Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing/Archive 3

Do we have the sequence right?
The Model for Dealing with Disruptive Editors places a Request for Comments (RfC) as a fourth step, and then proposes going on to the Administrators Notice Board/Incidents (AN/I) to call upon the powers exercised by admins as the fifth step.

A cursory glance at the AN/I shows repeated comments considering proceding from the AN/I (apparently seen as informal) to the more structured proceedings of an RfC. It seems we may have the procedure backwards, but perhaps more experienced editors have other insights. --SteveMcCluskey 22:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking further at the Administrators Noticeboard I noticed a link to the Community Noticeboard, which claims to be the place to discuss community bans. I've added that to the final step as an alternative to ArbCom.
 * Perhaps the Community Noticeboard should be moved up to the fifth step, replacing the Administrators Noticeboard. Since this was meant to be a rapid procedure, cutting out the fifth step would make sense. --SteveMcCluskey 22:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Steve Alan Hassan
I would like some neutral input about this Wikipedia article. Could someone who is not personally involved in this dispute on the Hassan article view comments towards the middle or bottom of the Discussion page and offer some neutral input? This one user sucked me into an argument and is contantly changing edits. It seems to be just this one editor, and no one else that has criticized me, but you can read that for yourself. I need some input before I proceed John196920022001 07:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:3O is probably closer to what you're looking for, and should be more heavily populated with responsive users. Opabinia regalis 07:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks John196920022001 12:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Uninvolved
Note: My time in this first post is limited. This thread will document prior instances of discussion on the points of potential POV gaming and the need for an uninvolved consensus. I'll return later to complete the record.

There is debate over whether a siteban should be decided by a "consensus" or by a consensus of "uninvolved editors in good standing". Durova claims this clause was "vital to raising this page from a proposal to a guideline", but that is false since he added that clause himself last week without any discussion. As discussed on Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy, adding the word "uninvolved" would lead to Wikilawyering (in that anyone who has had any interaction with a disruptive user can be said to be involved). "Editor in good standing" is either nebulously defined at best, or a tautology.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * On closer look, there has been some discussion about the word "uninvolved", but just about the only person pushing for it in the archives here is Durova himself, and people like Fred Bauder have voiced strong objections. This is hardly the "massive consensus" that Durova claims.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have strong objections as well. How is "involved" defined?  Is someone who comments on an RfC or files a 3RR or other admin report "disqualified"?  Are admins who blocked the offending user not allowed to participate?  It seems unfair to those who actually take action to try and curb disruptive behaviour, not to mention completely skews the pool of editors who can actually participate in a community ban discussion.  It also seems like a potential incentive not to get involved in controversial cases for fear of becoming "involved" and losing the ability to participate.  I can see how "involved" applies to an admin taking action on a page they edit, or discussions being closed by an admin who didn't !vote.  But this doesn't seem like the same thing.  I'd like to see "uninvolved" come out of this page as well as the banning policy.  --Minderbinder 13:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto. See also Fred Bauder's comment in this Talk page's archive. All a troll would need to do is 'involve' an admin and thus force him/her to recuse. This goes counter to logic and practicality. Crum375 13:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is a good example of where adding something about "involved" editors would lead. It would mean that if you had ever blocked that person, been in a content dispute with him, protected a page against his editing, supported a block against him, or even were seen to be "wikifriends" with anyone who had, you'd be deemed "involved" and your opinion wouldn't count. Decisions about community bans would be left in the hands of people who know nothing about the user in question, and what use is that? Also, we have to bear in mind that disruptive editors often engineer "involvement" with an admin or arbitrator so they can object to that person's continuing to administer their case. This page shouldn't say anything that might encourage that. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Previous uninvolved discussions at this talk page

 * The first to raise the subject was EngineerScotty on 11 September 2006.
 * Later that day Terryeo introduces the objection that the proposal could be gamed to drive away editors on the basis of partisanship rather than legitimate problems.
 * Also that day, I agree that the proposal should be crafted so that it doesn't permit editors to game the community banning option in garden variety edit disputes.

(first part of documentation - more to follow) Durova Charge! 22:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

(end second post - more to follow) Durova Charge! 23:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also on 11 September 2006, Terryeo emphasizes the concern that an editor's POV should not constitute the basis for banning if the editor abides by existing policies.
 * In response, I agree that the proposal should distinguish fringe behavior from legitimate POV.
 * Also at the same thread, llywrch adds  If I am understanding correctly, then the problem then becomes one of how do we enforce this guideline in a way that doesn't end up giving both sides in an edit war one more weapon to bludgeon each other with.
 * On a concurrent thread on 11 September, Radiant adds, An unfortunate reality of Wikipedia is that any sufficiently determined editor can keep pushing views that are nonstandard, irrelevant or downright false for a staggering length of time, and not infrequently frustrating good editors to the point of giving up the issue or even leaving the encyclopedia in disgust. If quality is one of our goals, we must put an end to that.
 * On another concurrent thread on 11 September, EngineerScotty adds a clause that would disqualify parties to a Wikipedia dispute from citing their own self-publications as reliable sources.
 * On 13 September Ed Poor introduces a new thread to discuss other aspects of the potential that this page might get exploited at articles where editor disputes reflect real world disputes.
 * On 15 September Electrawn posts strong objections that note, among other things, the polarizing effect this proposal could have.
 * On 19 September Antaeus Feldspar expresses his reservations about POV exploitation, including but one thing I don't see is just what, if anything, is going to stop this policy/guideline/whatever becoming a weapon for the very editors it was intended to rein in. For instance, one of the most tendentious editors I know is very fond of mislabelling as "original research" anything unfavorable to his POV that he can construe as imperfectly cited.
 * Edit conflicted with Antaeus Feldspar's objection, Opabinia regalis shares similar worries. ...Or a crank with a crappy but existent reference tries to use this proposal as a mechanism for attacking those who remove his "sourced" material.
 * KrishnaVindaloo chimes in agreement a few hours afterward. There are problems I see with the proposal itself and I agree with Antaeus. As it stands, its far too easy to spit at people willy nilly and use against legitimate editing.
 * Later that day, EngineerScotty asks Antaneus Feldspar, given the classic battle of "expert" vs "crank", when the two editors in question have similar dispositions, are content RFCs useful in determining who has the stronger position, and who is full of it? Or is RFC just as likely to attract more cranks to the debate? Much of the proposal hinges on RFC being a somewhat effective hinging/gating mechanism... (At this point in the draft proposal WP:RFC serves that important role).
 * Ten minutes after EngineerScotty's question, I express a similar thought this way nobody should be eligible for a tendentious editor block until after a consensus of impartial third party editors agree on what's been happening at a page.
 * Along with some other clarifications from EngineerScotty, this convinces Mangoe to change positions and support the proposal less than an hour afterward.
 * A few minutes later I edit the first explicit statement into the proposal about a consensus of uninvolved editors as the defining standard for disruptive editing, and note the change at the talk page for discussion. My reasoning expands the realm for consensus forming beyond RFC.
 * nae'blis responds to the new wording and recommends removing mention of a threshold number for uninvolved editors' consensus.
 * I comply with that recommendation.
 * The following day, EngineerScotty states a concern about another part of the draft proposal language.Each and every crackpot who is brought to heel under this policy will claim that their particular theory of cosmology is of course normal scholarship, merely suppressed by a great conspiracy. Arguments will ensue as to what is "normal scholarship" under other conditions as well.
 * My reply to that objection includes: That concern about normal scholarship in the wording doesn't really resonate with me: one tendentious editor can't overrule an impartial consensus. (Discussion of Scotty's particular objection ends with that post, so the impartial consensus standard appears to carry weight).
 * Within three hours, Gleng expresses strong support for the proposal.
 * Minutes later, EngineerScotty formally states his support for the proposal and asks whether the draft is ready to set before the general Wikipedia commuity.
 * The next day (shortly after the proposal's general announcement at Village Pump, RFC, etc.) JzG reviews it and expresses another angle of the concern about editor bias.
 * Among several responses by the proposal's main editors to JzG's several points, I express that consensus of impartial editors is important here.
 * KrishnaVindaloo adds his agreement to my post. As long as a group of impartial editors can be found to judge whether you, I, or anyone else is tendentiously editing, then there is a fine solution.  He expands on the idea at length including, For sure, if one is going to illegitimately accuse someone of tendentious editing, there may be consequences, as it is often the case that those making such kind of accusations are themselves pushing a particular view themselves.
 * On 23 September, WAS 4.250 promotes the proposal to a guideline.
 * On 24 September Doxmyth starts a new thread, stating two challenges for this WP:DE: it should be refined enough to distinguish disruptive editing from reasonable disputes and it should be nimble enough to provide a timely response to disruptive editing.
 * Fred Bauder agrees and expresses a concern about the consensus of impartial editors standard (not that it's liable to wikilawyering, but that there may be a need for a new venue). Requiring that they be "uninvolved" is in itself a problem; they have to get up to speed as to what's going on and then come to an agreement. So how should someone who is having a problem of this nature ask for help? Do we need a special page or will Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents do?
 * Following upon Fred Bauder's post, WAS 4.250 discusses the speed with which such a consensus could act. I don't think consensus of noninvolved editors can be as timely as you indicate. You have to find people who care, they have to evaluate the situation, they have to decide if they have a consensus.
 * The following day I add a reply to Doxmyth's discussion that includes the following: ...the guideline recommends reporting to Administrators' noticeboard rather than individual admins' talk pages if problems continue after impartial consensus has formed. As I understand the consensus from the draft stages, we sought to establish some baseline that would merit administrator intervention (short of ArbCom) that would be resistant to attempts at misuse. The best we came up with was a consensus of uninvolved editors. While no solution is perfect, editors agreed that most of the time this would protect rules-abiding Wikipedians from frivolous accusations and give well-meaning but misled editors a fair chance to adjust without punitive action. Another advantage (less discussed, but of interest to admins) is that it would offer an appropriate defense in case an admin who issued a block got accused of disruption by a disruptive editor. (The thread ends with this post, so no one voices disagreement with that summary).
 * Ten hours afterward, WAS 4.250 responds to doubts about what actually constitues disruption with these words: A consensus of uninvolved Wikipedians agreeing that someone's edits constitute persistent violations of fundamental policies is how "disrupton" is defined in the context of this guideline.

Moving from the archive to the present talk page, we also encounter: ---
 * On 24 October, John Broughton changes the model for dealing with disruptive editors.
 * The same day, SteveMcCluskey begins a talk thread that objects to John Broughton's alterations.
 * On 27 October I join the thread and, among other comments, state The consensus behind this guideline is that an editor is disruptive when a consensus of uninvolved Wikipedians agree that they are.
 * Terryeo's prompt response focuses on that part of my statement. The full text of that reply: ''Isn't it a lovely thought? "An editor is disruptive when a consensus of univolved Wikipedians agree that they are?" Lovely thought. They used to run whole towns in the old west in that manner. If they didn't like someone, a concensus of townspeople simply ran the sucker out of town. As recently as WW II, the United States Government, in consensus and without authority, rounded up everyone who looked oriental and put them into guarded camps. Lovely thought and it has historical precedent, too. Lovely.
 * Was 4.250 disagrees with Terryeo.
 * I respond to Terryeo's characterization. I think the analogy fails because it overlooks the uninvolved requirement. This isn't vigilante justice. It's more like consulting the people of some other town or calling in United Nations observers.
 * EngineerScotty disagrees with Terryeo.
 * Terryeo reformulates the objection in different terms. An excerpt: I'll state it in another way. It is wrong for a consensus of editors to be able to put their heads together for 30 seconds, decide they don't want User:xyz interrupting, and block him.
 * Colin joins the thread beginning with  support Durova's comments above 100% and expanding upon them.
 * On 30 October Travb decides the guideline has merits after reading the talk archives. I hope this policy doesn't come back and bite me or other well meaning editors in the ass, but with editors like Durova, JzG, and EngineerScotty watching this page and the development of the policy, that shouldn't be a problem.
 * I thank him and remark on the concerns that this page must balance.  Yes, we found it challenging to develop a fair standard. One of my primary concerns was to insulate this against exploitation. We didn't want to drive out legitimate contributors who held minority views (and cited them appropriately), yet we also didn't want Wikipedia to be a soapbox for editors who ignored content policies...
 * On 15 March 2007 Radiant objects to the standard of impartial consensus at this page. Durova claims this clause was "vital to raising this page from a proposal to a guideline", but that is false since he added that clause himself last week  without any discussion.

Exhaustive talk page discussion on that point - and the need for it - actually goes back six calendar months. That language has existed in this page since 19 September 2006, the day before consensus formed to publicize the proposal to the community and four days before the proposal became a guideline. This is perhaps the most thoroughly discussed and widely supported clause in the guideline and if some edit removed it through mistake or subversion, any failure to restore it earlier than last week was accidental.

Radiant's allegation of 15 March ignores two explicit references to impartial consensus and broad support among surrounding comments from other editors at the current talk page. This is also odd because Radiant made several posts to this talk page during draft discussion. Although WP:AGF naturally requires that my assurance of prior discussion deserves credit at face value unless proven false, both a casual perusal and Radiant's own recollections should have reinforced the truth of my statement.

Furthermore, in a 14 March 2006 edit to WP:AN, Radiant addressed me directly on a somewhat related topic with a statement that included the following. ''Policies are edited all the time, so I fail to see the problem here. We could discuss the matter at the policy talk page, as is common for suggested changes to a policy...'' (Note also the edit summary). The context of that conversation was that Radiant had edited WP:BAN according to his or her own preference with no prior attempt at discussion, immediately and partially reverting a change I had implemented after I had solicited discussion in multiple forums for eight days.

Taken together, these circumstances have a disappointing appearance. The conclusion that presents itself to me is that Radiant considers himself or herself privileged to edit policy with no prior discussion, yet insinuates that an equivalent action on my part would be improper at guideline level and wrongly accuses me of falsehood, when in fact my statement is not only very true, but Radiant ought reasonably to have known that it was true, and exhaustive discussion and consensus actually did support my edit. It was Radiant's actions that defied consensus while this editor simultaneously accused me of impropriety. If there is some good faith explanation here of which I am not aware, I want very much to see it because this looks like a retaliatory attempt to impugn my integrity. At the very least, it demonstrates failure to assume good faith and failure to perform ordinary research.

One final note: as stated both at this talk page and my RFA where Radiant was the nominator, I am female. Durova Charge! 02:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Problems getting uninvolved editors interested
I think Fred Bauder's commentabout the difficulty of getting a group of uninvolved editors interested enough to follow up on a long-running case of disruptive editing is right on target.

I recently raised an RfC on a case of Disruptive editing that involved a six-month dispute centering on a few arcane historical / philosophical questions. After a month passed, no one had commented on the RfC, except the two of us who were involved and had signed off on the original statement of the dispute.

If the Disruptive editing procedure is to be effective, it should not rule out action involving those parties who are interested enough to do something about it. --SteveMcCluskey 23:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Interested enough to want to do something about it, and knowledgeable enough about the particulars to know what to do. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Uninvolved, part II (an unexplained system glitch dumps new posts to that section down here)

 * Per the discussion I cite below, how about changing uninvolved to impartial? Fewer undesirable connotations could attach to that phrasing.  Durova Charge! 02:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC) (Comment - there seems to be a system glitch.  I've posted this statement three times to the "Uninvolved" section.  It keeps showing up at the bottom of the page.  If it appears out of place this time I'll just leave it be).
 * I think that impartial is possibly even worse than uninvolved, as it assumes that once an admin (or editor) starts addressing an issue, s/he becomes automatically 'tainted' and loses the capacity for objectivity. I believe that we need to have the presumption of objectivity and neutrality, with the understanding that our primary purpose in spending countless unpaid hours here is to help improve the encyclopedia. I think that letting trolls dictate which admins or editors they want, by letting them taint anyone they don't want by becoming 'involved' with them, is counterproductive. Let the trolls and troublemakers understand that all admins (and regular contributing editors) are impartial, and are united in their desire to maintain a safe and comfortable working environment for productive editors. Crum375 03:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Slow down, please, and peruse the exhaustive discussions that have already taken place regarding that point. SlimVirgin's diff (from the "uninvolved" thread, responses to which route here for some explained reason) that quotes a post to my user talk page is taken out of context.  See my reply and the prompt thanks and retraction that followed.  The remainder of the thread is entirely cordial and reasonable.  So instead of gaming the stipulation, that editor initially misunderstood it and supported the distinction as soon as he or she learned what it meant.  Slim's reading is out of date.  Nearly four hours before Slim linked to that diff on this page I responded to the same evidence at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy and supplied these diffs of the subsequent developments at my talk page thread.  Durova Charge! 04:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I can see a case of pure POV disputes and edit wars, where you wouldn't want one group to railroad the other. But to the best of my knowledge, that is not the case with bans. The typical banned person is someone who's "exahusted the community's patience". That typically involves sockpuppetry, incivility, personal attacks, threats, major disruptions, etc. These are not POV issues - they are basic behavior patterns that are very easy to identify, once the details are uncovered. So I still believe that a ban consensus should not exclude any regular editor, and specifically the most 'involved' editors may be the ones who know the case best. Crum375 04:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if neither policy nor guideline constrains POV edit warriors from clubbing up to support a community ban proposal, then that hamstrings the closing admin. Involved editors are welcome to comment and provide evidence.  We ask only that the people who make the weighty decision of sitebanning not be the individuals who have an axe to grind.  Equivalent actions are routine in the real world: judges recuse themselves from a case where their objectivity might be in doubt and lawyers reject potential jury members who have a relationship to a case.  Durova Charge! 04:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with your judge analogy - I think the same criteria can be used. You will note that judges specifically don't recuse themselves in cases where the accused makes threats against them, as that would allow the accused an easy way to reject judges they don't like. If we are down to the 'closing admin', then I would agree that in general we like to have a closer who was not part of the discussion or poll, but the decision should still reflect the consensus formed. Crum375 06:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A closing admin should be "uninvolved" but that's standard for any admin action. If a horde of POV pushers is making false accusations and otherwise "railroading", the closing editor will ignore arguments that aren't based in policy, same as closing an AfD or similar.  --Minderbinder 13:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing in this guideline has ever empowered the subject of a community ban discussion to unilaterally pick and choose whose input gets discounted. That's the closing admin's responsibility and the problem editor had better support allegations with evidence.  Likewise, attempts at railroading often have much more sophistication than Milo's scenario anticipates.  I've dealt with that consistently at investigations and dispute resolution: editors who personalize a quarrel often lose perspective on a situation.  They seize upon an opponent's minor faults or a couple of short blocks and contend that some editor is much worse than they actually are.  Whether or not the distortions are deliberate, they're seldom outright falsehoods and usually have partial basis in fact.  Durova Charge! 14:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is a matter of using common sense. For the purposes of deciding community bans, we ignore a gibbering horde of POV edit warriors anyway. That is not a real problem. But I recall several instances of a disruptive user claiming that "you talked to me / disagreed with me / blocked me for disruption in the past, so you are by definition biased and involved with respect to me, so you may not make any further decisions about me". I know of at least two users who have regularly (and succesfully) used this reasoning to dodge well-deserved blocks. That is a real problem.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is a matter of using common sense. WP:BLOCK and WP:BLOCK are the relevant places to raise those objections.  It is very easy for a sysop to disarm allegations of impropriety here: declare any actions that may be interpreted as involvement while posting opinions and evidence to a consensus discussion, then after consensus develops make a public request for some other admin to implement the ban.


 * Yet by removing a clause from this guideline that lets a closing admin discount the input of genuine edit warriors, you empower those edit warriors to abuse the guideline and drive legitimate viewpoints out of the project. As I document above, many editors raised that concern in different terms and separate threads while this guideline developed.  That is not a real problem dismisses those thoughtful discussions.


 * Of course some of the disruptive editors will try to bend any guideline or policy to their wishes. That doesn't mean reasonable people must give them credence, and if the blocking policy is getting gamed then go edit WP:BLOCK instead of here.  Or as I once put this, Site policies apply to everyone (although not necessarily according to the interpretations proposed by multiply blocked users who comment at noticeboards).  Durova Charge! 13:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a closing admin should 'discount' only editors who are clearly trolling and/or have nothing useful to say. I don't think that mere involvement in a POV war, or having  other interactions with the subject, should  subsequently cause an editor a loss of a vote, or of the ability to present evidence. I think that any indication that 'involved editors' are recused, or ignored, or discounted, will encourage the trolls and disruptive editors to 'involve' and sideline anyone they don't want. Crum375 14:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see my response above. Durova Charge! 14:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I read your response above. It still boils down to common sense, not hard and fast rules. Adding 'uninvolved' or 'impartial' would only give ammunition to the trolls and cause further disruptions. Crum375 14:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have a new reason for asserting that, or is there some aspect I missed in my previous replies? I thought I had already addressed that opinion comprehensively.  Durova Charge! 19:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is still a very, very bad idea and I continue to oppose any effort to limit the participation any admins/editors, regardless of whether you call them uninvolved or impartial. It remains too simply gamed. FeloniousMonk 01:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Policies
I've opened a request for comment to solicit broader input on this question: Should the guideline stipulate that community bans be decided by a consensus of uninvolved or impartial editors? Durova Charge! 14:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Reasons to include the clause
As demonstrated at Wikipedia_talk:Disruptive_editing, the requirement had extensive discussion and overwhelming support during this guideline's early development. It prevents edit warriors from exploiting the community banning mechanism to run a productive editor out of Wikipedia during an edit dispute. Other than from one participant (who had already been sanctioned at ArbCom and was subsequently sitebanned), no serious objection arose until 15 March 2007 when Radiant mistakenly claimed that the clause was a recent and unilateral addition. Actually it has always been a key provision here and was pivotal to gaining the proposal's acceptance. Durova Charge! 14:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Well, since you seem intent on basing this decision on ad hominems rather than actual arguments, I must point out that your addition was a recent and unilateral addition, "recent" meaning "March 6th", and "unilateral" meaning "without any discussion on this talk page". If you claim this is a "key provision" and "pivotal", please do tell us where that was determined; proof by assertion isn't. Archives of this talk page show that you made the suggestion several times in the past, and very few users backed you up on it.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not personalize this request for comment, which is about a guideline rather than individuals. Also, please assume good faith and refrain from accusing me or anyone else of logical fallacies that have not been committed.  The link I provided above goes to a thorough set of supporting diffs and quotes from many editors.  Radiant's single diff is presented out of context.  I stand by the evidence I have already supplied, which appears to have gone unnoticed, and respectfully request that Radiant retract allegations against me.  Durova Charge! 15:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to avoid "personalizing" this, I'd recommend not calling other editors "mistaken" in your intro. I'd also recommend not moving others comments - if you are going to make accusations about individuals, they certainly have the right to respond.  --Minderbinder 15:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Reasons not to include the clause
As SV stated, it encourages people put under sanction to wikilawyer that their sanction was placed by an involved user, in the broadest definition of the word. Several users have a reputation of evading blocks in this manner.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Plus we have no definition of "involved" and it would be very hard to come up with a good one. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Rather than repeat myself, let me only note that, as I mentioned earlier, the clause can be a hindrance to the effective operation of the guideline's sanctions because of the difficulty of finding interested and informed editors who are not involved. SteveMcCluskey 03:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Responses
(Responding to Radiant above). If Radiant is offended by my attempt to move a response to a section called Responses, I apologize. I performed the move to make it easier for visitors to browse this RFC. This format has been employed at other requests for comment and usually succeeds when the participants abide by its structure.

It does not personalize a discussion to characterize a statement mistaken when its factual errors are well documented. That describes the action, not the person who performed it.

I have opened this request for comment in the hope that additional input can de-escalate a disagreement that has turned rather hot. Successful RFCs usually include mostly outside responses; unsuccessful ones usually contain mostly back-and-forth from the disputants. Let's open the floor here to outside responses and continue our own dialog in other threads at this page. Durova Charge! 15:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Why either should be stated? Isn't it enough to just say that community bans can be decided only by strong consensus and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users? -- Vision Thing -- 17:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In last fall's discussion a persistent and serious issue was the risk of POV editors clubbing together to drive out a legitimate minority POV. It satisfied those concerns when the proposal/guideline acquired the clause that impartial editors decide what's disruptive.  If a new consensus forms I've no objection to removing the clause.  My worry has been that this week's discussion has mischaracterized the previous consensus and largely overlooked it.


 * It is no secret that I was the first editor to formulate this clause. As the diffs I provide above demonstrate, consensus had been moving in that direction for some time before I expressed it in these terms, it was among the last changes to go into the proposal before the drafting editors agreed it was ready for community input, and the proposal rose to guideline status very shortly afterward.  Numerous editors besides myself supported it until the last few days, and I am worried that the new discussions fail to address the eloquent concerns that prompted it and provide no alternative means to resolve those issues.  I don't own the guideline and I'll gladly agree to whatever consensus develops.  I've opened this RFC because I doubt the most recent contributors have given the prior discussion its due consideration.  Durova Charge! 18:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Durova, I agree with your judge analogy above. Judges also don't recuse themselves just because someone claims they're "involved." Even when judges have prosecuted the defendant, they're not obliged to recuse. When they've worked closely with the prosecuter, also not. When previously contemptuous behavior was directed at the judge by the defendant, still not. The situations where a judge is expected to recuse are very limited because otherwise defendants could too easily trigger recusal as a way of getting rid of a judge they didn't want. We're faced with a similar situation here. Trolls often target certain admins or arbitrators hoping to get them off their case, simply because that admin or arbitrator is very familiar with the troll's behavior. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Then we're in agreement that far. Just as in real life, the defendant doesn't get unilateral power to expel the judge (or closing admin or ban-implementing admin).  I don't believe the guideline was ever intended that way.  To continue the analogy, how about the jury?  If it's a trial about burglary the victim's sister could be a witness but not a juror.  How would you craft this guideline so the prosecution doesn't stack the jury?  Durova Charge! 21:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If I may intervene, I don't think the jury analogy is a good fit, as Wikipedians can supply evidence and make judgments (or cast votes). Perhaps a better analogy is the 'investigating judge' seen in some countries. In any case, the point is that WP is an open system, and unless someone is clearly off topic and out of order, their evidence, views and votes should be included in any discussion. A recusal based on prior involvement is a powerful tool for trolls and those wishing to abuse the system. Crum375 22:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that we have no definition of "involvement" and that it would be very hard to come up with an adequate one. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Site precedent for other recusals would operate here and be somewhat easier to apply than at, for instance, WP:BLOCK because a blocking admin usually acts alone while this is by nature a community discussion with plenty of people examining the situation. Per WP:AGF, the closing admin would count each support or oppose unless the sysop's own research or someone else's evidence gave reason to disregard it, or unless that editor's reasoning was nonexistent or faulty.  Durova Charge! 02:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If what you are saying is that the closing admin should use common sense, then we agree. It's artificial exclusion based on 'involvement' or 'impartiality' that I have a problem with. Crum375 03:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Then how would you apply common sense to this community ban request? WP:CN The user's block history shows the proposal isn't frivolous.  Yet it's initiated by the same editor who started the RFC Requests for comment/Certified.Gangsta which received almost no discussion other than this.  And the requestor's own block history has its problems.  Durova Charge! 05:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is exactly when common sense kicks in. There are two issues: whether to even start a community ban process, and then given the votes to decide on consensus. In this case, while an RFC is ongoing, it is clearly improper to rush to a community ban, unless the user's disruption suddenly reaches new heights. I would have no problem, however, to accept the RFC originator's inputs and vote, if a ban process is started. The closing admin and other participants should carefully look at the evidence and rationale provided by each voter - the fact that a voter was himself disruptive at some point should not affect the results if the evidence is otherwise solid. We focus on the message, not the messenger. And this would include both possible 'involvement' with the ban candidate as well as disruptive behavior in general. Crum375 05:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel there's too much wikilawyering going on here. Common sense is the key. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Right 2 pennies worth from Lethaniol:

As far as I have read here, and at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy there seems to be general consensus for the principle but not on the practical wording required for this policy. Now I may have missed something, so please correct me if I am wrong.

The consensus on the principle that I see is this - that when working out if there is a strong consensus for a community ban, involved users are not counted in any consensus. This does not include editors who occasionally have made minor edits to the articles in question or administrators who respond to basic tasks e.g. 3RR requests, vandalism reverting, page protection. As a number of users have said - common sense is paramount, and the closing adminstrator will hopefully have enough to make the call on who and who is not "involved".

So the real issue seems to be how to get this principle written down. Currently we have the following options:


 * 1) The current version: Community bans must be supported by a strong* consensus and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful* of admins or users.
 * 2) An inclusive version: ''Community bans must be supported by a strong* consensus of uninvolved users ..."
 * 3) An exclusive version: ''Community bans must be supported by a strong* consensus exclusing involved users ..." (I have added this alternative as I do not think it has been considered as of yet)


 * Note I will not comment further here but vague terms such as strong or handful I find, well too vague - they should either be made more precise, or precedent from previous cases followed.


 * Also note that I will not comment on whether uninvolved editors should be of good standing or not. Obviously they should be, we can not have trolls supporting one another, but this issue is for another discussion, on how we define good standing.


 * Vague adjectives such as in deeply involved users, or active uninvolved users, could be added in, but will likely lead to even more wikilawyering on what these terms mean - better to keep it simple.

Now basically none of these three versions are perfect - law and bureaucracy never is. We should pick the one that is likely to cause the least problems, and hence cause the least additional work.

These are the following problems that I can see:


 * 1) A majority of involved users gang up to try and ban minority user(s). This is most likely to happen with the current version, if the closing administrator lacks the required tact, foresight and common sense.
 * 2) Involved users lodge a ArbCom request because they have been excluded from participating in reaching consensus (note even though the ArbCom request is unlikely to be accepted - it still wastes time). This is most likely to happen with the current version, as though it will be clear to experienced administrators that common sense means that involved users should not be counted when reaching consensus, it would not be unreasonable for the average user (let alone trolls) to think that this principle has been picked out of thin air and feel that the system is not transparent and being used against them.
 * 3) Involved (and maybe even uninvolved) users wikilawyer over what involved or uninvolved means, leading to prolonged discussions, presentation of precedents and explanation of common sense principle, and maybe even an ArbCom request. Now obviously this is most likely to happen with options 2/3 above, and is the main reason people seem to be uncomfortable with them. But think for a moment about the current version - it has exactly the same problem - if only delayed! When an involved user finds out that their views have not been taken into account in any consensus against their opinion, they will not only ask "Where does it say that involved users are discounted in any consensus discussions" (problem 1 above) but also "and who determined that I was an involved user" etc.
 * 4) That not enough uninvolved users turn up to enable a fair consensus to be reached - i.e Fred Bauder's concern. Note I will bring to Fred's attention that this comment has been raised a number of times during this discussion - just in case in does not know and he wishes to have an input. Maybe our fears on this issue should be somewhat placated considering the recent turnout in such discussion on the Community Noticeboard.

So because of the first problem and the fact that the third problem affects all three options, better to pick either the second or third option (i.e. inclusive or exclusive) IMHO. As to which is better of these options I do not know.

Anyway something to chew the cud on, and get the discussion restarted. Cheers Lethaniol 11:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

minority opinions
Regarding "While notable minority opinions are welcome when attributable to reliable sources, and normal editors occasionally make mistakes, sometimes a Wikipedia editor creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page with information which is not attributable to reliable sources." Isn't the opposite also frequently happening, editors disrupting by censoring articles from good-faithed inclusion of minority opinions with reliable sources? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge
I concur with the proposed merge. I should note that Tendentious editing could also be merged here, as it covers largely the same area.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Concur with both. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to merging. There's a lot of overlap between these two pages and keeping them separate might confuse editors who aren't familiar with the history of how they developed. Durova Charge! 17:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have serious objections to merging of an essay into a guideline. We don't modify policies and guidelines lightly, are we? If there is a content in the essay which is worth inclusion into the guideline, you are welcome to discuss it here, in the talk page. `'mikka 00:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, IMO it would be only natural to re-redirect WP:DIS here, rather to the essay. whis is mainly for historical interest now IMO. `'mikka 00:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

On the third hand, I see there are lots of essayists here as of now, who IMO contribute to the mess in our already complicated system of policies. For example I run into the following "se also" (I collected bullets into one line): See also: Disruptive editing, Don't be a fanatic Edit warring, Blocking policy, What Wikipedia is not. Therefore may I suggest to move out essays into a separate space, something like Wikipedia essay:Don't be a fanatic or Wikipedia/Essay:Don't be a fanatic, so that I may immediately see from the reference whether it is sometnig I have know and follow or it is only an exercise of an idle wikilawyer (posibly useful). `'mikka 00:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, we do modify guidelines lightly. The point is that the pages are redundant.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support merging them, including tendentious editing, very little difference and would be less confusing for new editors. Addhoc 11:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose merging...as the author of the Disruption essay, I have to ask if it is really appropriate to merge what is really just an essay representing my particular viewpoint on an issue with a guideline page? After all, the point of an essay is to explain one user's (in this case, mine) opinion and attempt to convince others to think the same way, while a guideline's purpose is to explain a general behavioral trend within the community as a whole to influence them to behave in that way.  Kurt Weber 20:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Question
Am i allowed to remove vandalism warnings, copyright image notices, etc, from my user talk page? User:Yamakiri user has threatened to permanently protect my user talk page so that i cant edit it. Can i remove copyright image notices at least? i hope you see this soon. thx Modelun88 00:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin so I'm requesting it, not accualy doing it. Yamakiri 00:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes you may. Please read WP:USER. Warnings remain in the page's edit history, so they are not lost.


 * It is entirely options, but generally preferable to WP:ARCHIVE old messages &mdash; several bots exist that will automate this process so it will be less work for the user. / edg ☺ ★ 09:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Noticeboard
I propose to create a new noticeboard to help editors understand, comply with, and enforce the disruptive editing guideline. We already have specialized noticeboards like WP:BLPN, WP:COIN and WP:RSN. These work well to help editors get assistance applying those guidelines to real cases.

With the demise of WP:CSN, more cases of suspected long term abuse are heading to WP:ANI, often unformed and poorly explained. The lack of evidence and organization prevents the community from taking proper action and places the suspected editors in an uncomfortable situation. A specialized noticeboard for discussing suspected cases would help filter out frivolous cases, and would generate proper evidence for those cases requiring community attention. With the help of editors experienced in the WP:DE guideline, those requesting assistance would be much better prepared to file a request for community sanctions at WP:AN or WP:ANI.

This new board would not have any special powers. It would simply be a centralized place to discuss specific cases of long term disruptive editing. I've created Disruptive editing/Noticeboard as something to look at, discuss, and edit.

We would need to change Disruptive editing to include: "Suspected cases of disruptive editing may be reported at Disruptive editing/Noticeboard" - Jehochman Talk 20:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Sadi Carnot
Over a long period of time User:Sadi Carnot created bogus articles containing original research and many links to the editor's personal website and self-published work on pseudoscientific psychology theories. Starting with pages such as Articles for deletion/Human chemistry, the bogus editing is in the process of being fully discovered and removed from Wikipedia. "Sadi Carnot" also had another account: User:Wavesmikey. Editors with expertise in psychology are needed to review edits made by "Sadi Carnot" to many psychology-related articles. Also, a significant number of Wikipedia editors continue to defend the Wikipedia editing of "Sadi Carnot", even in light of two years of calculated disruptive editing. How can we retain the editors with expertise that are needed to counter scam artists like "Sadi Carnot" when there are editors who patrol afd (and vote "keep" for each others garbage articles) and even administrators who support disruptive editors? Can we have some element of Wikipedia policy that would act to support and retain the experts that Wikipedia needs in order to deal with scam artists like "Sadi Carnot"? If not, will Wikipedia ever really become something more than the encyclopedia of pop culture? --JWSchmidt 05:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Much as I'm appalled that anyone managed to get away with this for so long (the evidnce is pretty convincing to me), I think we should cut some slack to those Admins you refer to: if you trusted someone, then discovered that they've been acting in such deliberate bad faith, it's fair to say that you'd be struggling with denial also. However, to the larger question about this affair, I guess it was simply a matter of when, not if: we trust each other to accurately & honestly report our sources -- even the tendentious editors -- & have no way to check their honesty. I don't think it's a requirement even for Featured Articles that someone double-check the accuracy of the citations. -- llywrch 22:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried (in my own way) to express a similar sentiment at this page. However, when experts are not made welcome and their expertise is not efficiently utilized, Wikipedia suffers. We need to facilitate the participation of experts who can spot deceptive editing and explain editing problems to the community...that is the way to check the honesty of scam artists. Too many Wikipedians, including some administrators continue to drive away experts rather than try to create an environment that empowers them to help Wikipedia. --JWSchmidt 02:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The unusual feature to this matter is that the Admins who are defending Sadi Carnot both state on their user pages that they have hard science backgrounds; it's mostly the generalists who stumbled upon his deception. In any case, I agree with your comment at the link above that the alleged "wheel war" is the least of the matters that the ArbCom should consider; I attempted to explain my concerns here on my blog. -- llywrch 03:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of the problem articles in this case were created in a "no man's land" between scientific disciplines. I've been looking at the articles that are between psychology and biology and chemistry. Some of these articles tend to fall into a category that I would call "folk psychology", and "Sadi Carnot" has certainly not been the only person creating and editing these articles. Such articles are in the huge part of Wikipedia that I tend to think of as "the encyclopedia of pop culture". I suspect that few people with science training venture into these pages, so they provide a great opportunity for original research and pseudocience to be inserted into Wikipedia...possibly where it can both do the most harm and be most likely to escape detection. Until there is some system by which all Wikipedia articles are reviewed by experts, we are putting out a "product" that people trust when they should not....a "product" that often is at the top of search engine results and provides a tempting target for scam artists trying to attract attention to their personal websites. --JWSchmidt 22:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The obvious venue for the discussion of individual articles that might be in this category is WP:FTN, the Fringe theories noticeboard.  Keep in mind that some of it may be very real and academically solid, and merely have been edited carelessly--there is a tendency to think that anything outside of the hard sciences is just popular culture,  but there is serious scholarship out there. DGG (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)