor once known as Abuse Truth, then as abuse t, and who has now been reborn as "Research Editor" who has worked hard to keep that article from ever coming close to NPOV. It sort of headed that way for a little while during a brief period while he was blocked, but now it's become much worse again. He argues tendentiously and tirelessly against the consensus of reliable sources on the question. I haven't followed that problem back more than February or so, so I don't know how long it's been going on, but again, I don't think there's been a civility problem there, just people patiently reverting and explaining and reverting and explaining.

I haven't spent a lot of time studying this one, because the page is so POV it makes my stomach hurt, so it's not a subject I intend to take a lot of time studying, but JagZ on the Race and Intelligence article is another example of a person who resists being led to a correct understanding of NPOV and RS (and especially Undue Weight!) policy. The preponderance of expert opinion (reliable sources) on the subject is against him, but he continues arguing the same line and has been repeatedly to noticeboards seeking outside opinions, then striking out his request on the noticeboard when the outside opinion doesn't agree with him. He also made a request for comments on whether the article was NPOV as it stood at a particular point; the overwhelming consensus on the RFC was that the article was not NPOV, but he simply dismissed that and went on. And then later came back and made another request for comment, which as I recall was largely ignored. Again, don't take my word for it, read it all yourself and draw your own conclusions. I have not participated on any of these articles, either editing the mainpage or discussing on talk pages,  because the problems seem so intractible to me on observation that I don't care to subject myself to the tendentiious tedium and obstructionism that editors who do try to work on the articles are subjected to.

My hope is that a consideration of some different examples might get us away from some of the animosity that seems to be coloring the present discussion, because as far as I can recall, the editors involved in the examples that have come up before and that seem to be already poisoned, aren't involved in these new examples. For whatever it's worth...Woonpton (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Woonpton. I will gladly look into these cases, and will start with SRA since it is a subject matter I'm more familiar with, and since after a cursory glance at the page it is obvious that POV pushing has worked in that entry, and at times presents itself in very subtle phrasings.  I will say though that continually referring to the "real" problems that are obscured by our commentary does not entice dialogue, since it betrays a position that not agreeing here actually means being ignorant of what is "real."  I don't think anyone has failed to understand the basic problems, but there is disagreement on how they are framed. The types of solutions that become necessary in the minds of commentators also follow generally from these differences.  I think discussing some of these cases in depth is a great idea, and should help bridge some gaps here, as long as those willing to partake are also willing to stick to the evidence as it presents itself in edit histories and talk page discussions.  For the record I think I tried this above once already and was simply dismissed by my detractors while no evidence was brought in to actually show me that my assessment was off base.  Lets get to it.PelleSmith (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Examples are a good start. However, it would be nice to do a controlled study of these situations if we can. I am working on some ideas.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 16:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * there's something special about SRA & attachment therapy and such articles: the people on one or both sides of this are extremely driven by emotion, and are not going to be susceptible to rational discussion. If one thinks to the bottom of one's soul that something is so wrong that attacking it is more important than any rules of civility or honest editing or respect for others, there is nothing Wikipedia can do but remove you from editing that subject. The limits of what we can do is not oppose evil in the absolute, but oppose evil to the extent that an encyclopedia can expect to do so,which is by insisting on the basic value of the medium, NPOV. This can be done by involving more people., because almost everyone here at heart believes it. The faction which believes is fighting evil by suppressing mention of it, will either need to follow our rules, or go and try to fight it elsewhere. That's one of the meanings of Verifiability, not truth. Not just that we are not equipped to find the truth, but that establishing the truth is not our function at all--recording information is. People here keep asking, but don't you want to fight child abuse (or whatever)? And the answer is that our dedication to fighting child abuse is not what we are trying to do here--it is to be done through other means--and our dedication is to maintaining a free & honest source of information is another. those who regard fighting child abuse as superior to all other values and requiring total commitment are a danger to the community here. I deliberately pick the most loaded topic possible. It also applies to homeopathy, to descend to the ridiculous. Our goal is to synthesize summarize  and report. some things can not be accomplished just by doing that, and those are things that we will not  aim at accomplishing.DGG (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ???That was an interesting essay, and I agree with most of it, except that that I can't see what it has to do with the discussion at hand.   First, our goal is not "synthesis" in fact that's against policy; our goal is to represent the body of reliable sources in a way that accurately reflects the presence and prominence of different views presented in those reliable sources.   The examples I chose are examples where I am very familiar with the literature on the subject, and when people attempt to distort or misrepresent what reliable sources say, or give undue weight to fringe views in order to push a particular point of view, I am naturally going to have a problem with that.   For example, I know the literature on Satanic ritual abuse pretty well, having studied it thoroughly not that long ago for a project I was working on,  and all the reliable sources are in agreement that there is simply no evidence that Satanic ritual abuse actually exists, and much evidence that it's not a real phenomenon but a socially constructed belief that a lot of people have scared themselves with, something like the witch scares of centuries past.  That's fascinating information,  and that's what the article should say, since that's what the most reliable and trustworthy sources say.  It should also say that there are a lot of people who *believe* that there is such a thing as Satanic ritual abuse, and that's a notable fact in itself (why do so many people believe in something that even advocates for the belief admit there is no physical evidence for?).  So the article, to be NPOV, should very clearly cite reliable sources to say  that there's no evidence to support the existence of Satanic ritual abuse.  Then it can go into the polls that say how many people believe in this thing that doesn't exist, (notably therapists, fundamentalist churches, and sheriff's departments, for variious reasons) and cite sources that attest to the strength of the belief.  But to start with the fact that people believe in it and use that belief as evidence for the existence of the thing, which is how the article has mostly been written in the time I've been watching it,  is synthesis of a kind that simply doesn't serve the encyclopedia well.  At one recent point, the various polls and other measures of belief  were even listed under the heading "Evidence."  At least now it has been weakened somewhat (in other words nudged a bit toward NPOV) and says "Support" but that heading is still misleading,  as it suggests support for the existence of SRA, when all it indicates is support for an assertion there are groups of people who believe that the thing exists.


 * The issues I have with the article are entirely about writing an encyclopedia, about NPOV and about faithfully reflecting reliable sources on the subject, as a scholar who knows the literature and who still is hoping against hope that Wikipedia has not abandoned its original commitment to being a reliable, high-quality encyclopedia.  My issues have nothing to do with "fighting evil" or being "dedicated to fighting child abuse" and I'm not sure I've seen anything like that from editors working on or discussing the article, so I can't understand what all that stuff is doing in this discussion; it seems like a red herring to me.   Speaking for myself, I have no interest whatever in (a) "suppressing mention of evil" or in (b) thinking of "fighting child abuse as superior to all other values and requiring total commitment,"   I do agree with you that these things are not useful in the encyclopedia and shouldn't be allowed here. But  I don't think it's useful to frame the dispute as a political or moral crusade;  the issue is between people who are trying to maintain NPOV and people who have no interest in NPOV.   Woonpton (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies for not being ready to say anything about this particular entry yet. I do want to point out something though.  Woonpton, I'm sure you are familiar with the same literature that I am regarding SRA, but you need to be more specific about "evidence".  There is no "forensic evidence" for the existence of SRA. Advocates of the existence of the phenomena quite vociferously claim that recovered memories and the like are "evidence" regardless of the fact that no forensic evidence has ever been found to support any specific allegations.  It is important in these types of disputes to be both clear and exact.  For instance, you might simply end up in a yelling match where one person claims "there is no evidence" and another "oh yes there is" when the two are arguing about completely different things. As it stands the entry is not NPOV, and it actually contains some rather subtle language that pushes the SRA supporter POV, which is as Woonpton points out, rather troubling.  I want to spend some more time looking at the talk page and archives before I say more.PelleSmith (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Umm, first, I'm talking about data, of which forensic evidence is only one subset.  I'm talking about all the research studies, all the journalistic investigations, all the academic cult experts, who are in agreement that there are no data to support the idea that there are groups or cults practicing Satanic ritual abuse, in addition to the complete lack of forensic evidence in court cases.  But more than that, anyone who would argue that a belief that something exists constitutes evidence that the thing exists would be failing utterly to understand what evidence means; it would be a nonsensical argument.     Evidence is data, verifiable and reliable and replicable information that can be brought to bear to support or fail to support a belief, or a hypothesis, or a supposition.  Beliefs are indicative of nothing but belief, they offer no information regarding the thing itself. For that, you need evidence.  As  I've already said, you can write that there are people who believe this, but the sources that say people believe this can only be used to support the statement that people believe it;  they can't be used as "evidence" that the thing is real.  That would be unwarranted synthesis.Woonpton (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Woonpton, let me first state that other than our use of terminology, and the implications of such use to discourse about SRA, I'm sure we agree 100% about the fact that SRA is best described as a moral panic revolving around a perceived threat for which there is no reliable evidence of a material existence. Perhaps I should not have harped on "forensic" evidence, I mostly did so because Frankfurter (a historian and not a legal expert) likes to use that term.  In legal terms, it is also an appropriate distinction to make because there may be circumstantial evidence (however irrelevant it actually is)--"so and so has books on satanism in his bookshelf"--and testimony (however uncorroborated it may be)--"I saw so and so do X, Y and Z to me"--all of which are, again in the legal context, treated as "evidence".  Now, will a court find that any of the "evidence" presented actually corroborates the charges?  If it doesn't, then the evidence is not evidence of the what is alleged to have happened but of something else entirely, but it was still referred to as "evidence" throughout the legal proceedings, and remains evidence of something.  What this suggests, is actually also perfectly in line with the social science perspective, that all the legal "evidence" presented by plaintiffs in SRA cases is actually "evidence of something" but that it isn't evidence of SRA (it is often utilized as case evidence of a larger moral panic).  My point here is that I agree with you, but that your cut and dry distinction regarding what can be called "evidence," is simply not that cut and dry in several discursive arenas and particularly outside of the context you may be operating in.  Now take this a step further, and someone who is a believer wants to claim that circumstantial evidence and testimony are actually perfectly valid evidence of SRA existing in a very real and material way.  You seem to suggest that your approach would be to tell them that testimony of children or adult psychotherapy patients is "not evidence at all" despite their repeated protestations.  In my view this simply causes a shouting match.  You may be right, but since these people lack the ability to comprehend why, and since you refuse to engage them through distinctions they might understand, this approach is doomed to fail.  Unless of course you can have them tossed out of the mix, based upon their faulty assumptions and poor use of terms like "evidence", but that's hardly in the spirit of the encyclopedia.  I would suggest instead attempting to explain that testimony is a form of evidence that can't stand on its own without some other corroboration, because as I'm sure they know, anybody can say whatever they so please.  I think, by the way, that you will also find many of the available reliable sources using more specific terminology than simply "evidence" in order to be perfectly clear in this regard.  As I already mentioned, Frankfurter likes to talk about having no "forensic evidence" and also suggests that what we do have is evidence to support the claim that SRA is a moral panic.  Now my point here has very little to do with the nature of evidence and everything to do with the use of "evidence" as a term in a discursive setting.  When one sign has a slightly different signifier for you than it does for someone else it is pointless to argue as if this were in fact not the case.  Does that make sense?PelleSmith (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, actually,  I think you may have missed the point entirely.   First, the language I'm using here to summarize some examples of POV-pushing and issues surrounding them is not the language I would use to engage editors on article talk pages, if I were actually editing the article.  Your assumption "you seem to suggest that your approach would be to tell them [xyz]" is simply wrong, as well as being beside the point.   I've not said anything here to indicate what I would say to other editors were I editing the article, but in the unlikely event that I were, I expect I would keep to discussion of sources and what sources say; I can't see myself engaging other editors in a philosophical discussion about evidence.   At any rate, I'm not editing that article;  I've already said that I would not edit these problem articles because I won't attempt to edit articles where POV-pushers have managed to maintain a POV in an article and no one has been able to effectively correct the situation for more than short periods of time.   As I said earlier, the SRA article improves when the worst POV-pushers are blocked for a while, or when a group of neutral editors turn their attention to the article.  But once they've got it more balanced, they go away and the POV-pushers  go back to putting the article back the way they want it. This cycle has repeated several times during the two or three months that I've watched the article, and this situation has nothing whatever to do with me; I'm simply an outside observer.


 * The article periodically gets reported to the Fringe Theories Noticeboard; it came up again quite recently and someone said "Not that again," so it's not as if I'm somehow uniquely misperceiving this article to be a problem.  To address the problem by diagnosing and fixing the messenger,  in other words by assuming you know how I would be acting were I editing the article, and "teaching" me how to correct your misperception of "my approach", is a red herring of halibut proportions, and has no hope of advancing us a nanometer toward identifying or solving the problem we're trying to address here.   I have nothing to do with that article, other than pointing it out here as an example of an article where our policies have failed to maintain a neutral point of view.  That is true completely independent of me; my identifying it as an article with an NPOV problem didn't make it that way; it was that way before I came along to notice.  I'm not the problem here. The problem is that the SRA article has continued to be, most of the time, biased in a certain direction, more sometimes than others depending on who's on the page at the time.  You can blather on about signifiers in a discursive setting all you like; I care nothing about that, and the public cares nothing about that; all the public cares about is whether they are getting accurate and reliable information from Wikipedia.  "All" that's needed to advance  that goal is to find a way to enforce NPOV and RS, so that our articles reflect faithfully the views presented in reliable sources.  At the risk of seeming to make too much of something Jimbo said, again,  I'll quote something he wrote June 2 (in an AN/I thread on an edit war on his user page) which I found immensely refreshing and encouraging: "The real issue is with the violation of NPOV all over Wikipedia due to POV pushing in article space." Yes, that's how it looks to me.   Let's try to keep our eyes on the ball here.  Thank you.  Woonpton (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Correct me if I'm wrong Woonpton, but you wrote the following in your response to me: "But more than that, anyone who would argue that a belief that something exists constitutes evidence that the thing exists would be failing utterly to understand what evidence means; it would be a nonsensical argument." Here I understood that your approach was to treat it as a nonsensical argument unworthy of engaging. My apologies if I misread you, as you are now suggesting rather directly I did, but that is what I based my response on. Also note that in the experience of a third party the "testimony" of someone is not equivalent simply to their "belief". Moral panic would not be possible without the influence that testimony has on third parties. Testimony is an outward "expression of belief" and is almost always presented as an "expression of fact" by those testifying, however nonfactual its content may actually be. Look I'm not trying to shoot the messenger. I'm trying to widen the discussion here. Also I think you are quite right that this article is a problem, and would not suggest otherwise, in fact I have stated clearly that I think it is currently in need of some serious NPOVising. I do want to suggest however that just because the problem presented by POV comes from POV pushers does not mean the solution shouldn't involve better rather than worse ways of trying to communicate with them. One POV pusher is not always like another. There are POV pushers who know they are pushing a POV, and will do anything they can to do so, even it if means entirely contradicting themselves from argument to argument. There are also POV pushers who actually don't understand that they are doing anything wrong and can't figure out why others are so against them. In subjects that can get as emotional as SRA can, the latter type of POV pusher is definitely in the mix. We cannot dismiss the fact that it is on us also to try our best to communicate with these people rather than simply ostracize them as fringe pushing loonies. I understand the frustration of dealing with POV pushers but I also see over and over the short tempers that flare up and cause more problems than they solve. I'm not talking about you here, and I have no knowledge about what or where you edit so please don't read it that way.

Also how do you imagine this will help the conversation along: "To address the problem by diagnosing and fixing the messenger, in other words by assuming you know how I would be acting were I editing the article, and "teaching" me how to correct your misperception of 'my approach', is a red herring of halibut proportions, and has no hope of advancing us a nanometer toward identifying or solving the problem we're trying to address here." I am not suggesting to fix the messenger, only pointing out that in the way you framed this issue there is evidence of exactly the types of problems that can arise when discussing SRA, and exactly the types of emphatic "no nonsense" claims that can put off and entrench naive POV pushers who might otherwise be communicated with more productively. Again, my apologies for assuming that the way you framed it here is how you would also frame it hypothetically were you to edit the actual entry. Sorry.PelleSmith (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Another one bites the dust
For those of you who are so sure that there is no problem here, and that the only thing that needs to be done to fix the problem with POV pushers and pseudoscience and WP:FRINGE beliefs is to really kicking the holy living $#@% out of the pro-science side, I will note that we just lost another pro-science contributor:. Woonpton is gone, and of course Raymond arritt left just a few days before that. They look, they see it is hopeless and they leave with regrets and general disgust. --Filll (talk | wpc ) 20:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: "The Problem"
Filll wrote: ''If you want me to generate "evidence" of your hostility and harassment, it will be in the form of some administrative action. I normally try to avoid those as unproductive.''

This reminded me of my recent experience with an RfC on (currently running). It's about his COI with chess, but as I've encountered problems with him elsewhere, I thought I might comment.

I drafted a "view" for the RfC. I scrapped it for being possibly uncivil -- "I believe Wikipedia would be a better place without this user" is likely to hurt someone's feelings, no matter how true it is, and our definition of civil sometimes seems to have more to do with the Kindergarten playground rules than with the adult definitions.

I drafted another version. I let it sit over night. I scrapped it for being too wordy and possibly unclear on the major point (i.e., that the net effect of a permaban on this user would be positive for the task of writing an encyclopedia).

I started to draft another version. I stopped. I couldn't answer the fundamental question: Why bother?

Nothing ever seems to happen as a result of these things. RfCs languish with a couple of comments and essentially form a convenient place for the principal disputants to carry on their arguments. They seem to close with a "y'all play nice, now" response from some overworked admin. The SPA is never convinced that his/her edits were a problem because so few users comment intelligently. Too few users comment because it seems like a waste of time.

Now perhaps my impression is wrong; perhaps there's a tally somewhere that says "Score: 26 RfC/U started 30 days ago, 19 certified, and 18 closed today:  2 "voluntary" permabans, 6 topic bans, 5 users on 1RR, 7 disputes resolved with professions of love for policy and fellow users, and 1 still pending."

But I kinda doubt it. And when they "work" -- that is, when you go through all the steps and finally, finally get a particularly tendentious editor blocked for more than 30 days -- it takes months and months. For editors who aren't particularly egregious, of course, it frequently just doesn't work.

So with that in mind, I propose that we add the "editors' lack of confidence in the usual procedures" and the references to the inefficiency, slowness, and time-consuming nature of the usual procedures to the section on this page called "The Problem". I'm thinking that it fits just above the ArbComm references.

Are there any objections? Would anyone like to take a stab at adding such a paragraph? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't Guido blocked again? I saw his actions on some chess articles, then he jumped into one of his favorite activities, Alternative medicine.  He ticked off an admin, who blocked him.  There's no need for an RfC, although I do believe there is one lying around about him.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 18:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Guido's block expired a few days ago.   You are entitled to your own opinion on the matter, but I disagree with your characterization of why he was blocked:  I'd say that calling me a liar had something to do with it, for example, and for his persistent inability to figure out that 3RR is not a license to revert three times.  I posted the problems at AN/I and presumably the original messages are in the archives at that page.  You might choose to read them.
 * Furthermore, I'm not sure that I've ever seen User:Davidruben behave in a way that suggested that "ticked off" was his reason for blocking anyone. Finally, the block was upheld by three different admins in response to Guido's repeated unblock requests, which also suggests that it wasn't merely a case of a hotheaded admin.
 * Guido's RfC is here if you're interested in it; it centers on his addition of books written by himself and/or published by his company to a chess article. His user talk page currently asserts that he intends to focus his efforts on "improving" Wikipedia's guidelines, which presumably accounts for his absence at his previous favorite articles.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Rotation of "lead" editors
About the following: "Where consensus cannot be attained through normal wiki processes, the arbitration committee can designate "lead" editors who have considerable expertise on that article or topic. Lead editors would be empowered to direct discussion, determine consensus and designate discussions as closed." - I don't think the arbitration committee need to designate such lead editors. Such lead editors should be assigned at random from a pool, and rotated on a regular basis. In theory, it shouldn't matter who is "leading" the current efforts on an article - if the "lead editors" are truly unbiased and objective, the end result should be the same. If, however, different lead editors would end up with different versions of the same article, how do you chose the best lead editor? For example, if Raul took the lead at Global Warming for three months, and then I took the lead for the next three months, but the articles that resulted were substantially different, what would the conclusions be there? Carcharoth (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That is a good question. We would like a system that ended up with the same result, no matter how things were configured. For example, if there is a system that involved designating "lead authors", the system should produce more or less the same result no matter who was chosen as "lead author". So it has to be designed carefully with that in mind, since of course a "lead author" might have a certain bias to be avoided.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 15:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk page structure
Just a minor point I found when reading the archives, but "we should find a way of structuring article talk pages in a way that makes that kind of behavior less profitable for a POV pusher" (GTBacchus). I agree absolutely. More organisation and structure of talk pages and discussions invariably helps. It also helps if the person doing that organisation is either the "lead" editor, or is relatively uninvolved and merely dedicated to tidying things up and smoothing discussions and helping things on their way. Carcharoth (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that possibly dividing the discussion into sections where each editor can only edit their own section, as is done at RfAr and to a lesser extent at RfCs, might be helpful. Do we have the manpower to have "clerks" for "tidying" on all controversial articles? Should we designate clerks?--Filll (talk | wpc ) 15:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * user:Ludwigs2 presents a counter-example to this approach, essentially demanding on the ANI that his civil POV pushing comments not be archived too quickly. Raul654 (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

We need people with a POV and mediators
This may be controversial, but I am going to explain here why I think we need people with a POV. I don't mean people who aggressively push their POV and dismiss other POVs, but we do need those who can present a POV, argue to a certain extent for that POV, and opine on what proportion that POV should be present in various articles, and the best way to approach certain articles. In other words, lay and professional subject matter experts with a clear and strong opinion. How to distinguish a cranky subject matter expert from a "POV pusher" is something that should be addressed here. Those here may not like me saying this, but sometimes it is difficult for those looking in from the outside to tell the two apart. We also need those who are not subject matter experts, but who can represent a POV. Distinguishing between those with a strong opinion and those with a closed-POV is something else that should be made clearer. Overall, what is needed is not to reduce civil POV pushing, but to have people who can correctly mediate and judge between different POVs, and help get the balance right in particular articles, and who can listen to different sides when those sides sometimes will not listen to each other. Carcharoth (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is reasonable to recognize that some if not all of those on these articles will have a personal POV. Should they be required to reveal it? I have written several articles or sections of articles which were almost completely creationist in tone. Others thought I had lost my mind, since I obviously have a noncreationist POV. However, I subscribe to the DGG position; in these controversial areas and debates, you do yourself a disservice by silencing the arguments of the other side. If you do not study what the other side claims carefully, you will be unable to defend yourself adequately.


 * In this regard, on this page and others, I have wondered about establishing some sort of "agreement" or "covenant" on a subpage of the article that those editing the article would have to sign on to. I would envision this covenant covering things like:


 * what are the major relevant POVs associated with this article


 * What are the minor relevant POVs associated with this article


 * How many of these major and minor POVs should be represented in this article?


 * What are the relevant academic fields or expertise for this article?


 * How should the relative proportions of the POVs among these relevant experts be determined?


 * What are the relative proportions of the POVs among these relevant experts?


 * Given the need to abide by NPOV and FRINGE, what should the relative proportion of POVs be in the article itself?


 * What are the maximum and minimum allowable proportions for each POV in the article? For example, from examining the relative experts, it might be found that only 0.1 percent subscribe to some FRINGE position. However, it might be felt that as much as 20% of the article could be devoted to this FRINGE position in the interests of proper explanation of the idea and fairness. However, typically FRINGE proponents will disagree and push for 80% or 90% of the article to be written from the FRINGE position. On the other hand, sometimes "debunkers" will insist that the article be written almost exclusively from the mainstream position, since it is allowed by the 0.1% figure. What is the correct ratio? Unfortunately, policy is somewhat silent on this issue, implying that the correct proportion must be established by consensus. Which leads to a HUGE fight in many cases and hard feelings.


 * Anyone wanting to edit the article must agree to the covenant. Comments?--Filll (talk | wpc ) 15:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Carcharoth's proposal, along with similar ideas I've seen expressed over the last several weeks elsewhere on the wiki, is not a step in the right direction. The central genius of Wikipedia, in my opinion, was to make NPOV non-negotiable, and to rest NPOV on the back of reliable sources. NPOV should be arrived at by respecting the balance of viewpoints expressed in reliable sources, not by trying to strike a balance between the personal POVs of whomever is editing the article. To change the focus of NPOV from sources to editors would be to compromise the quality of the encyclopedia, in my opinion. It's my observation that when editors who are deeply familiar with the body of literature on a topic are editing, the quality of the article tends to be much better and more encyclopedic and reliable--meaning a more accurate reflection of what's presented in reliable sources, with each view given appropriate weight-- than when people are editing where they don't have an overall understanding of the literature on the topic and just sample different parts of the literature and pick out something for and something against (which has apparently become a popular misconception of what NPOV means) rather than accurately representing reliable sources in the aggregate, which is what an encylopedia should be doing. I know Carcharoth isn't suggesting this, but one thing I've noticed lately that bothers me, is the idea that an insistence that content be NPOV, based on reliable sources, is just another singleminded POV that shouldn't be allowed to prevail in editing disputes. If this idea became ascendant, that would be the death knell for Wikipedia's stated intention to be a "high-quality" encyclopedia, because it would essentially amount to tossing out the core principle that NPOV and RS should determine the content of the encyclopedia, and open the gates to any kind of dubious information and/or advocacy rather than encyclopedic content.

As for Filll's proposal, I think in principle we're on the same wavelength, because we're both basing NPOV on sources rather than editors, but the specific proposal seems to me on first blush too prescriptive. Woonpton (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, absolutely, the sources are the primary criterion. What I was trying to express here was the idea that even on contentious articles, people with a POV shouldn't be driven off. There needs to be a reliable way of assessing whether someone truly is aware of their own bias and POV, and how able they are to set that to one side and edit about all points of view, and accurately get the balance right. Part of that process requires input from those with these varied POVs. In the absence of a group of people who know most of the literature on a subject, you will need a wide range of input to even have a chance of beginning to approach the balanced NPOV point. Don't balance the article according to the views of the editors, but use a wide range of editors to ensure you are getting a wide range of sources, and views on how to deal with those sources. More information, not less, can help here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Another case study
user:GoRight, a single-purpose civil POV pusher, recently returned from a 6 month hiatus. Since then, he's engaged in numerous edit wars, attempting to adjust our articles to fit his global warming denial advocacy. He provides a good case study in why Wikipedia's policies are ineffecive at dealing with that kind of disruption. Suggestions for how to proceed? Raul654 (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked into the specifics of the case, but why can't you just warn him that he's violating one of WP's core policies (NPOV/WEIGHT), and then issue escalating blocks if the non-compliant behavior continues? Yilloslime (t) 16:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He has been warned, numerous times. I brought it to ANI, where the reaction was along the lines of "Yes, he's a problem, but you shouldn't block him because you're involved". (He responded by opening this AN thread about myself and R. Baley, where he was told that he had no basis for a complain and therefore should follow up with dispute resolution. He got blocked for incivility by R. Baley for harassing WMC, promised to be more diplomatic, and was unblocked. On one talk page, I pointed out that the fringe theories he was trying to put into the global warming article violated an arbcom principle about reliable sources (which I wrote during my time as an arbitrator). It later turned out he didn't bother reading the link. Raul654 (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm these case studies should be valuable if we can think of some clever way to deal with them. Off the top of my head:


 * Relata refero, DGG (a little), PelleSmith, GTBacchus and a few others have argued that standard methods are perfectly adequate for dealing with these cases. I have repeatedly for the last few months tried to invite them to demonstrate how their implementation of the standard methods in these cases can efficiently and satisfactorily resolve the difficulties. Interesting, to this date, all of them have basically declined to demonstrate that their claims are accurate. I would still welcome a demonstration of how all the experienced editors in these controversial areas have been applying standard methods improperly, and how these inexperienced editors can do better. Please, show us.


 * There are some editors that I have seen that "seem" to have the ability to settle talk page and mainspace problems more rapidly than others (this is just purely a subjective opinion on my part). I would mention User:Silence in this regard, and possibly User: Dave souza and User: Vassyana. It would be interesting to construct tests to see if there are some "super" users that can settle disputes faster and bring a resolution more efficiently. --Filll (talk |  wpc ) 16:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been developing quantitative metrics to evaluate controversy levels. it would be interesting to see if any given approach had an effect that could be measurable.


 * I have from time to time wondered about talking to these POV pushers by voice on Skype or some other medium. I wonder if the text format does not hamper us since a lot of the nuance is lost in text communications.


 * One technique that sometimes seems to work is to invite the POV pusher to construct a version of the article in a sandbox. Many times, they lose interest or are not really interested in writing at all, but in harassing and badgering other editors, and trying to force others to write the way the POV pusher wants.

I will keep thinking.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 16:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To answer Yilloslime, if you refer the pov pusher to WP:WEIGHT and other policies / guidelines, then that's likely to be attacked as incivility and reported to AN/I, at the same time being discussed as evidence in the talk page of a RfC, where one of the pov pusher's friends describes it as "a rude and hostile reception clothed in polite words---an important evolutionary step in the gamesmanship (and resolution?). One specific complaint would be dishonest carpet-bombing of policy links." (Subsequently striking these words after being reminded of WP:NPA) Another of the friends provides a link showing your advice on policies, with the implication that it's a particularly egregious example of rudeness. Tact and diplomacy is required in such situations. . . dave souza, talk 16:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: tact and diplomacy have paid off. For a few hours, anyway. See relevant talk pages for details. . . dave souza, talk 13:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This example Dave souza refers to I find interesting for several reasons. However, relevant to this page, there is some perception that we have "naturally selected" for CIVIL POV pushers by focusing so much on CIVIL violations over the last year or so. This episode Dave souza refers to contains the claim by some FRINGE advocates that the mainstream has also "evolved" to be harder to deal with by becoming more CIVIL. Interesting.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 16:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * @Dave Souza: Seems to me like spurious allegations of incivility are in themselves uncivil, and therefore could be dealt with via the tools that most admins are actually willing to employ. Again, though, the devil is always in the details, and I'm mostly unfamiliar with the case at hand. Yilloslime (t) 16:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yilloslime, this was done, and then it was claimed that it was a violation of NPA to claim that a spurious allegation of incivility was a personal attack: --Filll (talk | wpc ) 16:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (To Raul) One way to proceed might be to not label someone as a "single-purpose civil POV pusher", even if they are. Do you need to say this to remind yourself who different editors are? To give others a convenient label to place on people? Stick to commenting on the substance of what they are saying, rather than trying to find a convenient label to put on someone. If they are willing to listen to you, they are more likely to do so if you don't label them. If they aren't willing to listen to you, then labelling them doesn't help. If they were willing to listen to you, and get annoyed by the label you have put on them, then you have just taken a step backwards. As Dave souza says, tact and diplomacy is required. Carcharoth (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have also heard many claim that any "labels" contribute to the problems, or even cause the problems. I do not know that this is well substantiated, but it is an interesting and prominent position.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 17:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you need to say this to remind yourself who different editors are? - No, I'm perfectly well aware of what GoRight is. But others are not. With 1,500-odd admins and tens of thousands of regular editors, it's impossible for any given admin to know more than a small circle of contributors. So calling him a "single purpose civil POV pusher" saves myself the time and energy of enumerating his misbehaviors, while making it much easier for others to put them into context. To give others a convenient label to place on people? - Yes, a most convenient one it is, too. Stick to commenting on the substance of what they are saying, rather than trying to find a convenient label to put on someone. - Since he's gotten back two weeks ago, he's engaged in edit wars on 5 or 6 separate articles. Each of them would need at least a paragraph to describe what he's doing, and why he's wrong (descriptions relating to pseudoscience are never easy or short) The longer and more intricate the problem description, the fewer admins are willing or able to sort out the problem. If they are willing to listen to you, they are more likely to do so if you don't label them. - I think you mistake my intentions. I have no desire whatsoever to interact with GoRight in any way- he's a reprobate POV pusher who has no intent or inclination to improve our articles. My description is for the benefit of other admins, to bring about administrative sanctions to prevent his (GoRight's) behavior.  If they are willing to listen to you, they are more likely to do so if you don't label them. - Not an issue in this case.  If they aren't willing to listen to you, then labelling them doesn't help. As I said previously, yes, it does. It makes it automatically clear to admins the kind of user they are dealing with. If they were willing to listen to you, and get annoyed by the label you have put on them, then you have just taken a step backwards. - Again, not an issue in this case. Raul654 (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just for clarification, I've taken care not to label the user as a pov pusher in any of my discussions until describing the situation in general terms here. It's also possible that the user wasn't actually pushing pov on the article, but was gaming the system to elicit incivil responses that could be presented as examples at the RfC. Or it could be a misunderstanding in some way. By the way, on my talk page I have to explain how the above quotation appeared to me to be a personal attack, after dealing with some other urgent issues first. . dave souza, talk 17:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Picking up on a new point Raul made (well, new to me anyway): "The longer and more intricate the problem description, the fewer admins are willing or able to sort out the problem." - the converse also applies. The more you move towards jargon (and yes, "single-purpose civil POV pusher" is the height of jargon), the more the discussion will be opaque both to outsiders and to uninvolved admins. A balance has to be struck between a long intricate explanation, and a short, jargon-laden executive summary. Ideally, both options will be available. The longer explanations should end up in a FAQ eventually. Carcharoth (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your characterization of "single purpose civil POV pusher" as jargon. All of the above terms (single-purpose, civil, and POV pusher) have clear, unambiguous, well-known meanings within the context of Wikipedia. I simply combined them to describe one particularly disruptive class of user that exhibits all three characteristics. When discussing civil pov pushers, I also make it a point to link to this page (with its description of the problem) for the benefit of anyone who might be confused - although, as I said, I don't imagine many people would be given that the term is (IMO) unambiguously clear. Raul654 (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But once you go down that road, where does it end? What about a tendentious, original research warrior? And I disagree that WP:SPA is an unambiguous term. I've seen that term applied to a spectrum of users, from new editors all the way to long-term editors displaying ownership of articles and editing only on those topics to the near-exclusion of all else. Carcharoth (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "he's engaged in edit wars on 5 or 6 separate articles" - it would be reasonable to limit people to one discussion at a time. I personally am very bad at this, jumping from page to page and sometimes leaving a discussion hanging before it has finished. At other times, I hang around to the bitter end and wonder where everyone else has gone. It has the potential for gaming both ways, but it would be reasonable to say at some of the discussions - "hang on, let's finish the discussion over here first", or at least to try and centralise debates if they have something in common. Edit warring and "disruption" (which is broader than just 3RR) is more amenable to such restrictions. If you think he is being disruptive by editing rapidly across different pages, and leaving controversy in his wake, then make that the central point of your report. Don't try and cover everything in the report, as then people won't read all of it. Identify the most blatant and serious problem, and focus on that. Raising the other issues is adding unnecessary complexity. Carcharoth (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And exactly who is going to impose this limit? And what makes you think that such a limit is going to be imposed on him for a non-blockable behavior like starting too many discussions, when he has not been sanctioned for actual blockable behaviors (like edit warring and inserting fringe theories that violate policy/arbcom decisions)? Raul654 (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Since I suspect one of the main issues here is a compact way to notify other uninvolved admins of a problem so they can act on it easily, maybe this might be a case where some way to do this could be explored. As has been previously noted, it is very easy to get action on 3RR or CIVIL problems since an uninvolved admin can quickly see what the problem is, or read a quick summary and act. In the case of WP:DE and related problems, this is much harder. Is he violating NPOV? He is violating NOR? What is he doing? Can we find some reporting format that is compact and easy to understand and portable? --Filll (talk | wpc ) 17:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've created Requests for Comments/GoRight to deal with the problem user. Those 90 minutes I spent writing it could have been spent making Wikipedia better. Instead, I spent it writing a summary of just how disruptive one user can be. And it's not even complete - he's involved in 9 simultanious edit wars, and I only touched on 4 or 5 of them. Raul654 (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for writing that, Raul. You might think it was a waste of time, but I've now got a much clearer idea of what is going on, and while I think some of the points raised could be discussed a bit more or better, I agree that GoRight is trying to do too much at once. What do you think of the idea to limit him to raising and discussing one issue at a time? I'll try and remember to endorse or comment at the RfC if you get the two signatures needed to open it. One thing I do agree with - the link to a Google cache isn't needed to verify an offline source. I know he was saying you were using it to verify the source, but you don't really need to do that. If you must have an online link, it is better to get the letter republished somewhere reputable online to link to it, rather than linking to a Google cache. Also, you missed out a "not" in the "did not read the link" bit. Oh, and are you aware of User:GoRight/Harassment? Carcharoth (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that GoRight is trying to do too much at once - well then clearly something is wrong, because I don't agree with this. His actions - whether done all at once or spread out over weeks - are misbehavior all the same. Spreading it out over time doesn't make it acceptable. What do you think of the idea to limit him to raising and discussing one issue at a time? I think anything that lets him continue behaving in that way is a Very Bad Thing. I know he was saying you were using it to verify the source - Except that we weren't. The full journal citation was there for verification purposes (as were the relavant quotes on teh talk page). The google cache link was there to make it easy to get to the contents of the article.  If you must have an online link, it is better to get the letter republished somewhere reputable online to link to it, rather than linking to a Google cache. It's not our job to get his 48 year old letter republished in a reliable source. We don't even have to provide an online source - we were doing it as a courtesy. lso, you missed out a "not" in the "did not read the link" bit. Thanks for the tip. Fixed. Oh, and are you aware of User:GoRight/Harassment - Yes, that was the straw that broke the camel's back. The hypocrasy of him claiming to be harassed (within hours of being blocked for harassing WMC) was too much for me, so I started the RFC.  Raul654 (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I probably wasn't clear enough. When I said "the link to a Google cache isn't needed to verify an offline source", I meant that literally (as you did). I literally meant that the journal citation was sufficient. Where I disagree is on the standard for "courtesy" links. If you are going to provide a courtesy link, something better than a Google cache link is needed, otherwise (as here) it just provides more things to pick at. Better to hammer everything down securely, rather than leave loose ends. Carcharoth (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If GoRight is not intelligent enough to distinguish an unreliable source (a link to google cache) from a reliable offline one with an unreliable online redundant copy (a peer reviewed paper journal citation, with a link to google's cached copy) - that is his problem, not mine. Raul654 (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * GoRight should be put on a 0RR restriction on the global warming related articles. This will force him to think very carefully about adding something to an article as he can't revert to his version if it is removed. On the talk pages we already have the rule that comments can be removed if they don't adress editing the article.


 * Also, the 0RR restriction will mean that GoRight is not allowed to revert the article to any previous version at all, even if that is the fist editing action by him in a 24 hour period, except if he is reverting obvious vandalism. Count Iblis (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that could be put into the RFC as an alternative desired outcome. But what about his talk page disruption? Raul654 (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be great if disruptive editors could be limited to one talk page post every 24 hours.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 00:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What people often do not think about when they restrict mainspace page editing is that the talk page editing can be quite disruptive on these controversial articles.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 22:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If GoRight raises a topic that has already been discussed or if he raises an irrelevant point that is not ging to lead to changes in the article, then we could simply delete his comments. This should be part of the punishment, because it amounts to the opposite of AGF (a newcomer can be forgiven to not know that the same topic has been discussed many time s before. Basically you could say hat GoRight's punishment would be that AGF would be changed to ABF for a long period :)


 * When his talk page comments are deleted, GoRight will not be allowed to revert that change because of the 0RR restriction. Count Iblis (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You are making presumptions here: "if he raises an irrelevant point that is not going to lead to changes in the article". That is absolutely the wrong way to approach things - you need to say that the point is irrelevant, not just delete it. Deletion of talk page discussion, unless completely off-topic, tends to disrupt far more than any disruption caused by those asking the question. Blocking or page protection deals with such things better than deleting talk page comments. You also talk about punishment. We are building an encyclopedia here, not playing online games involving punishing or rewarding people. Carcharoth (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, punishment is not the right word to use here. Rather, we just recognize that GoRight's editing needs to be restricted to prevent disruption of the article and its talk page. I agree that we could reply to GoRight on the talk page by saying that he is raising an irrelevant point. But then that must be the end of the discussion. So, any further arguments by GoRight to drag the discussion on must then be deleted. Count Iblis (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleting is rising to the bait. Leave it for a bit, ignore it, and then archive to a talk page subpage for that topic. If necessary, refocus the discussion onto GoRight's behaviour, but take that discussion to his talk page, rather than the article talk pages. There are various ways to handle any particular situation, and it mostly depends on the specific situation. Blanket rules (such as "delete comments") are easy to enforce, but rarely help as people need the flexibility to act differently in different circumstances. Carcharoth (talk) 07:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleting civil and relevant Talk comments, even if they repeat old arguments, etc., is quite a worrisome suggestion. It prevents new editors (or any disagreeing editor) from becoming involved in maintaining consensus, which must be a living thing or it becomes dogma. It's even problematic, sometimes, to delete block-evading Talk comments, I've taken flack for that. Refactoring to place similar comments together in a Talk subpage, with reference to that page as needed, would be more civil and more likely to succeed. "This issue has been raised many times, so I have moved the new comment here to that page, and if there is to be further discussion of it, please do so there, so that any change to consensus on it can be specifically considered." It is not personal, does not insult the editor, does not appear to suppress, and, in fact, leaves the door open for the reconsideration of consensus. Consensus not open to reconsideration isn't consensus, it is traditional oppression and suppression.
 * Refactoring, like that, though, takes work. It's much easier to just delete. And far more destructive. Maintaining consensus is "work," and if nobody does that work, and editors only take the easiest path, consensus is gone. After writing this comment, I read Carcharoth's comment more carefully and see that he suggested the same thing. Nice.--Abd (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As I wrote on the talk page of the RFC case, we do discuss the consensus about the way to edit the article. What we cannot tolerate are arguments like: "the consensus is not consistent with the wiki rules and therefore I can ignore it".


 * GoRight has all the room in the world to find peer reviewed articles. He has all the room in the wold to discus the rational of only allowing peer reviewed sources. He is even allowed to ague that in this particular case the MSN news article should be allowed, despite the fact that it isn't peer reviewed. Then we discuss that article on its merits. But if all GoRight can do is argue on the basis of the wiki rules that MSN is a reliable source, that the consensus about peer rviewed sources only is "illegal", that we cannot discuss the contents of the MSN article because that would then be OR etc. etc., then we very soon arrive at the point where we have to say, in some way or another: "End of discussion".


 * Another thing is that the official wiki policies should recognize that for articles on scientific topics the rules need to be a bit different than for articles on political subjects. GoRight, I think, edits a lot of politics articles. Editors like him should know that the same acceptable editing behavior in a politics articles can be unacceptable behavior in a science article.


 * You can imagine that the editors decide by consensus whether or not the article will belong to the science category or not. If so, then the rules will be different. An editor like GoRight is welcome to challenge that consensus. But if he is unsucessful then the has to accept that the wiki rules are of a different character than he is used to. Count Iblis (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What we cannot tolerate are arguments like: "the consensus is not consistent with the wiki rules and therefore I can ignore it." As an argument, what is "intolerable" about this? It's wrong, yes. But what is intolerable? In fact, I encounter this argument frequently in AfDs, and properly so: "editorial consensus (in an article or subject area) cannot override wikiwide guidelines and policies." I say it is proper as an argument, not because it is correct, it isn't. But it is reasonable. It is not intolerable, it represents one pole in the tension that keeps our tent up. Behavior is another thing. In order to examine this, we need some definitions.
 * A "local" consensus is an operating agreement among those who regularly edit an article or an area. It may be a "real" consensus, that is, it is inclusive, and there are editors from all reasonable points of view who have joined in it, or it may only be an "apparent" consensus, because it is not inclusive and, in fact, editors with opposing points of view may have been excluded.
 * So what is the situation? An editor shows up and makes an edit which the editor reasonably believes satisfies overall policy and guidelines. And he's reverted based on a local consensus. He complains, as mentioned above, and asserts that overall policy should apply, not some private agreement between a limited group of editors, and that he is, therefore, free to disregard it.
 * But missing was how the editor disregards it. Disregarding it by making arguments is one thing, disregarding it by edit warring is another. Edit warring is sanctionable, edit warring as a means of "fixing" articles or, in fact, "protecting" them and this local consensus, is not permitted, and the local consensus is irrelevant, because overall community standards will be applied, not local consensus. Should an admin be involved in that local consensus, in fact, the admin would be COI, almost certainly, and would be required to refrain from using the tools. Here is how it looks to me: GoRight challenged the local consensus, making some bold edits, and, in one case that I've seen, went to 3RR. (There is another situation where he was blocked for 3RR violation, but there may be a problem with that, and it's not the case I'm thinking of.) (In the other situations I've examined, see my evidence page, User:Abd/GoRight, GoRight was not the editor most persistently edit warring.) Count Iblis asserts that the interloper should stand down ("has to accept") that the wiki rules are of a different character than he is used to. Sure. However, how is the "local consensus" that he is supposed to respect determined? Is he a part of that process, or is it something fixed in the past, and his feelings and opinions are irrelevant? What I've seen, so far, in tracking down the assertions made in the GoRight RfC, is that the articles were being maintained by a collection of editors who firmly asserted their POV on what should be in the article, and what shouldn't, with edit warring, and there was shockingly little effort made to include GoRight in the editorial consensus. He -- not merely his edit -- was rejected immediately, and uncivilly, see the revert of his first edit to William Connolley.. That edit still stands, in substance. GoRight was right, in fact, and his edit was proper. That was a BLP, not a "science article," though. As to local consensus in science articles, indeed, it is my view that local consensus trumps "policy," but only if it is not challenged, or is challenged and sustained by a wider community. If there are three editors sitting on an article, preventing some "fringe" point of view from being represented there, they can do this, locally, and they can get away with it if they are not challenged, provided that they remain civil and don't go beyond the bright line of 3RR, and there are no RfCs or other similar process. If they are challenged, though, Wikipedia begins to involve a wider community, and it is the consensus of this wider community that is ultimately binding. (Technically, even it is not binding, it's advisory, but I don't need to go there yet.) Functionally, that's our judge. Community consensus, with "community" being defined as needed and expanded as needed, when there is conflict. If there are special standards for science articles, what this really means is that a group of editors have that opinion, and operate by it, which they can do unless challenged. Whether or not a particular source can be used for particular text in a particular article is a matter for community consensus to decide, and guidelines are just that. Even policy is interpreted by the community. But what community? The whole community, dedicating as much attention as it brings to the particular problem. As soon as some restricted set of editors thinks it is the community, there is a problem. And I think that is what happened here. Once you think you are the community, then an editor who disagrees with you is "disruptive." And I'm expecting that the remainder of my work on the GoRight RfC is going to develop this theme. I advised Connolley to attempt to withdraw it, and if he did attempt that, I'd try to secure the cooperation of GoRight. I suspect that Connolley signed on here without sufficient consideration, he's already in some possible hot water and may have been distracted. The worst behavior I've seen so far in this affair has not been his, but I'm not doing this to prepare some other RfC or to turn the present one into a wider "inquisition." I'd much rather persuade than attempt to coerce and punish, I'd much rather build mutual respect among editors (and administrators) than try to identify the bad guys and get rid of them. That approach rarely works, it just changes faces. I continue to be able to assume good faith, without difficulty, on the part of all players here, though some have made statements that I find disturbing, even chilling. People make mistakes. --Abd (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)