User talk:Raul654/Civil POV pushing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What's all this talk about PCCTL?
What's all this talk about PCCTL?
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3
About archives

Contents

Da Costa's syndrome

This is, in the grand scheme of things, a minor case, but it may illustrate some of the damage:

We have identified a single-purpose account, run by an identifiable individual who "just happens" to have a non-mainstream take on a particular set of symptoms. His real article, called The posture theory, was deleted as non-notable through AfD. A few days later, he decided to hang his idea on the peg of "Da Costa's syndrome" (a vague 19th century syndrome, generally considered a psychosomatic anxiety disorder). It's overall an unimportant article for Wikipedia, so we can't justify investing several editors' time and energy into turning it into a little gem of an article and discrediting his personal views. Considering the basic priorities, the goal for this article is to have it not actually be actively wrong while we deal with more important articles, like Meningitis or Mental health.

The SPA editor is no more frustrated with the NPOV-oriented editors than we are with him. He's (finally) mostly given up on getting his name and his website (with his expensive self-published book for sale) in the article. He comes by every week or two and adds bona fide medical publications on the subject -- but always and only those articles which support his particular views. Of course, the condition is entirely superseded, so most of the refs are from before most editors were born.

No editor has ever supported his view. Five editors have directly told him that using Wikipedia to promote his personal ideas is not accepted. We've been at this for more than six months, and he's undeterred in his overall goal.

But what sort of support do we get from the broader community? We get responses that add up to "Y'all play nice, now." "It's a content dispute: you should 'work for a consensus'." "You could just keep removing the stuff he adds; it's not like your time and energy is worth anything." "Surely nobody would deliberately add original research, because adding original research (*gasp*) violates Wikipedia's policy."

Yes, of course all of this violates a variety of policies, guidelines, and cultural conventions -- notably WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:TRUTH and WP:COPYVIO, in this case. But my existing attitude readjustment tools apparently don't reach as far as Australia, and the editor remains unscathed.

It's back at WP:COI/N for a second go-round. I expect no practical improvement: he's not particularly rude, so why bother blocking him? Unless I'm willing to undertake a concerted campaign to drive away the editor by convincing him that Wikipedia is controlled by a particularly rude version of the Wicked Witch of the West, then I'll probably still be removing the same cruft and leaving the same explanations and warnings on talk pages at the end of the year.

And that, BTW, is the only effective solution currently in place: When I am no longer willing to put up with this self-promoting nonsense, I can team up with other disgusted editors to be so mean and rude to the SPA that he leaves in disgust. It's not just the good editors who can be driven away by bad behavior. Unfortunately, every time someone resorts to that approach, Wikipedia's reputation is damaged.

We need another solution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion - addressing POV problems

GTB: I don't think that's right. I think that most POV pushers really believe what they claim to believe.
F: Yeah. So what?

Good question; see below.

Haemo: What matters is the effect on the encyclopedia, and that's the same either way: the encyclopedia is compromised, corrupted, made to look ridiculous, or even all three at once.
F: Correct.

Well, what matters is their effect on the encyclopedia, which is negative either way, and also how we go about stopping them, which might differ in the two cases. I'm pushing in the direction of identifying and studying specific strategies in a more scientific way that we have, hitherto. I may be wrong, and if so, we'll find out, but I suspect that there will be better strategies than identifying "bad guys" and topic-banning them. I'm open to testing both kinds, any kind of strategy. Maybe not any kind...

GTB: Regardless of one's opinion on that question, there are going to be different strategies.
F:Well different strategies have to be tried. Because we cannot continue under the present strategies which are ineffectual and based on a complete lack of knowledge of this venemous situation that the vast majority of Wikipedians are blind to and unaware of.--Filll (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm pretty much in agreement there.

Is part of the misunderstanding... does it seem to you that I'm suggesting professionalism as a the solution to neutrality problems? I'm not, and I haven't been. I was brought into this whole discussion because I saw people saying that "the community is obsessed with civility" and that what we need is more people "willing to call a spade a spade". I disagree with those claims.

I disagree that the solution is to downplay civility and assumption of good faith, and I said so at that RfC, and I'll continue to say so until I'm shown wrong. That can happen, and I'll facilitate my being proven wrong, if that's where things go.

The fact that I oppose incivility and accusations of bad faith doesn't mean I'm think promotion of "CIVIL" and "AGF" is the solution. It's just that we shouldn't begin our search for a solution by hobbling ourselves and handing ammunition to POV pushers. That's foolish, even though it's a completely understandable reaction to frustration. The high level of frustration is an indication that we need serious solutions. The beginning of a serious solution, however, is to commit to approaching it as serious professionals. Am I wrong? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

GTBacchus: 'I was brought into this whole discussion because I saw people saying that "the community is obsessed with civility" and that what we need is more people "willing to call a spade a spade"'
No one in this discussion, either on the talk page or on the main page, has used the expressions quoted above, so I'm not sure how it is that you were "brought into this whole discussion" because people were saying these things. Perhaps you have this discussion mixed up with another one. Your post is the only place in this discussion where those expressions occur.
The discussion that formed the main content of these pages was helpful, informative, and positive, IMO, and I'm cautiously encouraged by the recommendations coming out of it, as well as by Jimbo's endorsement. At least there's an acknowledgement that someone is paying attention and is supportive of finding a real solution to a real problem. The post-discussion that started with section 25 has added nothing useful to the discussion, IMO, and I regret my part in it. I was exasperated by a failure to move beyond an obsession with the word "civil" toward some actual suggestions of solutions to the real problems that beset us, but I shouldn't have let my exasperation get the better of me. I apologize to the editors who have done such a good job of articulating and exploring the problem here. Thank you.Woonpton (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Woonpton, thanks for your comments. When I said I was brought into "this whole discussion", I'm definitely referring to a larger scope than this page. The comments that brought me to this issue were made at an RfC a couple of months ago, where editors who are active on this page said precisely the things that I quoted. If I've seemed obsessed with talking about civility versus incivility, it's because I have been handed the argument, repeatedly, that incivility is somehow necessary or a good idea, or that our civility policy should be scrapped or at least downplayed. If you never said that, then my comments along those lines have not been directed at you, and I apologize if it seemed that they were. I'm not always the best at articulating precisely what I want to say. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
As someone mentioned above, there is an immense amount here, and it might not be possible given assorted constraints to respond to it. I guess I am still waiting to see more concrete examples with real substance. Pretend I am from Missouri. In the meantime, I will keep making what I perceive as potential solutions to attempt and placing them out there for consideration in various venues.--Filll (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Concrete examples of what? So far, I've been trying to ask a few questions, and defending myself against claims that I'm in favor of all manner of nonsense. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I ask for the same thing from GTBacchus that I ask from everyone; namely, concrete examples of novel approaches to these issues, and concrete examples of their success or failure in field trials. I have found over the last few months that many who make grand pronouncements about this area are quite vague about the details of their purported novel approaches, or have developed their novel approaches based on uninformed intuition and hunches, or have never tested their novel approaches in practice, or when I have observed their vaunted novel approaches in action, they have not performed anywhere near what was advertised. This is not to say that novel approaches do not exist; I made several suggestions of novel approaches to the mainspace version of this page, and I have made several more at the User: Raymond arritt Expert Withdrawal pages. I have listed a few I have seen operate successfully in my draft here. I have observed several admins and editors here who have shown me novel approaches to this issue; in particular I was quite impressed by User:Silence but I have also been impressed by User:KillerChihuahua on occasion. So I know that new approaches exist, because I have seen it. I just think that it is to our advantage to compile the largest possible number of them and to test them in actual field conditions to gain experience with them. --Filll (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Then we're in complete agreement. The best suggestion I can make is to create some kind of central discussion area for comparison of different strategies. I'd like to see groups of Wikipedians mindfully select and apply specific strategies, and keep notes on what works and what doesn't. What I know now is that I've got my ideas, and other people have got theirs, and that arguing between the two takes us around in circles.

I think the central page should be called something like "Dispute Resolution work group", as opposed to "Expert Withdrawal" or "Civil POV pushing", which are focused on some of the right questions, but which carry weird baggage.

I don't know whether your second paragraph above ("I have found...") applies to me, since I haven't proposed any novel approaches, "vaunted" or otherwise. I've disagreed with the idea of scrapping civility, or that "the community is too obsessed with civility" (which turned out to be code for "the community is too permissive of wikilawyering"), and I've suggested that any successful approach should involve professional behavior,. I have got some approaches in mind that I'm looking forward to testing on articles such as Homeopathy and Chiropractic, and I'll be in a position to do that when I've laid some more ground work. However, any idea that my arguments for professionalism consist of suggesting a "novel approach" is sorely mistaken. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo's endorsement?

Jimbo endorsed this? How? Where?--Filll (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Further up this page - Because my opinions are often given more weight than they deserve, I am reluctant to say very much. But I will say this: I am generally supportive of conservative movements in this direction.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Raul654 (talk) 03:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
This has been archived, btw, but can be seen at /Archive 1#The way forward: The homeopathy case. I will say though that Jimbo was clearly not "fully endorsing" something, but simply saying that he was generally supportive of a direction. Let's not read more into it than that. --Elonka 16:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I just came across this; it was probably in response to a comment I made in passing. Elonka's right, he was just expressing here his generally supportive attitude toward a direction that's being taken mostly elsewhere, but aided by suggestions that came from here; if it seemed I was making more of it than that, I apologize. Woonpton (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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? [1] 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...)  — 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?  — 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)

CIVILity examined

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

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

  • Militaries, such as the United States Marine Corps, seem to be quite productive and have not done anything over the centuries to try to squelch incivility in in the interests of a better and more productive working environment. If this contributed to winning wars, surely this would have happened.
  • Academia itself is very uncivil. And yet, it seems to do good work. Wikipedia tries to emulate academia and uses peer-reviewed academic work as the gold standards in its references. And yet, this has not been the subject of any civility drives and movements.
  • The halls of Congress and Big Business are quite uncivil. And yet, there are no massive drives to stomp out incivility.
  • New York City, London and Paris are famous for being rude uncivil environments. And yet, these cities function and attract new residents. People do not flee these cities because of incivility for the most part. In fact, New Yorkers who move to other places frequently state they miss the incivility.

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

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

Well this might all be true, but we do not have much evidence, do we? I think we have to move in all these questions away from assertions based on just intuition and other similar gratuitous claims to actual data. And by the way your statement In my experience, academia is almost always very civil is so wrong it is laughable. I guess you had a very different encounter with academia than I have had. And I am sure many professional academics could back me up on this in detail. Maybe you just had a short encounter, at some low level institution? I do not know.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Magnificently nasty, that last line. Filll, you outdo yourself regularly.
In the more general case, militaries are remarkably polite, but hardly provide a relevant structure for comparison, given that we are a non-hierarchical website. Academia certainly values politeness and - er - collegiality in certain fields. In the subfield in which I have some (non-short, non-low level) experience, universities in the Northeast and Europe are much more traditional in interpersonal interaction than universities around the Great Lakes, which creates some interesting problems at seminars and when new hires are involved. Incidentally, "collegiality" is now considered an important factor in tenure decisions. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
We have evidence in studies about other social networks that are easily obtained through Google. MySpace and YouTube, for example, have virutally no moderation and the former is in the news frequently as a place where teens bully each other. The latter... well, pick any popular video and read the comments. It's verifiable that not caring about civility leads to a hostile environment. --Nealparr (talk to me) 20:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, in genereal, for the much-studied link between collegiality/civility and productivity:
So, how does it feel to be pushing a fringe theory :)? --Relata refero (disp.) 21:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
You're mean. :) Those are very interesting, and might even be useful on the WP:CIVIL page itself as background. Are you aware of any literature on civility specifically as it applies to online environments? I ask because the behavioral norms and standards online are quite a bit different from at my workplace, anyway. MastCell Talk 23:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This is all great. However, I believe we have to move past "Intuition based management techniques" to "Evidence based management techniques". A lot of the stuff we do on Wikipedia is based on intuition, or gut feeling, or some sort of abstract argument that everyone repeats blindly and mindlessly. Two or three editors brainlessly repeating contradictory arguments just get into ridiculous conflicts, with no facts to back any of it up. Each has an intuition about how things are. Many who dish out advice (even on this page) have zero experience in the appropriate area but are glad to make unsubstantiated claim after claim, based on no evidence, no data and information. Frequently, those who know the least are the most aggressive and obnoxious about trying to spread their ignorance. We have to move past this. And these fables about CIVIL are just that; fables. It is particularly amusing to see people claiming that militaries are very civil and polite. Yeah right... tell me another.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

One way to move past all of this would be to stop making vague statements like "many who dish out advice" and "those who know the least" and so on. If you think that's a way that to get around NPA, think again.
Can I take it as read that you accept the overwhelming mainstream view is that decreased civility hampers productivity? Because otherwise, we have nothing to go on about your intuition about what's true, and you know where that leads. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and about the military - it is probably the organisation in which social interaction is most structured and etiquette most respected. I really don't know what you're talking about - perhaps you've watched too many movies with a foul-mouthed drill sergeant? :) --Relata refero (disp.) 23:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


I have one word for you. Data.--Filll (talk | wpc) 23:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a very informative word without context, I'm afraid. Data of what? Etiquette in the military? Really? --Relata refero (disp.) 07:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


Let this stand in mute testimony to your deep insight in these matters and penetrating analytic abilities.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Why thank you. I am as unworthy of being complimented for my analytical ability and insight as you are worthy of being complimented for your graciousness in discussion. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding repetitive arguments

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

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

Yes I was also thinking about a FAQ or something, and I think I have already seen one at the top of a talkpage somewhere, don't remember where though.
As for telling someone that re-opening an old discussion is inappropriate... Well that would work on most of us (I hope), but not on a civil POV pusher, that's why they are tricky. =)
—Apis (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
FAQs can be useful in some cases. That is why I suggested the FAQ at evolution and wrote the first version. It might have been the first on Wikipedia, but I do not know. However, anyone who thinks that this will stop a "CIVIL POV pusher" clearly has no experience on a really controversial article, or with a CIVIL POV pusher. A CIVIL POV pusher will engage in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and repeat the same argument over and over 50, 100, 500 times, maybe in slightly different words, but essentially the same argument. They will be polite, but trying to drive you over the edge where you make a mistake and then get you sanctioned for violating CIVIL or NPA or whatever. Many will claim that to even disagree with them is a violation of CIVIL!! Not wanting to reopen a closed conversation is about the same. It will never work on a CIVIL POV pusher, who will reopen it dozens if not hundreds of times over days, weeks, months and even years. --Filll (talk | wpc) 19:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Therefore someone who tries to re-open an issue using an old argument can be told that that's inappropriate. - yes, that sounds great in theory. Unfortunately, in practice, it doesn't quite work that way. Raul654 (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, can you point me to a few examples? Because in my experience, focusing an objection towards a talkpage archive where that same objection has been civilly addressed and answered is quite effective. The mailing list is discussing a possible mediawiki alteration to help this. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Looking at talk:Global warming, of the 11 sections there, I count 4 -- 1 (What, no "Criticism" section?), 2 (Non-NPOV and old climate data), 3 (Problems with the Page), 7 (Rename article) -- which rehash things that have already been talked about, are in the achives, and probably in the FAQ too. Raul654 (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Except people don't exactly point people to the FAQ, do they? Nor do they update the FAQ based on the asked questions... there need to be behavioural changes as well. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Except when POV pushers are pointed specifically at the FAQ, they simply ignore it. Raul654 (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
He didn't ignore it. He read it, and objected to the Orestes meta-study on principle, saying it was an "opinion about an opinion". An objection that is not reasonable, as the Orestes study is a reliable secondary source aggregating and analysing information about the primary sources (the opinions expressed in the individiaul studies.) In which case, you point that out, say that nothing less than an opinion about the set X of opinions is acceptable per OR when we are describing the features of X. (And change the FAQ to reflect that objection.) There's also a point about timing, which is not per se disruptive. Again, shift the onus onto the dissenting editor: has a new meta-study been produced altering the conclusions of Orestes? If not, we go with the sources we have. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
That thread now has in excess of 2,500 words, and Sirwells shows no signs of easing up. He keeps bringing up misinformation (like the Oregon petition), forcing others to debunk his nonsense. I trust this has illustrated why trivial advice like "Point civil POV pushers to the FAQ" is not just unhelpful, but insultingly vacuous to the people who actually have to deal with this problem. Raul654 (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
What's insulting is the apparent decision to ignore my point above. If he's bringing up misinformation regularly brought up and not in the FAQ, find the last discussion of it, point him in that direction, ignore him till he frames it in terms of that disussion, and add it to the FAQ. If he's bringing up new misinformation, it needs to be rebutted on the talkpage anyway. If he's bringing up misinformation that is in the FAQ, then you're not doinitrite.
What's even more insulting? Calling carefully-worded advice from people who deal with POV-pushers daily "trivial". Have fun. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


I will have to agree with Raul654 on this point. Of course I am an advocate of FAQs; otherwise I would never have written what I believe to be the first one, at the evolution article over a year ago. However, the idea that the FAQ is a cure-all and will fix all the problems or even most of the CIVIL POV pushing problems and that we are all too stupid not to know that just is an incredible implication. Wow.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
That wasn't the first. If you don't think it will solve a good proportion, explain why not, while taking into account the points made elsewhere on this page. Looked at Talk:Muhammad recently? Wow. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't see Sirwells as much of a problem. Global warming and associated articles are well-policed, and Sirwells is arguing against a strong consensus of editors (not to mention Wikipedia policy); any edits he makes to the articles are going to be reverted. His posts on the talk page are annoying, but what harm are they actually going to do? I mean, when I see a single-purpose account carrying on like this, I do long for the ability to perma-ban them, but I don't see that this particular editor is causing a problem with the actual content of the articles.
I have to echo Relata Refero in saying that he, Dbachmann, and other editors who frequent Wikipedia:Fringe theories have to deal with POV-pushers all the time, and usually in articles that are less well maintained than Global warming and Evolution. I wouldn't say that they're successful all the time, but they have a good track record of maintaining quality articles in the face of nationalistic, tribalistic, sectarian, etc. editors. Many of the people who are posting to this page seem to think that the problem is science vs. pseudo-science, but the problem is much broader. The underlying structure of the issues that Relata Refero deals with at Jawaharlal Nehru and problems at Global warming are the same: what reliable sources say vs. narrow, sectarian viewpoints. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Sigh. You really need to stop impugning everybody else -see my remark above- and focus on the problem this page purportedly addresses. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Interesting response. Let's let it stand as a tribute to your incredible insight and perspicacity, and unmatched experience in these matters.--Filll (talk | wpc) 23:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
How the hell is saying you need to stop griping about everybody else impact my "expertise"? Please. Two totally distinct things, as no doubt you now realise. If you're making no sense, presumably because you're lashing out wildly. Don't. Continually claiming that everyone else who works in contentious areas doesn't really understand the way you do is not going to get anyone believing you, or even particularly sympathetic.) --Relata refero (disp.) 07:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Having had an exchange or two with you in the past and seen your peerless levelheaded rationality, I think I will decline to discuss much further with you. Thanks.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I guess I didn't make my suggestion clear, i.e. explaining what would happen after telling the person their behaviour is inappropriate. Once they've been told, there are two possibilities: either they'll stop it, or they won't. I'm imagining an interaction something like this:
  • User A: (repeats old argument)
  • User B: It's inappropriate for you to bring that up because ... blah, blah, blah, explanation, link.
  • User A: (repeats same old argument again)
  • User C: You've already been asked not to repeat that argument. That's not just a request: it's a requirement of the community.
  • User A: (repeats same old argument again)
  • User B: Please stop repeating that argument, or you will be blocked.
  • User A: (repeats same old argument again)
  • User D: (blocks user A)
In this scenario, user A repeats the argument 4 times and is then blocked after having violated clear warnings. User A doesn't have the opportunity to repeat the argument 50 or 100 times.
I think in most cases, user A would stop repeating the argument, but it doesn't matter whether I'm right about that or not, because either way, user A would not repeat the argument 50 or 100 times before being blocked. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
That is a great idea, if we can make things clean enough and regular enough with warnings and procedures so it actually happens. Of course, they can confuse the issue by spreading it out over several days, or having their friends make it for them in rotation, or changing the wording slightly, or claiming that they were not told properly or whatever. I am sure all sorts of strategies and tactics will be tried. This needs to be reduced to something very simple, and then tested extensively in practice. And then maybe proposed as a standard once the rough edges are worn off.
As above, I have to warn you that there are legions of people on Wikipedia that will fight this tooth and nail as unfair and uncalled for and too harsh. And there will probably be many who will claim that user B is in violation of the same principle since he repeated the same explanation several times.--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Data? --Relata refero(disp.) 07:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
More like prognostication in this case. Informed as well in this case.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Ha, so when you do it its informed prognostication, but when anyone else does it its "assertions based on just intuition"? :) --Relata refero (disp.) 21:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
When you have actually contributed anything of value, or have something to offer, then maybe it will be worth responding to you. Thanks.--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome.
You actually haven't responded to my copious evidence of mainstream views above, you haven't accepted that close mentoring is considered appropriate by the community, and you've dismissed FAQs... in return you have offered... er... --Relata refero (disp.) 21:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Per above.--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Above where? --Relata refero (disp.) 22:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. No doubt many problems remain to be worked out. The main problem I see is how to ascertain and clarify whether a given warning has community consensus backing it. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the goal of this proposal makes sense, in that it would be nice to have a better way of dealing with editors who obsessively repeat the same argument regardless of how many outside editors tell them it's unconvincing or inappropriate. The problem I see is that any block which is tinged with "content dispute" will get segments of the community riled up. It's hard enough, in the current climate, to make a block stick for straight-up obvious edit-warring or out-and-out disruptiveness, so the idea of a block for lower-level tendentiousness seems a bit idealistic, though I'd like to see things move in that direction. MastCell Talk 21:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with MC here. Now where are those who will attack him visciously for offering that opinion?--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
If you're agreeing with him, then nobody's likely to attack him viciously. He has a point, but it would be more relevant if I had actually seen a neutrally-presented report that didn't have some form of action taken recently. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
By "report", do you mean WP:AN/I report? I'm actually in the process of writing up my 6-month interaction with User:Strider12 as a case study in where I think Wikipedia is failing, and it goes to these points, including several WP:AN/I reports which died on the vine. Of course, as an involved party, perhaps I've got blinders on with respect to that particular case. By the way, if you want to see an example of relentless, tendentious fringe POV-pushing unlikely to ever reach blockability, take a look at Talk:Passive smoking and the history of the editor posting the extensive tabulation of "bias" at the bottom of the talk page. MastCell Talk 22:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
someone asked for data. There's at least one person who is going to fight this, not tooth and nail exactly, but the way I usually do when I care about something. I've see enough cases of 1 against a group when it was clear group ownership. someone keeps insisting rightly that something is COI or unsourced or whatever, and everyone with a stake in it says, go away, giving enough different reasons that he's the one who looks like 3rr. DGG (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we'd be talking about situations where dispute resolution and outside input have been provided, and even the outside input has consistently gone in one direction. In most (though not all) cases, truly uninvolved outside input from the widest audience possible has been the antidote to both tendentious POV-pushing and "gangs" of WP:OWNers. However, after such attention subsides, it's not uncommon for the editor in question to resume pushing the rejected arguments. But I sense we're coming at this from different angles. MastCell Talk 22:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

I've worked with this almost as much as you--non-NPOV is in many of these cases in the mind of the beholder. I see POV pushing a minor problem here as compared to OWN. The only remedy for both is keeping editing and criticism open & encouraged. Nobody should have to fear that if they challenge an article they're going to be blocked for it, as in fact happened to me when I first came here. As for repeated disruptive editing, I've just given one of my own very very rare blocks to someone doing it. It happens and we can deal with it. DGG (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I think part of the problem is that what you mean by NPOV, and what I mean by NPOV, and what many "CIVIL POV pushers" mean by NPOV, and so on, are not the same. For example:
  • Is NPOV just the absence of criticism of any idea?
  • Is NPOV the mainstream view, and the mainstream view only?
  • Is NPOV the mainstream view among the public, or among experts?
  • What are the experts that should be consulted? Experts in a FRINGE topic? Or mainstream experts in academia?
  • Is NPOV the uncritical positive promotion of FRINGE areas?
  • Is NPOV a proportional mix of positive and negative material about the major views of a given topic? What should the proportions be?
  • Is NPOV a balanced mix of positive and negative material about the major views of a given topic?
  • Are NPOV articles about FRINGE topics mainly positive descriptions of these topics, with very minor inclusion of conflicting mainstream views?
  • Since the proponents of FRINGE topics do not want to describe them as FRINGE, should we describe anything as FRINGE?
  • Are NPOV articles about FRINGE topics mainly positive descriptions of these topics, and some mainstream views but also material that rebuts these mainstream views showing the mainstream views in the worst possible light?
  • Are NPOV articles about FRINGE topics mainly negative descriptions of these topics, and some positive FRINGE views of the proponents, but also material that rebuts these FRINGE views?
and so on and so forth. This is why I would like to make the entire situation and its name much more clear. This is something we can do and it will reduce a huge amount of discord if we do it.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly. All good faith editors, however unconventional their opinions, think their POV is the correctly neutral NPOV. If they are impolite about it, as is very often the case, we can deal with it through the usual sanctions. If they are polite about it, we simply have to be polite back. Polite behavior under stress is necessary for effective participation in the user community. If someone expresses the same opinion incessantly, they can be answered briefly and ignored. If they keep reverting an article, they can be blocked. DGG (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If someone expresses the same opinion incessantly, they can be answered briefly and ignored. Sometimes this works. And sometimes it does not. It depends on how much disruption there is. It depends on whether the editor allows himself or herself to be ignored. It depends on if they are successful in recruiting others to their cause. It depends on the number of meat puppets and sock puppets that might be accompanying them. And so on.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes. To pick up something talked about earlier, if an editor is showing politeness and (through the contrib history) single purpose, what are the throughts on limiting the reverts of such an editor to one/day/article? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
What process would we need for the 1RR to be approved? Who'd implement it? --Relata refero (disp.) 20:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
All good faith editors, however unconventional their opinions, think their POV is the correctly neutral NPOV. This is what I have said over and over. Most editors who are FRINGE proponents do not understand what NPOV means. They think it means that their ideas and their ideas alone get to be presented and no one better dare disagree with them or else. And the idea that NPOV is a mix of views just escapes them. And a lot of this is because NPOV is an awful name for this policy and misleading.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Umm, you're quite wrong on one of the points there. Most "fringe" editors that continue to edit after NPOV has been explained to them or linked do so because they are convinced that even under NPOV their pet subject is getting a raw deal, and not being represented as it is due. That is not at all what you imply. In this case, they need to have SYNTH and RSes explained to them. About naming NPOV, I don't have an opinion. You may be right, but this isn't the place to discuss it. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Well there are of course a variety of things that can happen. Many exhibit WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Many try to redefine WP:NPOV. Many claim that the consensus interpretation of NPOV is wrong. There are a wide range of tactics that are used. I have made a very incomplete list here. Our policy materials do a bad job of explaining it and appear confusing and contradictory. And I think renaming NPOV is reasonable to discuss. I suggested it on the mainspace counterpart of this page. I think it would reduce some of the weapons in the arsenal of CIVIL POV pushers, which of course is the subject of these pages.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you two are arguing against here? You think there are good ways to deal with such users? Great! that's what this page is about, please show us! Apparently, the now 11 editors who's trying to argue with that particular user aren't aware of how to deal with this so I think it's obvious this isn't a piece of cake for most ppl. And yes, everyone have a POV, that is not the problem, and it's not a problem to bring up concerns you might have, even if they are fringe. The problem is how some users deal with not getting their POV represented. It wastes everyones time, patience, mood and energy. It certainly don't help anyone keep honest, it's more the other way around, the next time someone shows up and asks a question similar to what's being discussed now, hes not going to get a warm welcome and a message pointing him to the archives (I've seen this happen several times). (And, I'm sorry but my experience tells me that referring someone to wp:npov and wp:v etc and then ignoring them is a terrible solution).
—Apis (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I did suggest a method. If you want a reason for why I think that most of the editors didn't go through it, let me point out what happened: the chap made an edit, someone reverted it and explained properly in terms of WP policy why it was wrong - and then the process went off-track by focusing on why it was wrong but in real-world terms not in WP terms. I'm not sure why 11 experienced users would let that happen. The way to handle such editors without losing energy is to make them do the running in terms of gaining consensus, proving reliability, demonstrating mainstream-ness, etc. I'm not sure personally that more is needed - and nowhere has a case been made that more is needed. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


The people who always claim that these situations are trivial to deal with are always the editors who have never dealt with them. Interesting huh?--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. I've been dealing with editors like this for years, many of whom repeat talking points and quotefarms sourced to advocacy sources and may have a CoI. So has DGG. I believe I have mentioned this before. Several times. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I would second the invitation of Apis. Some of these "superstar" editors endowed with magic powers are welcome to go into the most controversial discussions at the most controversial articles that they claim are trivial to solve, and show the rest of us how it is done.
One admin who has bragged and bragged and bragged and bragged about how fantastic he is in this regard and claims that it is all trivial has implied or stated that everyone else is completely %$#%^@ stupid compared to him on these sorts of problems (but yet he has zero experience). So I have invited a good half dozen times to demonstrate his self-proclaimed skills. Not once has he come through. He has never ever shown that he can do anything. He has never even tried. I did get a few profanity laced emails attacking me for my trouble, however. His theory is that one has to just show the POV pushers "respect" and be "professional" and that everything will be alright. As an aside, I notice how professional he has been to me. Not very, frankly.
So I am still waiting for someone to show me that they have magical techniques that work perfectly and that those of us who contributed to this page and its mainspace counterpart are just chasing our tails needlessly. If someone has some perfect technique, we would all love to see it demonstrated in action. Let's see it. Let's put it to the test. Let's measure it and see how well it works compared to other methods. Don't be shy. Show us.--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes if someone can show us "how it should be done" then that person would do all of us a tremendous favor (seriously!). If you would edit articles, in the GW categories for example, for a couple of months (there should be plenty of opportunity there and any help would be much appreciated) then we can analyse the results and finish of this page! (And to whoever suggested respect will solve this: I think everyone have been very respectful, professional and patient in the example I provided. I don't think that's the problem here).
—Apis (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd happily edit articles in these areas, as would many, many others I know. It isn't the civil POV-pushers that scare me off. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Great! :) I hope you will prove me wrong then.
—Apis (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Umm. Perhaps you didn't notice, but I said that the crucial point was that you need to frame the debate so that making the case that the source is reliable is the job of the pusher. The onus is not on you to demonstrate unreliability. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds great, but how do you enforce it? More seriously though; I should tell the civil POV-pusher to show that his sources are reliable? The civil POV-pusher will then say they are reliable and from a respectable source, expressing incredulity that I haven't heard about this prominent source before (etc). Then what? ... I will have to demonstrate that the source is not reliable. And will most likely spend the next couple of days discussing the reliability of some ridiculous source. Or the pusher will use a source that looks relevant but when examined it's clear it's not really saying what the pusher is indicating. In my experience cherry picking quotes from sources is pretty common. The only way (that I know of) to denounce that, is to read the source and show that it's not really saying what the pov-pusher indicates. Although "The onus is not on you to demonstrate unreliability" sounds sensible, I have never seen this mentioned in any policy? And anyway, all this presumes it's possible to reason with the civil POV-pusher, thats generally not the case (as have been pointed out now several times), it's not like hes just gonna accept that someone says his source is not reliable? He can go on for ever as long as he don't break 3RR or NPA. This is why it would be great if someone could illustrate how to deal with such users, because in my experience it's never that charmingly simple.
—Apis (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Policies do unambiguously state that the onus is on the person inserting material to demonstrate that it is properly sourced. I usually use that.
About making them do the running: don't demonstrate the source is unreliable yourself. Ask him to read RS and demonstrate how it meets each of the criteria. If it does superficially meet those criteria, but only superficially, ask him to get consensus of posters at WP:RS/N.
About misrepresentation: yes, that's not easily fixable. I usually ask for a paragraph to be quoted on the talkpage so we know at least some of the context; that is a perfectly acceptable demand per WP:CITE. Again, make the pusher do the work.
About not accepting that a source is unreliable, yes, I've seen that happen. The worst example on WP for years was Koenraad Elst, whom all sorts of FRINGE-ists liked quoting, from Hindutva people and Ayurvedics to neo-Pagans and nationalist Flemings. I just had to remove him recently again from Denialism or somewhere. However, sustained misrepresentation of an RS once all other processes is fixable with reference to the OR noticeboard; armed with that, a neutrally-worded AN/I presentation, focusing on misrepresentation of sources rather than problematic content will solve the problem.
As should be obvious to the rational, I have some experience with editors of this sort. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
"Policies do unambiguously state ..." No? ... wp:proveit says that material likely to be challenged should be sourced, yes, but nothing about demonstrating that a source is reliable. That might be a logical consequence, apparent to you and me, but no self respecting pov-pusher would adhere to that. And again, the pov-pusher is not reasonable, it's basically pointless to explain the errors in their reasoning, show them counter instances to their claims and so on, because they do not care. They are typically pushing their POV based on faith alone. A pov-pusher won't do any serious running, he would just bombard you with bogus claims until you give up from exhaustion. If he did check his facts or started to examine his claims, he wouldn't be a pov-pusher, then it would be possible to reason and come to a conclusion, maybe that he is right, and the article could be improved upon.
In the end, If the pov-pusher don't respond like you say he will, I don't see how to enforce any of what you suggest. I'm reluctant to cite policies to someone like that because that typically just teaches them that they can wikilawyer inexperienced users. I have never made a post to AN/I and have never seen it done either, so I have no clue what to expect from that, but I would suspect a lot of drama on AN/I and if lucky the pov-pusher might get a warning. What typically happens is the pov-pusher editing the article, being reverted (by several other editors) and eventually some admin will lock the article because of editwaring. If we are lucky it won't get locked in the pov-pusher version. (Typically the pov-pusher is editing just slowly enough for that not to happen though, and jumping between pages in the same category). Then there will be some drama on the talkpage, things will calm down a bit and then the article will be unlocked and things will start over again. That is very disruptive, and it's really hard to do any real work to improve these articles while that is going on; the discussions are wasting a lot of otherwise productive editors time. Sensible users won't put up with it in the long run, they will leave the project, and that will definitely hurt WP.
—Apis (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The crucial, first part of WP:V: All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.
The way to handle POV-pushers is never to tell them their faith is wrong. Its always just to tell them that they will get no justice for their claims here because of the unfortunate way that WP is set up, to favor mainstream science/conventional wisdom/Eurocentric history or whatever. Which is why even those who are irrational about their claims can sometimes be persuaded to be rational. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree it's better to argue whether material should be included according to policy or not (in the end that's all that matters). In my experience that doesn't change the outcome of things anyway though. Maybe the policies needs some work? Fill suggested something along that line. Perhaps we are talking about different kind of users? In my experience a pov-pusher would ignore what is being said and misinterpret or ignore the policies. If it was as simple as explaining policy and then they would agree and say "oh, I see, according to wikipolicy my fringe beliefs don't belong in the article", then they are not much of a pov-pusher. But I am repeating myself now, aren't I.
—Apis (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. I have several thousand edits at this point on highly controversial articles dealing with this over and over, and watching others try to deal with it. I have watched editors with years of experience and tens of thousands of edits just spin their wheels. I have watched senior admins just bound up in knots and unable to do much. I have watched supposed mediation experts fail miserably. Over and over. I have had many long private conversations with sitting and former arbitrators, with mediators and experienced editors on this topic. None of them think it is trivial. Because they all have experience. Only those with no experience claim it is trivial.--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Untrue, and by this point, a really, really boring claim. See above. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Can't speak for Rr, but I find I succeed at least partially about half the time; and there are people here who do better & who mostly have the sense to just go about it and keep out of this sort of discussion. It does take a good deal of work in patiently explaining things to people repeatedly, and effort against one's instincts to always respond calmly, no matter how many times it takes. It isn't trivial, but it is possible. Typically the most difficult people do not keep civil, but then we can deal with that, especially once it is explained that 3RR is not a license, and that people can get blocked for violating the spirit of it even if they technically avoid violating it literally. My experience is that I can do maybe one every month or so, not more. I've also learned that it helps not to try to follow up indefinitely, but at some point hand it over to somebody else. Work too long on one, and you've usually formed fixed sympathies. As an example, I'm going to keep patiently explaining here. Once a day, as I usually do. Going beyond that tends to cause me some anxiety, and what I'd do with the 3RR rule is change it to 2RR as the limit. The problem is the uncivil POV pushers. The people who object to the civili ones are typically those pushing POV in the opposite direction. DGG (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I respectfully suggest to you that this is not just a problem of incivility. In fact, I would love to see evidence of that. Frankly, it sounds excessively simplistic and astoundingly ill-informed.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I've never ever seen anyone blocked for slow edit warring so far. And if this "at some point hand it over to somebody else" is the case, it sounds like a really serious problem to me. The uncivil ones would be a huge problem if they were allowed to continue unhindered. Luckily, as it is, they are not, so they are not a problem (once they start being uncivil (uncivil typically meaning making personal attacks in this case)). If you look at the example I provided, you will see that almost everyone is very civil and polite and patient. But it's still a problem because it drains everyones (more than 11 editors in this case) energy that could have been spent improving articles instead.
—Apis (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I am working on it regularly. Currently, I'm defending sourcing at Jawaharlal Nehru (see the recent history of that page, and the talkpage for some slightly older concerns); at Stalin, Caste system among ICs or any of dozens of others of articles. Many, many editors work in these problems all the time without the numbers of the Global warming people or ID people. Follow Dbachmann around for a while to learn how even a short-tempered person handles this with relative care. I'm not going to waste time writing essays when I, DGG and PS have already explained at length how these things can be handled. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

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.

  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

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)

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)

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).
—Apis (talk) 05:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
—Apis (talk) 07:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
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.
—Apis (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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: [2]. 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 Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs) (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)