Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Preliminary discussion for this proposal may be found at Wikipedia:Expert Retention and its associated discussion. Mangoe 02:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Already covered?

How is this not already covered in WP:BLOCK as disruptive editing? JoshuaZ 00:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It appears in practice that currently the behavior proscribed in this proposal isn't considered disruptive enough to be actionable. The same appears to be true for the "exhausts patience" clause.
And the other factor is that the current policy is focused on behavior/community. Based upon the discussion referred to above, we are proposing a content-based standard because we feel the more important point is maintaining the reference standard instead of maintaining the editing community.
I would also point out that some of the other points in WP:BLOCK refer to other policy articles. It is possible that this needs to be reformulated as an independent principle which can be explicitly invoked; the sense of the preceding discussion, however, is that this needs to be considered specifically to be grounds for blocking and not merely a guide to article writing. Mangoe 02:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
This sounds a lot like "If a user isn't being disruptive enough to get blocked, but is still pushing unpopular opinions, they can still be blocked so we don't have to deal with them." The idea of a "content-based standard" would have to be very carefully developed to avoid it being misused by people who simply disagree on content. Fagstein 07:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
The intent is to identify a particular kind of disruption and quash it more quickly. And it's directed specifically at simple disagreements on content. The point is that not all such disagreements are of merit, and that the quality of Wikipedia's articles is being held hostage by people who doggedly argue for erroneous statements and who, under current statements of policy, are tolerated excessively. Mangoe 11:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
As long as they're still abiding by policies (3RR, NPOV, Verifiability, Civility, etc.), I don't think they should be blocked just because they disagree on content. If they break these policies, then block them for that. Fagstein 19:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Could you give a reason behind this? The argument here is that some disgreements specifically over content that should be suppressed. Mangoe 13:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

So does this boil down to "ban anyone who doggedly pushes opinions from unreliable sources"? Also, it would be nice if the proposal clarified whether it intends to cover only article-space edits (eg. someone who constantly tries to make articles suggest that the Earth could be flat) or is intended to cover Wikipedia-space edits as well (eg. someone who adamantly believes WP:IAR is bad for Wikipedia, but who tows the line of scientific consensus in article-space). --Interiot 01:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

  • To answer the first question, essentially. If you can think of any legitimate editing practices that the policy as proposed would outlaw, please let us know about it. All of the instances I can think of people repeatedly posting OR or non-sourced information, despite being told to knock it off, are inappropraite.
  • For the second; I would only apply this to article space; not to project space, user space, or talk pages.
It would most definitely apply to the various "Request for " discussions (deletion, merge, move, etc.), as these are also a focus for this kind of behavior. Mangoe 11:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, but only when they're pushing article-space POV, I hope. I think it's very different when someone is tendentious with regards to one article-space subject, versus someone else who's tendentious only about an overarching policy, and whether it's beneficial or harmful to Wikipedia culture. --Interiot 15:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
It is also worth pointing out that "tendentious editing" is frequently cited in the ArbCom when booking scofflaws. It does make sense to spell out, as much as we can, what that means.
--EngineerScotty 04:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Great idea for a policy! Wikipedia needs this badly. Durova 14:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I propose this is merged with WP:BLOCK and/or WP:BAN. It makes no sense to have one policy that says we block/ban when such and such happens and another that says when this happens we block/ban.

It seems to me that you are proposing an amendment to these existing policies rather than a new policy. I don't know the procedure for this, but I suggest that is a better way forward - even though I sympathise with your proposal AndrewRT - Talk 16:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

As a final disposition, a merger might be reasonable. I think for the purposes of discussion it would be better to work it out further and achieve reasonable content consensus before we try to fit it into the block/ban articles. Also, a lot of policies that are grounds for blocking/banning have their own articles because the principles involved call for further explication or need to be referred to directly. I think this is one of those cases, but in any case the merger isn't something we have to deal with from the start. Mangoe 17:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
i agree with the proposal to merge.Locriani 07:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If I understand correctly...

...the point of this proposal is that there are frequently edit wars on articles, where one side of the war has verifiable sources and the other side does not. The edit war could then be stopped by blocking the latter party. This stems from a discussion on 'expert' editors; it is reasonable to say that any expert worth his salt could find a decent source for his opinion. So this proposal would make Wikipedia more worthwhile to 'expert' editors, which assumedly increases its overall quality level, which would be a good thing. Is that broadly correct? >Radiant< 19:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I didn't write this proposal, that is my broad understanding. In my experience, the current procedures are poor at addressing editors who pursue non-notable points of view in a particularly dogged manner. The tendentious editors who don't sink to gross vandalism can persist in harming a page's scholarship for months (or in extreme cases, years) and wear out the patience of the better informed editors who cite mainstream sources. Durova 22:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Completing absent sections

Let's discuss what the appropriate standards might be for distinguishing a tendentious editor from a normal editor. Specifically let's craft this in a way that makes this a useful proposal while insulating this standard against misuse. As a starting point I'll bullet point a few distinguishing features:

A tendentious editor is an editor who:

  • Is persistent: continues editing an article or group or articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time (1-2 months or more?) despite opposition from one or more other editors.
  • Cannot satisfy WP:V and/or WP:NOR: fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, or manufactures original research.
  • Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.
  • Campaigns to drive away productive contributors: violates other policies and guidelines such as WP:CIVIL,WP:NPA, WP:OWN, engages in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.

How does that look for a starting point? I think that screens out garden variety edit warring and good faith editing. Durova 01:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

That's already sufficient to go to RfAr, isn't it? Or is the idea that you want to be able to bypass this step and just apply a ban? 192.75.48.150 14:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that editors who pursue these activities on a small set of articles and do not commit gross violations of WP:CIVIL can fly beneath the dispute resolution radar. At Joan of Arc one editor claimed to be descended from Joan of Arc's brother and edited the article into accordance with his unpublished family tree despite mediation, three peer reviews, and requests for comment. My attempt to open a user conduct RfC failed because most of the editors he had antagonized had given up and left Wikipedia. He masked his fringe beliefs behind vague statements and and other obfuscation tactics. Finally RfC respondants insisted that he could not possibly call a twentieth century document a primary source for fifteenth century history. It should not have taken twelve months to establish that point. Durova 15:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
edcon In certain obvious cases, where it's one crank against a half-dozen Ph. Ds, that might be appropriate; the ArbCom is presently swamped. An immediate ban may not be the most appropriate sanction--for editors who are productive on other topics, exclusion from a certain article or subject area (backed by blocks if the offender ignores the exclusion) might be more appropriate. And there are doubtless some disputes which should be resolved by the ArbCom, due to not being obvious--things which aren't easily shown to be examples of "informed mainstream opinion" vs "determined advocate of extreme or discredited opinion". I'll write more below shortly... --EngineerScotty 15:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to establish a good definition of a tendentious editor before we focus on sanctions (although I like EngineerScotty's ideas there). Let's identify the problem people as distinct from the good faith editors who make an honest mistake now and then. Durova 16:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Before anyone gets banned (or receives any other long-term restrictions on their ability to edit Wikipedia), ample warning must be given. Vandals generally get four warnings before even a short block (via the infamous {{test}} templates), a more severe sanction probably deserves more--especially as this is for a pattern of behavior which is destructive, even if the individual edits, taken by themselves, are mostly harmless. Certainly several warnings from an uninvolved parties (admins, in particular) should be required; perhaps even an RfC. But this policy is absolutely not intended to ensnare anyone who make a mistake now and then; it's only for repeat offenders who have been informed, several times, that their behavior is disruptive. And again, the point is to make it possible to deal with obvious cases without going to the ArbCom. --EngineerScotty 16:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Does this discussion of other issues mean the editors here accept my definition of a tendentious editor? Durova 18:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

See my essay at Wikipedia:Tendentious editing for my take. But the behaviour of a tendentious editor is already disruptive, already violates WP:V and WP:NOR, almost always violates WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA - getting such editors banned is surely not so very difficult? We seem to see them almost daily on the admin noticeboard now. Guy 13:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tendentious editing

The proposed policy has been linked to an existing essay WP:TE that covers much of the same area. The essay isn't (in my opinion) bad, but the sense of this proposal is that an advisory essay is too weak. Therefore it seems to me that the essay should be merged into this proposed policy. Mangoe 13:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Agree— Antoine de Saint-Exupery says it well: "Perfection is acheived, not when there remains nothing to be added, but when there is nothing to take away." Retaining WP:TE and adding this project page fails the Antoine de Saint-Exupery test.

Squaring this with existing policy

Before this gets approved (or goes for a vote), it needs to be squared with existing policies, in particular, WP:BLOCK. Points which need addressing:

  • This policy is not intended to permit any editing behavior not previously permitted, or to define or constrain the definition of disruptive editing.
  • This policy is intended, in some sense, to clarify and put in writing a de facto policy already present on Wikipedia (and frequently cited by the arbcom), to better explain what is prohibited.
  • This policy is also intended to idenify a particular subset of disruptive user behavior, which can and ought to be dealt with summarily, and permit summary resolution. Currently, disputes which don't involve 3RR, NPA, or other actions which can result in immediate sanction, are difficult to resolve without going before the ArbCom. We believe that there is a particular pattern of user behavior which can be well-defined, and is highly disruptive to Wikipedia, for which administrative sanctions (blocks, warnings) may be appropriate. More complex cases, of course, would still lie with the ArbCom.

Speaking of which... a question for policy wonks: Wikipedia has the notion of a community ban wherein a consensus of admins decide that a particular user is disruptive and should not be unblocked, despite no formal ruling from either the ArbCom or Wikipedia management (Jimbo Wales, the board, and/or their delegates). The ArbCom has the power to ban users; and additionally, to impose lesser sanctions like probation, article/edit restrictions, and the like. Generally, the latter are enforced only by threat of blocking.

Is there such a thing as a "community edit restriction"? Could a consensus of admins declare that a particular user is prohibited from editing a particular topic, on pain of an indef-ban? Or would a group of admins acting in such manner be considered to be excessively rouge, or otherwise contrary to policy? I've never seen it done before, but if the administrators' corps can kick someone off, it makes sense that they should also be able to impose a lesser penalty. --EngineerScotty 16:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • First off, don't vote on this - discuss instead. Thank you. Second, I like the idea of "community edit restriction". A sensible admin should certainly be allowed to, based on discussion with others, tell User:SomeJerk to stay away from Some article for the next month or so. A better name would be "community probation"... the ArbCom sometimes puts users on probation, which means that any admin can ban them from any article (on pain of blocking). While I'm sure a probation instated by a sole admin would be too unilateral, the concept of "community probation" sounds viable. >Radiant< 16:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not a bad idea, but I prefer what we are discussing here for two reasons. First, this is simply a policy update which requires no coding support. The "edit restriction" idea would be either dependent on a lot of active monitoring (leading to a disruption assement, etc.) which I sense is something that people would rather be rid of. The effort needed to maintain articles is also an issue here and I don't think we can sell a methodology which increases it. The alternative is code changes, with the delays and everything else that entails.
Second, I'm not under the impression that the crankish editors are in fact making a lot of valuable contributions elsewhere that we need to enable. It seems more likely to me that they tend to belabor a single topic or are a problem whever they appear. Even if I'm wrong about this, though, we need to judge whether such contributions are valuable enough to justify establishing (and especially coding) select blocking/banning. In the course of discussing this I sense that the problem is so extreme that a little collatoral damage WRT to what the offenders can do is tolerable. Mangoe 16:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
"Tendentious" is a word with an agreed upon meaning. It does not mean, "non-expert" and it does not mean, "cranky" and it does not mean, "non-complient". As presented on this discussion page and as presented in the ajoining proposed guideline, its meaning approximates "cranky" or "particularly obnoxious", or "unwilling to bend personal standards". Whatever is actually meant is not stated by using the word tendentious which means: Marked by a strong implicit point of view; partisan (From Medieval Latin tendentia, a cause; see tendency). There is nothing wrong with tendentiousness, Newton and Galileo were tendentious, Martin Luther King was tendentious. In fact our founder founded this sucker because he is tendentious and you honestly can't expect every editor to comply in a milk-sop sort of way with editor concensus. Boo ! Terryeo 18:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The original title was "Crackpot editors"; that was changed for obvious reasons.  :) The phrase "tendentious editor" has a longstanding meaning within Wikipedia, one that the promoters of this proposal didn't invent. If you've a better title which captures the spirit of the behavior we seek to nip in the bud, please suggest it. --EngineerScotty 18:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm perfectly willing to contribute my use of the English Language to this project. People do get banned and people do get blocked. 3RR and Personal attack (WP:PAIN) are the most frequent uses of blocks. Frankly I do not yet understand what "spirit of behaviour we seek to judiciously nip in the bud". This project was started on 9 September 2006 Mangoe (Initial proposal to actively discipline tendentious users) [1].
  • What did User:Mangoe mean if not "tendentious?"
  • While obviously "Discipline threat for crackpot editors" will never work, there must be some situation which User:Mangoe has in mind, else he / she would not have started this project. Why don't we all take a look at the specific area which promted this project?
  • Since earlier editors have been delt with by standing procedures, what difference prompts this project? Couldn't a minor addition to an existing guideline handle the situation ?Terryeo 19:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's an example for you--and ironically (given the origins of this discussion) an expert editor--Carl Hewitt. Hewitt is a former professor of computer science at MIT, and a notable individual who made enormous contributitions to the discipline. Late last year, he started to edit Wikipedia. Some of his edits, on CS topics, were welcome indeed. However, he got into trouble on two fronts: 1) He was a bit overzealous in promoting his own research within CS, in violation of WP:AUTO. 2) More importantly for this discussion, he quickly became a pest on the physics pages, with specious claims that his CS contributions (including the Actor model, a nondeterministic programming model which has been somewhat influential in CS) constitues a significant result in physics. The physics editors, many of whom have never heard of him (he doesn't publish in physics journals; so this was all original research, and junk research at that, as far as they were concerned), objected loudly. Eventually, after an RfC or two and numerous personal appeals from involved parties and neutral admins, Hewitt was hauled before the ArbCom, and given probation--whereupon he left Wikipedia. --EngineerScotty 17:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
If he was introducing information which was not WP:V previously published by a reliable source, then long standing policy would prevent his additions to articles even if his personally conducted original research were valid WP:NOR, but unrecognized by the scientific community. How could a guideline about "let's get the obnoxious expert out of the article" (tendentious) add to what already works, did work, and is sufficient? Terryeo 19:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
It took 4-5 months. The ArbCom can, theoretically, deal with any disruptive editing. They are, however, swamped--and frequently refuse to hear many cases. Particularly contentious matters, where there is much literature on both sides (i.e. Israel/Palestine) should be dealt with by the ArbCom. A great deal of the motivation for this policy is to expedite certain types of cases which would be a "slam dunk" at the arbcom. Having to deal with persistent cranks (and undo their damage) drives off knowledgeable editors (who often have other things to do), and consumes editorial bandwidth which might be better spent improving articles. So yes, I agree that cranks can be dealt with by the arbcom; but the obvious ones we should be able to summarily deal with in the same manner we deal with other Wikipedia parasites like spammers. Essentially that is what this policy tries to address--contributions which are little more than intellectual spam; the attempt to promote ideas which would be laughed out of any publication with a respectable editor. --EngineerScotty 19:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
That article simply describes mechanisms. The issue here is grounds for action. Mangoe 16:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
What prompted you to initiate this project, User:Mangoe? What isn't sufficient that you feel would be handled by this poorly titled guideline ? Terryeo 19:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
"this poorly titled guideline", Terryeo? That's hardly very CIVIL, especially since it was completely gratuitous. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, Feldspar, you mean someone to understand something ? You placed your comment immediately following my request to User:Mangoe to tell what prompted his action of starting this project, you see? And the title has already been commented on by a number of editors and presenting is titled "Disruptive editing", as you see. Why do you personally ask me about that when a concensus of editors has already settled the issue? Why do you state that my question is not civil when a concensus of editors have already settled the situation? Why do you comment in a manner which detracts from the question I asked User:Mangoe about? What? Why ? Terryeo 06:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Warnings and remedies

Let's focus on an appropriate set of progressive warnings and penalties. Reasonable people sometimes pick up a fringe idea through honest accident, then back down when they recognize a consensus that the opinion falls outside the mainstream. I'd like to see some sort of impartial feedback worked into the process - either RfC consensus or administrator warning - before actual blocks take place. Durova 17:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's NOT. Tendentiousness is marked by individuality and the courage to stick with one is certain is right. We have plenty of ways of slapping editors ink. Denying them because they have a point of view and manifest it is the wrong approach. If an editor is constantly quoting from and referencing to unpublished work, beat them into complience with WP:RS, if an editor is introducing original research, whip them with WP:NOR, if an editor deletes your POV from an article, hammer them with WP:NPOV. It is plain wrong to consider forcing milk-sop complience because a person is partisan. It goes against the spirit of Wikipedia which is based on everyone having a viewpoint and being able to contribute to the sum total of man's knowledge. Terryeo 18:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that editorial approaches should--and must--be tried first. No user should be sanctioned under this policy just because they cite an unreliable source or offend a Ph. D. This only applies to a repeated pattern of behavior. Whether the editor has "courage" (it doesn't take much courage to edit Wikipedia, BTW; the worst that will happen to you is you get blocked) is immaterial. Keep in mind that the policy excludes edits which reasonably might be justified under WP:NPOV, including most disputes on public policy. And nobody objects at all to a person's opinions (as expressed in talk pages, user pages, or evident from their edits); this proposed policy only addresses conduct.
The policy might be amended to also ensure that documentable religious doctrine may be presented as such. (Wikipedia should not endorse any religious doctrine or theology; but notable religions should generally be presented).
The sum total of man's knowledge which this project seeks to document, at any rate, does not include crackpottery, quackery, pseudoscience, and other ludicrous claims.
--EngineerScotty 18:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
This objection appears to have been written in haste. Please assume good faith and comment on the proposed definition of a tendentious editor higher on this talk page. As I see the proposal, this is an opportunity to address a particular breed of problem editor that evades normal disciplinary procedures. I fully agree with the sentiment to craft this proposal so that it doesn't get exploited in garden variety edit disputes. Durova 18:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Not sure whether you were addressing me or Terryeo; on the off chance that it was me (and you are objecting to the rather pejorative word "crackpot"), I can't think of a better term in English which describes the topic at hand, without being unduly offensive. Of course, many terms which describe things universally considered negative quickly acquire pejorative connotations, a fine example is concentration camp, a term which is often resisted (many object to Guantanamo Bay being portrayed as such). --EngineerScotty 19:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Whether you were referring to me or not, "tendentious" is not an appropriate reason to monitor editor behaviour with. Having a point of view is not something to prevent an editor from editing. An editor must abide by WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR and as those manifest by guideline (RS, CITE, etc) and must remain polite. But having a POV? Whatever it is that is meant here, the tendency to edit from a point of view is not an appropriate correction to apply to an editor. Quite the opposite, it is the richness of various points of view that makes our Wikipedia unique and valuable ! Terryeo 19:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
It was Terryeo - I was having connection problems. Terryeo, have you reviewed the standards I propose earlier on this page and my reasons for proposing them? POV isn't the problem at all - and I agree it shouldn't be the issue. The problem is a type of editor who gets away with fringe behavior by flying under admin's radar and perpetrates fringe interpretations for long periods without effective remedy. If what you express is a desire to distinguish that sort of behavior from normal editing, I agree with the sentiment wholeheartedly. Durova 19:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The behavior this proposal addresses is those editors who repeatedly fail to abide by NPOV, V, and NOR, and are disruptive as a result. NPOV, V, and NOR are policies which constrain edits, not users--in general, people aren't blocked for inserting blatant POV, unsourced edits, and original research. I've occasionally been guilty of all three in my Wikipedia career; virtually all editors have--it's human nature. However, there is a world of difference between someone who contributes an overzealous edit, gets reverted, and recognizes why the edit was bounced (and either withdraws, or discusses the issue), and one who notes that "gee; WP:NOR isn't a blockable offense, so as long as I'm polite, I can re-introduce the same novel theory time and time again. I've got all the time in the world to do so, so why not"? And I would dispute that "richness of points of view" is the thing that makes Wikipedia valuable--(hypothetical) claims that the moon is made of green cheese are likely to subtract, and not add, value. When theories or beliefs satisfy V, NPOV, and NOR (and are presented with appropriate due weight)--sure, those enrich Wikipedia. But the goal of Wikipedia should be reliability and not diversity of opinion; for the latter, there's always google. --EngineerScotty 19:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I understand Terryeo's point: in the vast majority of cases (say 85-95% of the time) a tendentious editor will be caught by the existing guidelines. (IMNSHO, most tendentious editors aren't smart enough to avoid those barriers.) However, there are a few cases where a tendentious editor poses a problem that these do not cover, perhaps best examplified by the story at User:Jnc/AstronomerAmateur; I suspect every Wikipedian who has participated on Wikipedia for at least a year has encountered at least one person indulging in the sophistry Jnc describes on that page. If I am understanding correctly, then the problem then becomes one of how do we enforce this guideline in a way that doesn't end up giving both sides in an edit war one more weapon to bludgeon each other with. (How this might happen is left as an exercise for the reader.) -- llywrch 19:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I beg to differ: all proponents of fringe theories seek to insert their beliefs into the mainstream. Those that are relatively intelligent and sophisticated have been able to game Wikipedia's system. I speak of multiple experiences. The problem is, in the absence of some established method of identifying specifically tendentious editors, Wikipedia catches the more careless ones but ignores the quiet ones. I'm not going to speculate what percentage of tendentious editors evade administrative oversight for 3-4 months or more, but I have personally encountered people who have dodged formal action for a year or more - not just one individual but several. This problem is worthy of a policy amendment because it strikes at the core of our collective credibility and because of the good editors they exhaust and drive away. Durova 20:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Mangoe has not stated what he is trying to get accomplished. "Tendentious" isn't the word that should be used and the very first thing to do would be to find the word or words which describe the area of the guideline. It is going to waste editor time and attention and will create more confusion than it resolves unless the appropriate word(s) are used. Tendentiousness is a tendency to hold and manifest a point of view. This is not a reason to "correct" an editor. Terryeo 20:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
It probably should be noted that User:Terryeo is currently under arbcom sanctions for edit-warring on Scientology-related articles. While active religious and political controversies (which aren't questions of scientific doctrine, and are well-sourced on all sides) are things which are outside the scope of this policy, and Terryeo is welcome to comment here--continued argument over the definition of "tendentious" is not helpful. The policy should be self-documenting; I believe the behavior which the policy seeks to address is evident--the policy defines "tendentious editors" to a reasonable degree.--EngineerScotty 20:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Why do you want to get into it with me, Scotty? First of all, your agreement whether I comment here is not appropriate, nor inappropriate, it simply doesn't matter at all. Second, I have made no arguement about the word's meaning. In fact, quite the opposite. I have placed 2 standard dictionary definitions in an attempt to find out specifically what, exactly is missing here. Obviously "tendentiousness" is not the issue, but something else is driving this issue which was created just 2 days ago. What is driving this issue? Apparently some of you know, some of us do not know and long past decisions are being put forth in attempt to create editor concensus. What is the actual issue? Terryeo 20:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Your response is puzzling, Terryeo. I expect that someone would reespond to what Engineer Scotty wrote with an axplanation of how he misunderstood you -- but what you wrote sounds very much like an attack on him by how you question his motives. And when you ask "What is driving this issue?" -- are you implying that you & him have disagreed over this subject in the past in another Wikipedia forum? Or perhaps you believe he is acting out due to an event he experienced earlier? In any case, these questions are not germane to this discussion; psycho-analysing someone you disagree with is not as effective as logical reasoning on Wikipedia. -- llywrch 02:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay Llywrch, since you want an explanation, here you go. I am knowledgeable in an area. That is, I have studied the technology of an area, have used it in daily life, have found it helpful to myself and have significantly improved my position in life because of my study and application. So, hey, I figure I at least know something about it and I edited in the area. My editing conflicted enough, for a long enough period of time with the other editors who edit in the area, insisting on poor quality secondary sources and hold an anti-Scientology point of view, that a small group of editors first did an Rfc and then an Rf arbitration and I got banned from editing articles in the area of my expertise. The editors who initiated those procedures and most of the comments were by people who maintain and contribute to anti-Scientology websites and edit here. ([2] and a dozen others I won't clog the page with) The first thing a Scientologist will do with a new word is look it up in a common dictionary and create, make up, perhaps a dozen sentences with it. I invite editors to do that with this word because you will then understand why it doesn't describe a disruptive editor who continues to infringe WP:V and WP:NOR, while remaining polite. A google search too, will yield 500K + hits, [3] including this discussion. Terryeo 20:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, Terryeo, clearly you have not taken responsibility for your disruptive, policy-violating editing that got you banned. Instead you blame the ArbCom. You "snarl about justice". You just don't seem to learn. --Fahrenheit451 01:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The word "Tendentious"

We are appealing to the "partisan"/"biased" senses of the word. Within Wikipedia this translates to POV-pushing. I don't think we are using the word wildly out of the more general meaning, but if someone can come up with something better, propose away. Mangoe 19:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are foolish to attempt to get a guideline implemented using a common English Language Term which does not use that common meaning, but is instead a "partisan"/"biased" and specialized within the 'knowing' Wikipedia community. In fact, having and manifesting a partisan view is the very foundation of Wikipedia. Such a point of view need not be expressed, but is valuable in editing articles, in fact WP:NOR explicity prevents such a point of view from reaching the article page. Stealthily attempting to introduce correction as a correction to "tendentiousness" while what you actually mean is 'known' only to Wikipedians 'in the know' is very contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Terryeo 20:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

On what basis do you accuse this proposal of being partisan or biased rather than a common English language definition of tendentious? I have already asked you repeatedly to comment on the proposed definition of tendentious editing. You have yet to respond in that section of the talk page. Durova 20:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the tendentious talk page. Where did you post that you are referring to? Terryeo 20:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Durova, "tendentious" means "partisan". Here are some common dictionary definitions. Marked by a strong implicit point of view; partisan: a tendentious account of the recent elections.

'From Medieval Latin tendentia, a cause; see tendency.' [4] having or showing a definite tendency, bias, or purpose: a tendentious novel. [5]. What did you think it meant? Terryeo 20:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Tendentious editors#Completing absent sections Durova 20:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What does Tendentious add to the article title that Partisan doesn't? Electrawn 20:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The connotation I associate with tendentious describes an extreme and polarizing variety of partisanship. If there is a better (and equally diplomatic) substitute for crank, then please suggest it. Ordinary partisanship ought to be permitted so long as it acts within established policies. Durova 21:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC) Durova 21:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The use of the word tendentious, IMHO, seems to reek of elitism, and in the current state of wikipedia political science and philosophy...will doom what is discussed here to /dev/null or "kept for historical reasons."
Perhaps a contrapositive that implies action...
"Shaping zealots into nonpartisan editors" Prose/Language is everything. Good Luck Electrawn 22:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've resisted it thus far, but I suspose I ought to say it: the insistence that "tendentious" means MLK Jr. is, well, tendentious in exactly the sense we are using here. Since I'm in a citing mood I'll point at Word of the Day with examples clearly in line with what we are saying. Or this entry in Roget. Or this difficult word entry from Tiscali. I suppose it's a sort of poetic injustice that we are on the receiving end of it here, but then again, I suppose it was inevitable. Mangoe 15:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal certainty

If there is one thing that we're trying to get across, it's that personal certainty is not a justification for editing. Indeed, personal certainty in the face of the sense of the field (as evidenced by references and expert testimony) essentially defines a crank. Mangoe 19:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Amen. This isn't about individuality, civil rights/liberties, freedom of speech, moral courage, etc. This is about writing an encyclopedia. Many of the arguments above worrying that some unconventional-but-possibly-true theory might get excluded, are all appeals to things that Wikipedia is not. An encyclopedia is not the place to promote or discuss unconventional ideas, however meritous they may be. --EngineerScotty 20:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    Somehow I feel like you are hinting that this guideline is being proposed because of some unconventional idea creeping into an article that could be handled quite well by pointing to WP:RS and [[WP:V]'s previously published by a reliable source. Terryeo 20:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    No, the guideline is being proposed because certain users insert unconventional ideas, are pointed to WP:RS and WP:V, and then re-insert the stuff anyway. Repeatedly, ad naseum. --EngineerScotty 20:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Amen and AMEN. We require our editors to be very certain of their use of the English Language, it is necessary and we don't allow editors to edit who can not understand policy and guidelines. But certainty in one area does not justify certainty that their edit is better than the next person's edit ! Terryeo 20:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, I get the impression from your comments that you have never had the misfortune to deal with a truly tendentious editor. Reasonable people back down when others cite WP:RS and WP:V. Tendentious editors are not reasonable. I have dealt with not one but two editors who constructed fraudulent citations and self-published during their attempts to circumvent these policies. One went so far as to publish an Acrobat document formatted to resemble a peer reviewed journal. If Wikipedia were a university I would have reported these people for formal academic discipline. As it is, I had difficulty getting the attention of administrators because the problem (although serious) was localized to a few articles. If you haven't seen this type of problem yourself, then consider yourself blessed, but the issue is very real. Durova 20:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I have experience with almost nothing but disruptive, tendentious editors who often reference to a piece of information archived from a newsgroup, who prefer such references, who cite personal opinion on personal websites, who find the most remarkable tiny bits of trash talk to cite into articles. For example one of the editors I deal with has hundreds of essays on personal websites and his personal essays are sometimes cited as a valid source, even his newgroup postings have been cited. But if WP:RS is well written and WP:NOR well written and a mechanism in place for people who persistantly defy them, that would be sufficient. At this time, disruptive editors get by, saying "oh, it is just a guideline". We don't have a mechanism in place to block editors who refuse to abide by policy. WP:PAIN or RRR isn't enough, I agree, there is a vacuum of need for this project. Terryeo 20:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, Terryeo happens to be talking about himself again here. He is currently banned from editing any Scientology related articles by ArbCom decision and he himself has been rather tendentiously disruptive by pushing his own POV.--Fahrenheit451 01:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed. An unfortunate reality of Wikipedia is that any sufficiently determined editor can keep pushing views that are nonstandard, irrelevant or downright false for a staggering length of time, and not infrequently frustrating good editors to the point of giving up the issue or even leaving the encyclopedia in disgust. If quality is one of our goals, we must put an end to that. >Radiant< 20:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor addition

"Couldn't a minor addition to an existing guideline handle the situation?"

I don't know about "minor". But if such an addition would handle it, what would that addition be? I'm tempted to understand this as a process-y way of avoiding having to say that we don't really need to do anything about the problem.

I don't know that questioning me personally really falls under assume good faith, but even as a reasonably informed amateur I've run into the kind of behavior documented under Wikipedia:Expert rebellion and Wikipedia:Expert Retention. I agree with the actual experts: the current policies/guidelines/sense-of-the-community are tilted in the direction of putting the burden of proof on the experts and not on the dissenters. The result is that genuine experts left and right are bailing out because they do not have to patience to go through what is a lengthy process that is centered more on behavior than on facts. Right now, it's an endurance contest, and in such a contest the cranks have a clear advantage. Expecting limitless patience from the experts is unreasonable. Mangoe 20:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Added clause

I propose the following exemption, which I have added:

  • Active public disputes or controversies which are documented by multiple reliable sources, other than the parties to the dispute themselves. Disputes which were formerly active but which have since been settled, do not qualify for this exemption.

as a further hedge against this being used in garden-variety edit wars over topics like George W. Bush, Israel, abortion, creationism, etc. The "other than the parties to the dispute themselves" clause is so cranks who self-publish can't claim their publication history (if ignored by everyone else) elevates their ideas to a "public dispute or controversy". If, OTOH, a crank theory is well-known, this re-establishes that it does become an encyclopedic topic.

My one concern with this is it might be then considered a green light for proponents of unconventional theories which do meet the "public dispute" test to continue misbehaving. As mentioned in an article example, the notability of the Flat Earth Society shouldn't mean that they get to insert their beliefs into geography or science articles as a contrary opinion.

The border case is things like creationism. In general, that debate should be the subject of its own article; rather than crossing into articles on evolution or biology; on this one, given the level of active public debate, I'm content to err on the side of caution and let creationism to fall outside this policy.

--EngineerScotty 21:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:BOLD I've replaced the essay definition with my definition from this talk page. Since that already deals with WP:RS and WP:V this qualifier may become redundant. Durova 22:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I made one change to your change... :) some cranks are perfect gentlemen (most of them it seems are guys), and don't engage in sockpuppetry, personal attacks, or other inappropriate behavior. These things, which are already actionable, shouldn't be a prerequisite. --EngineerScotty 22:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Great idea

I'm sorry I don't have more than an expression of support to add to this, but I do think it is a very good and sensible and worthwhile idea. Anything that works to merge our (unenforable) policies on sourcing with our (semi-) enforceable policies on blocking, etc. seems like a good thing. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This word "tendentious" means, "manifesting a tendency". Almost every time You talk to George about religion, he begins a rant about his faith. Almost every time you talk to John about his wife, he pulls his earlobe. He manifests a tendency, his gestures are tendentious. The word you want here, I beleive has already been used and is disruptive. So the title might become, Disruptive Editors (moderate handling). And the reason I suggest the parenthesis is because (fast handling) already exists in that an administrator may block an editor for 24 hours. Terryeo 22:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Persistent disruptive editors? --EngineerScotty 22:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Persistently disruptive editors.<pedantic grammarian mode=off> Which IMHO fits the rubric "tendentious": if an editor has a tendency to be disruptive -- yet doesn't clearly fall under one of the existing categories that include 3RR, NOR, & NPOV. For example, if said editor wants to prolong discussion & keep the group from reaching a consensus on a topic by quibbling over the definition of what "is" means, then that editor deserves a time out from Wikipedia to meditate over how she/he has behaved. -- llywrch 01:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, "Tendentiously Disruptive editors" would be a clear description. Terryeo 04:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

So... what exactly should trigger sanctions?

How is the policy to be enforced?

Based on the above, here is one scenario. Items in bold are considered necessary steps.

  • Editor makes a disputed edit which falls under this policy.
    • It gets reverted
  • Editor unreverts
    • It is re-reverted, with an explaination of why the edit is misinformation, original research, etc.
  • This keeps up; the editor in question doesn't violate 3RR (or does so once, is warned, and stops), but persists on re-instating the controversial edits. No reliable sources are cited. The editor either ignores attempts to communicate, or makes specious claims about conspiracies, or that he will single-handedly revolutionize the field, and the established scientific authorities are all deluded. Etc.
    • A formal warning message, similar to {{test2}} is posted to the editors talk page.
  • Editor persists in behavior--still avoiding activities, like NPA or 3RR, which would trigger a quick block.
    • Stronger messages, maybe 2 or 3 more steps, are posted to the talk page.
  • Editor persists.
    • WP:ANI is notified. Neutral admin imposes a short-term (48 hours or less); noting that any further disruption will lead to longer blocks and an RfC being filed.
  • Editor persists.
    • RFC filed. Editor may be given additional short-term blocks if disruption continues. If the RFC concludes that the editor is being disruptive per this policy, a final warning message is placed on the talk page
  • Editor persists
    • Any admin, constrained by consensus, may impose a long-term block on the editor; or a "partial community ban"--instructions to not edit the subject in question, on pain of banning. The choice largely depends on the editor's other contributions; if the administrators' community is split, the less severe penalty applies. WP:ANI is notified, as is the case. The user's talk page is notified of the sanction.
    • If the RFC is not conclusive, then it can go to the arbcom.
    • Any sockpuppetry is grounds for immediate blocking of the sockpuppet, per normal policy.

The policy does take some time to run, perhaps a few weeks (however long an RfC takes). However, this is much better than months (the amount of time it has often taken the arbcom to accept and resolve such cases), and short blocks may be imposed while the process is running.

Thoughts?

--EngineerScotty 22:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's go the route of RfC or moderation before warning templates. On some subjects a body of fringe writing persists in the mass market despite sound rejection by the scholarly consensus. Reasonable editors back down when they see more information and more opinions. Let's not put warning templates on their talk pages before they've had a fair chance to take in feedback. Durova 22:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd do a "content RFC", which focuses on content and not on behavior first. If that RFC indicates clear opposition to the editor and he persists, then a "user RFC" should occur next. Go ahead and insert those into the places you think appropriate in the list above--EngineerScotty 22:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree on the priority of a content RfC. User RfC I'd call optional - preferable but not necessary. Sometimes there just aren't enough active editors who have the patience to thread through all the troublemaker's dross and the attempted RfC fails to gain certification. Durova 23:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

So here's my order of action:

1. First unencyclopedic entry.

Revert.

2. Editor unreverts.

Post to talk page asking for discussion and/or sources. Revert again if no response, along with edit summary.

3. Problems continue.

Attempt to engage new editor in dialogue. Refer to policies and guidelines as appropriate.

4. Talk page discussion fails to resolve the problem.

Request a content WP:RFC or mediation.

5. Consensus forms except for the problem editor, who continues problem behavior.

User talk page warning templates. Possible user conduct WP:RFC.

6. Templates fail to curb behavior.

WP:ANI administrator intervention: warning or temporary block as appropriate.

7. Blocks fail to solve the problem.

Possible topic ban, site ban, or probation per ArbCom or administrator consensus.

The key innovation here is the ability to post an actionable ANI notice at a reasonable point in the process. By the time a tendentious editor gets blocked a few times this person will be on admin's radar screen and other existing processes could take over from there. A minor innovation would be special warning templates. How does that look? Durova 23:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I've made one minor change to #7. --EngineerScotty 00:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I've cut and pasted it - still needs Wikilinks but good enough to post as a section where the proposal had nothing. Durova 00:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Worth noting, a Ban is a social agreement and not a software enforced action in the manner that a block is a software enforced action. A Ban would be an agreement by the banned editor, or a decree that the editor must agree. A Ban is not enforced as a block is enforced. Terryeo 11:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Rename?

There's been some questioning of the proposal title. I have to agree that tendentious isn't the sort of word people use in conversation. I'm willing to live with it, but let's see if someone has something better. Here's my brainstorm:

  • Mule-headed - less professorial but sounds insulting.
  • Stubborn - neutral, but not really strong enough. A good editor can be stubborn for the right reasons.
  • Piltdown editors - reference to one of the most famous frauds in science. Might work? Durova 00:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Most cranks aren't fraudsters; as they don't attempt to deceive the peer review process with fabricated data, or other forms of scientific misconduct. In general, pseudoscientific claims from amateurs are properly disregarded by science, and aren't considered as fraudulent. Otherwise, many of us who used to rant on Usenet would be in trouble.  :) There are a few cranks who go the extra mile in assuming the trappings of proper science, some of these might be considered fraudulent, but overall, references to fraud don't fit. --EngineerScotty 00:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Is there a particular example of crankery that's as memorable as the Piltdown forgery? I'm trying to accommodate feedback and searching for workable alternatives. Durova 01:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Disruptive is the word you are looking for. A dictionary tells you that "tendentatious" is not a difficulty, an editor who tendentatiously sticks to Wikipedia policy and guideline soon earns the respect of his fellow editors. An editor who "tendenatiously" reverts anon vandalism soon becomes an administrator. "Tendenatious" is not the descriptive term for what this page is addressing. Terryeo 04:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
One thing comes to mind, much too obscure for a title but kind of going to the point: back in the late '60s/early '70s the Yippies knew the FBI was tapping their phones, so they worked out a conspiracy to hijack the Staten Island Ferry and take it to Cuba, which the FBI followed attentively. Then the Yippies went to the newspapers with the evidence they had collected of illegal surveillance and made the FBI look like fools, especially because the idea of taking the Staten Island Ferry to Cuba had been an absurd joke. So what I'm thinking is, the kind of plot that turned out to be an admitted hoax? Durova 01:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with "tendentious". Although it's not a common word, using an uncommon word often helps to alert the reader that this is an exceptional situation. And this word alludes to an old political tactic: the group or person who controls the agenda of a meeting can juggle the order of business & draw out discussion of minor topics until enough of the opponents have left the meeting -- when that person then allows the critical business to be brought to the floor & the desired outcome reached. Or in Wikipedia terms, an editor has a tendency grind down editors who disagree over changes in an article until she/he is left alone to rewrite that article as the editor sees fit. -- llywrch 02:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. The default would be to keep it unless something better arises. Durova 02:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
One crazy idea... mentioned here in this talk page, and on the article: Intellectual spam (or spammers, spamming, etc). One issue with "tendentions editors/editing" is this policy only covers (by choice) a subset of what has long been determined "tendentious editing"--it excludes many controversial topics which inspire cranky edits--politics, religion, etc. Hormel may not like this idea, but the SPAM trademark horse left the barn many years ago. And, I'll admit--"intellectual spam" is a blatant way to re-frame the debate, in preparation for the inevitible chorus of "oppose" which will certainly come from the I've-got-a-right-to-put-whatever-the-hell-I-want-on-Wikipedia crowd, who often benefit from current policy and frequently attempt to win arguments by attrition. --EngineerScotty 04:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Use of that Oxymoron implies the editor is an intellectual? I didn't think that was the message conveyed. Electrawn 04:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
No, that the editor thinks he is an intellectual, or is engaging in such pursuits. --EngineerScotty 04:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Intellectual spam - I like that. Durova 14:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

More tweaks

A few more tweaks to the policy itself:

  • Clarified that under this policy, admins could perform blocks provided that certain hoops are jumped through
  • Clarified that this policy doesn't affect the Arbcom or admins' ability to block or sanction users under other policies.
  • Added attempts at dispute resolution as a prerequisite for use of this policy. If the crank refuses dispute resolution, then it is deemed to have occurred. (If the accusing party(s) refuse dispute resolution, sanctions cannot proceed. Some may be put off by the need to go to RfC 'against a crank, but that's only fair). Defined dispute resolution for the purposes of the policy.
  • Added a bit more info to the Rationale (formerly the Introduction).

--EngineerScotty 04:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Support Intellectual spam as policy name

I strongly support the proposal overall. I have no issue with tendentatious, but given that other people do, it might be better to find another term. Disruptive editors applies to other forms of disruption, not just this. I like the suggestion of intellectual spam. We reject spam in all its forms, and editors and admins already know how to deal with other types of spam. IMHO having a policy that can be cited, that says there are sanctions for knowingly indulging in this type of editing, can only improve the content of wikipedia and make the community work better. Viv Hamilton 15:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Poll: change proposal name from Wikipedia:Tendentious editors to Wikipedia:Intellectual spam?

Support

  1. Per the discussion above. Durova 16:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. I find the notion of "spam" too tied to advertizing. "Tendentious" has the right meaning, despite tendentious argument to the contrary. If we are going to abandon formal English, how about Wikipedia:No Cracked Pots? Mangoe 16:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I've seen spam used quite a bit in contexts other than advertising (or meat or Monty Python, for that matter). One common thread regarding it's use in other contexts is that it is used to mean something which is unwanted, but foisted on somebody by somebody else for the latter person's advantage. And in some ways, what we are talking about is advertising; people are attempting to use Wikipedia to advertise discredited theories. The only difference between this and using Wikipedia to advertise M4KE M0NEY FA$T or V1AGRA 1N THE M41L is the product or service being peddled.  :) --EngineerScotty 16:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. I don't know what "Intellectual spam" is. And if you have to define it, it's useless as a title. Spam is commercial. What we're dealing with here are editors who are stubborn and refuse to abide by consensus (or just have opinions different from the majority, I'm not quite sure which). Fagstein 17:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Spam is the repetition of material across a multitude of venues. Not the repetition across time in the same venue. 'Spam' plain misses the point. Shenme 04:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Agree with comments by Fagstein and Shenme, oppose the change until someone comes up with a better suggestion. Znuttyone 02:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. I don't like intellectual spam... I think tendentious gives a much better flavour and idea of the type of editors who cause the problems.--Sepa 19:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Not as good. Maybe tendentious could be changed to a simpler word. Tyrenius 23:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Either the current name or the proposed one are OK with me; better ideas are still welcome. --EngineerScotty 16:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. I'll go along with Scotty, now that he's explained the core of the problem to me. But eventually I would hope a better title can be found. Terryeo 20:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

Perhaps we should modify our definition of problem editors to include misrepresentation of mainstream sources. Our current statement only covers WP:NOR. For an example of what I mean, see Talk:Pseudoscience#Last word on sources and goodbye. Durova 17:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Damn! makes me sad to read that one, but he says some things very well. We must resist the temptation to use it (wikipedia) to assert our beliefs. Instead we must make it possible for the reader to exercise his or her own reasoning, and make the evidence available to them to do so. May I ask, the problem that exists which is not solved by temporary block and by the long process of Rfc and Rfa always manifests as a refusal to comply with our policies and guidelines, isn't that what this project is about? With no mechanism in place but a very long process to handle people who continually insert their Original Reseach? And who reference poor quality but verifiable information and do so in a persistant manner against editor concensus? And the gist of this project is to prevent that kind of editing? If the answers are yes, why don't we build a mechanism into policy and guideline for this kind of disruptive editor? "non-complient editors" or "disruptive editors" or "persistant defiance of policy" or something like that, maybe. Then this mechanism would be in place to handle such editing behaviour. Terryeo 20:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, if we take that post at face value (and based on my reading at that article it appears to be meritorious) it points to a problem I've seen sometimes before: an editor misreperesents an encyclopedic source. Near the start of this year I requested the creation of Template:Citecheck to address this. Durova 22:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I've added a couple of words to the proposal to cover citation misuse. Durova 22:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
One minor thing I worry about is citation misuse may be difficult to nail down in some cases. (Of course, the same thing can be said about sources of questionable reliability which are quoted accurately). Many sources may not be available online; or there may be a question as to whether an online copy is authentic or not (there was a long argument on the WP:RS talk page about that. There have been instances of editors fabricating sources, or blatantly misrepresenting what they say. My personal thought here is that intentional fabrication or misrepresentation of a source is an act of intellectual dishonesty which probably should result in the offender being banned; such an act is outside the scope of this policy however. Many disputes over sources are of the "good faith" variety; where both parties feel that their position is correct.
There's always the arbcom, I suppose, if it gets down to it.
--EngineerScotty 22:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
This is topical because someone accused me of overstating a source today and it turned out they were right! As soon as I noticed the mistake I corrected it immediately. No one is perfect. The key difference is persistence: a tendentious editor will continue misusing sources after the problem has been identified. Do you think the corrective measures steps make this sufficiently clear or should something be added to that effect? Durova 02:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Of course we all make mistakes, sometimes. But we are willing to correct our mistakes. Tendentiousness to the point of disruptive editing needs to be handled, I'm completely in agreement about that and didn't mean to imply that I wasn't. Terryeo 11:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I feel that the best way to overcome this problem is to focus more on sources and citations as a community. We should be citing sources in exactly the same way that they would be cited in an acadmic paper - for each specific point there should be a citation showing the source, the page no, the publication date etc so that an editor can check the sources, and disagree with their use publicly.
This problem is universal to all scholarly publication and there are long-established ways of dealing with it. I don't see why Wikipedia is a 'special case' in this matter. --Sepa 19:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The "long established" way this is dealt with in academic publishing is as follows:
  • Peer reviewers, though generally anonymous (a particular set of comments is not attributed to a particular reviewer), are known entities--peer review is by invitation, and there is no problem of sockpuppets. Outside of the reviewers and editors, papers are not exposed to the public prior to publication. I can't pop into the "peer review" section of the websites of Nature or Science, find a paper I don't like, trash it, and falsely claim to be an expert in the field.
  • Journal editors have the final say in what gets published, and have to approve publication.
Of course, academic peer review itself ain't perfect; and the above system is primarily geared to new research rather than a tertiary source like an encyclopedia. But it depends heavily on a closed process; so it doesn't translate well to Wikipedia, where anyone can inject themselves into the review process (regardless of ability), multiple times, and aggressive editors can try to "publish" regardless.
The above traits of wikipedia are non-negotiable; so methods of dealing with this need to be found which work within the framework of a wiki. This proposal is a big part of it, as it allows us to get rid of bad-faith contributors who seek to undermine or disrupt the process.
--EngineerScotty 19:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

that journals and such have editors who can make binding decisions. Generally, decisions are deferred to peer review processes

Relevant RfArb

There is a relevant RfArb regarding this subject here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2. Check it out. --ScienceApologist 00:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Motives of editors and issues of dishonesty

Although I’ve been classed as an “expert” editor here, I make only minor contributions here to areas of my direct expertise; there are many reasons for this but an important one is that I do not want to even appear to be arguing from “authority”. I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t like the democratic nature of WP, for all its pains. I have contributed to several “controversial” articles; not from any particular pov of mine except the wish to see arguments and evidence presented honestly and fairly, because I think anything less does science a disservice. Others certainly have sought to assign motives to my edits when I have disagreed with them.

I withdrew from the pseudoscience article, first because I was outraged by what I saw as blatant intellectual dishonesty [6]; second because I was weary of pernicious and poisonous attacks on my motives as an editor. When editors impugn the motives of other editors by suggesting that their edits are motivated not by honest intent but by their presumed pov, this degrades any argument. I have been contributing however to several “controversial” articles, and on those pages have found some outstanding editors who while openly declaring their personal pov edit with absolutely scrupulous diligence, fairness and honesty. I’m sure we all know of editors like these.

So on this issue, is there a real problem, or just isolated instances? If there is a problem, what exactly is the problem? and how can it be dealt with?

For me, there is a problem and it will drive me from WP completely if not checked, but some might feel that that would be not a bad thing. I suspect that many others do see a real problem though, and in my experience the common area is when an editor refuses to see that his arguments, though he might believe them to be reasonable, do not convince the bulk of active editors on the page, and persists in pressing his or her argument to the point when it wearies the other editors sorely through having to reiterate points already made, address essentially redundant or trivial points etc. from the same editor on the same issue over and over. Of course, the person in a minority of one or two might be “right”, but if they can’t convince the rest reasonably then either we have to conclude that the majority are unreasonable (impugning their motives), or else we just have to live with the conclusion that our arguments aren’t as convincing as we thought they were. In fact, in my honest opinion, as declared extensively, most editors that I have encountered are reasonable and listen whatever their personal povs, and are wholly honest in wishing to see subjects dealt with fairly.

So what is the resolution? 1)On the chiropractic page, the almost universal approach has been to place any edit that might be expected to be controversial on the Talk page, and only insert it into the article when it has the support of at least one other editor. This makes the Talk pages very long (but very interesting too), but keeps the article clean and stable. In my honest opinion, chiropractic is approaching a level of scholarly excellence, and I do not say this because I have contributed to it myself, in fact I have contributed very little indeed to the article although I have been extensively an arbitor. and discussant on the Talk pages. This process keeps all regular editors very conscious of WP guidelines and intents, and the discussions are conspicously focussed on these and on the quality and reliability of sources. 2) Assertions on Talk pages that question the motives of an editor should be treated as personal attacks. Deal with the edit as it is, don’t question the motives for making it. Gleng 11:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Distinction between tendentious editing and balanced editing

I would like to know whether the intent of this essay (and its companion essay) is to formally forbid the very thing which I have always done in my five years at Wikipedia.

I take controversial issues and balance the articles by ensuring that unpopualy viewpoints get sufficient reprenestiann.

By "unpopular" I mean, either unpopular among typcial Wikipedians (who are an unusual subset of the world's population, if for no other reasn than they have Internet access). But I also mean, unpopular in the English-language media.

There are, as we all know, many viewpoints which are majority or 50-50 in the non-Wikipedia, non-media real world which are a minority on Wikipedia or in the media. Even a tiny minority in these artificial realms, despite being 50-50 or majority outside.

I have NEVER tried to make a Wikipedia article assert as fact something which is controversial or disputed. But I have FREQUENTLY tried to make Wikipedia articles indicate the existence of a controversy or dispute. In several prominent cases, other Wikipedians have claimed that there is no dispute, or that it's not an important one, or that the dispute is irrelevant to the article, etc.

But the fact remains that ideas like evolution and global warming are disputed outside of Wikipedia and outside of the "media world". Maybe Biologists aren't debating about evolution, but 45% of Americans polled (according to the pro-evolution source Pew) oppose it in all its aspects, while only 16% support it in all its aspects. Opposition to evolution can hardly be considered a minority view, and information about sources who have an "anti-evolution" point of view should not be considered irrelevant on articles about the controversial aspects of evolution.

If there's a dispute in the real world (outside of Wikipedia, outside of the Media) about an aspect of evolution, then it is a controversial point. Some people will have one POV about it, others will have another POV about it.

DESCRIBING BOTH MAJOR POV's ABOUT SUCH AN ASPECT CAN NOT BE "UNDUE WEIGHT".

--Uncle Ed 14:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly where you get the idea that this is my intent, or ever my practice; rather the opposite, I have struggled to ensure that different viewpoints are all characterised fairly. But others can comment on that if they wish. However, you shold note that I as a scientist have been attacked extensively for "pro-chiropractic" or "pro homeopathy" bias for seeking to ensure that their opinions are accurately described and that facts about these are properly V RS.Gleng 15:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I can verify that Gleng has put himself on the line to make sure an editor gets to express his POV. I mean come on, he's a scientist on the chiropractic page. Gleng himself makes very few edits, but helps to qualify the debate on the talk page and is invaluable as a resource for all of us - from pseudoscientist to pseudoskeptic; he is an equal opportunity science resource. The result is progress for all POVs. Granted, it takes cooperation from all editors, but with this method, we seem to be able to tame the heated debates before they turn into ad hominem attacks. The problem is with one or two editors that fly by and ignore the process to make the same edit each time in what looks like an attempt to just denigrate the value of the editing; making it look like kindergarten squabble. At this point Gleng finds himself defending the work, and we all know there are people who have no problem accusing anyone who defends a pseudoscientific edit as a "truebeliever, pseudolover, and worse". This takes a toll on a scientist, especially one who freely shares his personal information on his user page. So when I say he puts his name on the line, that's what I mean. --Dematt 23:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This proposal could use some editing for clarity. I think the talk page discussion expresses the growing consensus better. We're talking about views that consistently fail to satisfy WP:V and WP:RS. Undue weight falls outside this discussion: what you describe are notable (although perhaps unpopular) viewpoints that can be verified through reliable sources.
What does happen on some pages is that an editor comes along with a fringe argument and keeps reinserting it without any legitimate verification. After a couple of months, if a consensus of editors both on the page and impartial editors from outside the page (through RfC or other feedback) agrees that this falls outside the realm of normal discourse, and neither persuasion nor warning templates alter the behavior, then we propose this should become actionable with administrative blocks. Such behavior already violates site policy, but some tendentious editors fly below the ArbCom radar for extended periods. Their actions harm Wikipedia's credibility and exhaust the patience of better editors. So we'd like to distinguish this from normal editing and make it actionable in ways that won't get misused against normal editors. Does that sound fair? Durova 15:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Not strong enough.
I don't know how much we can do for topics about which there is established real-world controversy. Back when we started this, the focus was on topics which were not controversial in that sense, and where there was a real world consensus if not absolute agreement among the experts in the field. I think we're only going to get into trouble trying to apply this to topics that see meaningful real-world dispute.
But for real-world-uncontroversial topics, Wikipedia needs to put the burden of proof on dissenters. The existing problem is that the current procedures and mechanisms put the burden of proof in such disputes on those defending the state-of-the-field, which gives a huge advantage to the crackpots. It puts Wikipedia in the position of endorsing crackpot positions unless people are willing to drag the offender through the ArbCom process, which is long-winded and tiresome. The testimony in Wikipedia:Expert Retention is that the experts are getting worn out by this, whereas the cranks never seem to wear out.
As I understood it, the intent of this proposal was to put the burden of proof on the dissenters. Adminstrators ought to be able to move into this sort of controversy, admonish/block the dissenters, and force them to appeal to ArbCom to be able to press their changes on an article. ArbCom's mission in this sort of case would therefore shift to preventing cliques from taking over an article and locking it into a tendentious form by preventing edits from those with real expertise.
Addressing controversial topics is causing us to lose focus, and the various qualifiers in the early versions were intended to keep those topics out of the picture. Or perhaps in those cases the grounds have to be narrowed. In evolution, for example, clearly the biologists should be in control of what the article says that they say; likewise the creationists or other opponents need to be in control of what the article says that they say. It's possible that we might be able to make the mechanism work there as well. But I think at this point that we shouldn't try, yet, because we will exhaust ourselves over that and neglect addressing the kinds of articles that were the impetus for this proposal.
Am I getting the sense of this right? Mangoe 17:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Why do you refuse to tell of the situation which you are attempting to address by creating this project and simotaneously ask other editors if you are "getting this right?" Terryeo 17:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I ask them if I'm getting it right to achieve consensus. And as far as the situation is concerned, the evidence is sitting there in Wikipedia:Expert Retention. I'm beginning to get a little annoyed at your constant insinuation that I have some malign motive in this. My only personal interest, however, is only that as a strictly amateur editor, abuse of expert contributors affects me as well. If expert contributions get no respect, then my cosntributions are equally impugned; if experts have trouble defending their contributions, how much more so do I have to fear those who trample on my contributions. I like to think that this proposal shall make things better for me as well. Unlike you, however, I do not have a specific topic in mind.
I think it perverse to imply that one must have a horse with a name in this race, as ti were. Having to fight back a tendentious opponent is real problem for any of us, whether or not we've specifically experienced it before. Your assumption of bad faith, I'm afraid, says all too much about your personal stake in the matter. I don't have one, other than that of every other contributor. Mangoe 18:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Ahhh, good Mangoe, Thank you for answering the question I had about the project. I appreciate it because I understand it now. Unfortunately when Sam says "Big" to Bill and Bill understand Sam to mean a Mountain compared to a pea, it works but when Sam says "Big" to John and John understands an Elephant compared to a Mouse, communication seems difficult. I was not trying to be conentious but merely wanted to understand the vacuum the project is meant to fulfil. Thanks for saying. Terryeo 22:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course Uncle Ed opinions in this matter are not influenced by the fact that he has be called before ArbCom Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2 to answer for his penchant to "balance" articles. 70.52.84.143 17:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't address controversial topics. If the controversy is verifiable through reliable sources, this proposal doesn't apply. This is for "the moon is made of green cheese" arguments. Durova 18:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't appear that Uncle Ed's various actions, from what I can tell, would fall under the rubric of this proposal. Per Durova, this policy is tailored to a specific subset--editors who persist in pushing unverifiable positions--of the larger universe of so-called "problem" editors. I would advice Uncle Ed that his stated desire to "balance" the Wikipedia looks to me to be a confession to POV-pushing (POV-pushing is not justified by the belief that the encyclopedia currently is biased in the other direction; and WP:NPOV does not mean "balanced" point of view), but other than that observation, Uncle Ed probably has little to fear from this discussion here.
I interpret the proposal as a bit stronger than Durova does above--in that "crank" editors can be indef-blocked without ArbCom intervention; a different (and stronger) matter than short-term blocks to force someone to arbitration (if the ArbCom takes a case; the parties must participate or face a default judgement). Users who are banned, on probation, or banned from a topic may be reverted without regard to 3RR if they continue to edit where they are not supposed to, so this is a powerful tool.
--EngineerScotty 19:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
User:EngineerScotty and I may be closer than it appears. What I see this proposal as doing is empowering editors to put tendentious editors onto admin's radar screen at a certain reasonable point, after which all other normal procedures for dealing with policy breakers come to bear. I do not mean my statements to be misconstrued as some exception to the current procedure of administrative consensus imposing an editor ban as an alternative to ArbCom. Indeed, I welcome that alterntative. The problem as I see it is that content disputes - however frivolous - tend to be treated with kid gloves for far too long. Durova 20:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Um, Ed, considering your history of disruption by tendentious editing and that one of the proposed findings of fact in your ongoing arbitration is that you've engaged in tendentious editing and that you're now facing probation that includes being banned from any article which you disrupt by tendentious editing, I can understand your concern here. But I don't think representation of your history is accurate nor is your participation in shaping this proposed policy appropriate. FeloniousMonk 03:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello all. I'd like to clarify a point here (and defend myself yet again). Gleng, you seem to have chosen an extremely poor example. Your accusation of blatant dishonesty is completely unwarrented. Again, I am telling the truth. Also, regarding the way it relates here: Chiropractic is an alternative medicine, and as such it is fringe. Certainly the way it is practiced is fringe and its theory is pure pseudoscience according to common scientific view. It is applied way out of any useful or restrictive uses that it has any minor support for. So of course applying it to curing homosexuality is most definitely pseudoscientific. That is majority view. Not only was I abused with personal attacks from those with fringe views, but I was unable to present the information simply because I was given undue burden of proof even in the face of a self evident fact. Gleng, you even used pseudoscientific argument in order to defend the pseudoscientific and vitalistic theory of innate intelligence so that you could remove it from the article. How many references does one have to present on top of a self evident fact in order to avoid a tendentious editor label? KrishnaVindaloo 10:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be worth any editor on this page browsing through this issue, not to resolve this particular issue (I have withdrawn from the page and it's past history for me), but to understand the complexities involved in the issues that concern the present project.

There are always two sides to a dispute. In the case above, on the one side, my motives are represented as to defend a pseudoscientific worldview as above; from my side the dispute is about V RS. The initial dispute was about whether a reference could be a good V RS for the assertion that chiropractic is used to treat homosexuality when the abstract of the source did not in fact appear to mention chiropractic. When it was established that the article in fact contained no mention of chiropractic whatsoever, the assertion was re-sustained with another reference that was explained as having been confused with the original; the new reference offered was an article written by a private psychologist with no other publications, written for a non peer-reviewed non-indexed society newsletter; the exact content cannot be easily verified because the issue is not available in the Society's archive. I was unpersuaded that this was a good V RS. I have left the page and KrishnaVindaloo continues to be active, and is currently locked in continuing disputes with User:KenosisGleng 14:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Gleng, wrong again, look through closely. I realised my mistake, and made the correction using a categorically peer reviewed published source (Christianson) to support the already quite self evident fact that chriopractic is used to treat homosexuality (chiros say they can treat all disease and conditions in both theory and practice). Here is the source in full:
A Re-emergence of Reparative Therapy. A Peer-Reviewed Article for Contemporary Sexuality readers By: Christianson, Alice. Contemporary Sexuality, Oct2005, Vol. 39 Issue 10, p8-17, 10p; (AN 18639497)
Publisher: Mount Vernon, IA : American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors, and Therapists, Academic Journal
Description: Interdisciplinary journal devoted to promoting an understanding of human sexuality and healthy sexual behavior.
Then someone accused me of lying (pathalogical liar) and said the ref that supported Christianson (Ford -also peer reviewed) didn't include the term chiropractic at all (a point I had already clarified). Subsequently, Gleng proposed that we stick with web sources [7] in order to cope with the issue of verifiability. Now correct me if I am wrong, but the vast majority of reliable sources are in fact books and peer reviewed journal literature, and are to a large extent not on the web. And fringe views are to be found all over the web. Such a suggestion only discourages reliability. These are just the kind of suggestions that fringe believers will use in order to reduce clarity, reduce reliabilty and reduce the quality of articles in general. There was a clear problem of fringe believers ganging up and making it impossible for sources to be either verified or correctly assessed in terms of titles and credentials (only a cursory web search was used by objectors). If those editors who put the time in to obtain library books and peer reviewed journal papers, and similarly reliable sources in this case, are put under so much strain from fringe believers, how will Wikipedia ever be efficiently maintained? KrishnaVindaloo 04:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Intellectual Honesty?

Interesting. "Contemporary Sexuality", a monthly newsletter, makes no apparent claim to be peer reviewed, and is not included in PubMed, but see any issue [8]; the relevant issue is not on the on-line archive. I checked every paper listed in the ISI author search [9] for A Christianson and could find no trace that Alice Christianson had ever had a paper published in any ISI listed journal. I searched for her on the internet [10] and established that she is an MA in private practice as a sex therapist, with long professional experience. The full title now alleged by KV includes for the first time in any posting, a subtitle:"A Peer-Reviewed Article for Contemporary Sexuality readers" As this article is not listed, I cannot comment; I still have not seen the original source or an abstract of it, so have no grounds to verify that it even discusses chiropractic. It is not listed on any of Alice Christianson's own sites that I have seen. As I said, and as I repeat; the issues here are about sources and intellectual honesty in using them. These are indeed central issues to the credibility of WP, and central to the importance of dealing appropriately with tendentatious editorsGleng 08:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Gleng, once again you bring up the issue of honesty. I am and always was telling the truth. You seem to be restricting yourself to relatively unreliable sources (the web). Academic Research Premier database lists Contemporary Sexuality as a peer reviewed source. If you took the time to read the article you would see it fits the description of peer reviewed perfectly including style, rigour, and sourcing in a reference section full of other peer reviewed book and journal articles (including Ford).
The issue for this discussion is: Who do you regard as honest, and who do you apply more assumption of good faith to? Remember that pointing out other's biases is something quite acceptable in Wikipedia. Do you join in with a group of editors with a vested interest who have shown a strong tendency towards personal attack and censorship (including exempting themselves from the pseudoscience category even after clarification and inclusion of other scientific subjects into the cat), or do you take your time to look at all the information presented without jumping to making attacks or accusations yourself? (as you accused above, "blatant dishonesty"). This is a situation where being very persistent is the only way I can show to others that my edits are valid and my work is in good faith. So successfully accusing people of tendentious editing requires a great deal more than just a group of adherants and misguided editors ganging up so they don't have to face very obvious facts.
The solution in this discussion? The proposal needs to tone down or qualify the "persistence" characteristic, and it needs to extend the bold line on "rejects community input" into a more Wikipedia style bold line (something with a subclause or two). Right now, those bold characteristics are far too easy to spit at people you don't like. Suggestions for subclauses and extended characteristics in bold will be helpful. Thank you. KrishnaVindaloo 09:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Food for thought: Persistence and minority dissent

Hi all. Persistence is an important issue here. Distinct from minority views, minority dissent is the persistent dissent against the majority. Research into social psychology has concluded that minority dissent, when constructively presented, will lead to a greater search for information, a better presentation of that information, and will reduce group problems such as groupthink. This is even an issue in democratic philosophy propsed by all-round egghead John Stuart Mill. He turned out to be right in soc psych terms. This is also the subject of research on online communication and is therefore of importance here.

  • Agreed that persistence is a key point. There is a distinction between "minority" views and "flat-out batshit" views; it's the latter that this proposal seeks to address. Minority views on controversial subjects such as chiropractic need to be presented per WP:NPOV; as much has been written on the subject by folks other than chiropractors--even if mainstream medicine considers chiropractic to be quackery or otherwise of little theraputic value. Obviously, viewpoints should, in this case, be attributed to sources.
  • What this proposal seeks to address are attempt to insert complete left-field claims, such as a (hypothetical) claim that drinkng beer would cure cancer, which are not referenced anywhere else (other than material self-published by the same individual). These don't belong in Wikipedia per WP:V and WP:NOR.
  • I should note that the dispute over chiropractic, and other particular arguments, are unwelcome on this page. Feel free to reference them, but we're not here to debate specific topics; we're here to discuss the proposed policy.
  • --EngineerScotty 15:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The term persistence needs careful application to this subject. Lets take the example of pseudoscientific subjects. Some articles may have a majority of non-proponents, and a single proponent. In this case social psychology would indicate that the majority may be prone to groupthink and be overly-dismissive of the "crank's" presentation of argument, literature etc. Similarly, some articles may have a majority of proponents such as college graduates of a particular school of chiropractic. The minority may be a skeptic, for example. I believe the latter will be the least likely for minority dissent to work to benefit Wikipedia as the majority are more likely to be staunch supporters. If a "crank" presents good verifiable evidence, and discusses persistently, but in a constructive way, then the "crank's" persistence may well be beneficial as good literature may well come to light.

  • Indeed, we must be careful of groupthink. Can you think of any concrete examples where, for example, a group of pushers of some alternate therapy attempted to make the claim that an article debunking the therapy, published in the NEJM or some other highly-regarded medical journal, wasn't a reliable source? The most incidents I've run into, the majority of editors were advocating the mainstream scientific position, and the lone editor was advocating the novel position.
  • At any rate, any editor who thinks he is being "ganged up on" ought to appeal to WP:RFC to invite more parties to participate, many of whom might not have a stake in the issue. This is true regardless of whether the minority party is advocating mainstream science or material considered to be pseudoscience. Appeals to RFC and other mechanisms are the proper way to resolve disputes on Wikipedia, not edit warring.
  • --EngineerScotty 15:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

These situations are quite sanitised. In general though the situation is more complex, and there is aggressive conflict and accusation. A dissenter may be aggressive, and this is a case in which minority dissent is unlikely to work for the benefit, and it is pretty much against Wikipedia convention anyway. The majority may be aggressive, and of course this is generally an indication of staunch fringe believer views. So somehow, we need to consider the aggression element and make it clear in the proposal in a way that is distinct from persistence per se. KrishnaVindaloo 06:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

First things first; Yes Scotty, on further exploration of the rules, I believe Wikipedia has adequate coverage of the aggression/persistence issues. The groupthink issue does come into effect when a responsible but less knowledgable editor is working on an article with pushers. Some pseudoscientific ideas (left right brain theory) for example, are very convincing as they are actually good science, but when turned into practical applications, they are total PS. So you can get ganged up on by baddies and a few goodies also. RfC could also involve this situation. So an editor who dissents against this crowd may well end up getting called tendentious nevertheless. There is also the issue of "hidden" information. An editor may want to show the complete picture against the will of a group of NAMBLA (pro paedophile) or zoophile editors. When a whole article has a huge bias (by glossing over or hiding facts) a single editor is going to have a very hard time getting that information out. The pressure against that single editor is going to be pretty heavy. How does consensus work there? Is there an adequate mechanism that helps distinguish between consensus and con-censors? KrishnaVindaloo 04:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

New summary section

I've rewritten the opening section in a way that I hope is more clear and succinct. Comments? Durova 15:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

And I've condensed two other long sections into a shorter section. Durova 16:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The introduction is easy to read and needed because the idea isn't immediatly apparent by the project's title. But must we punish editors? ... further disruption should be punishable by blocking .... Can't we stay on the course of our goal, by rephrasing to something like this:
Perhaps there's a better way to phrase that. Although frankly, my belief is that intellectually dishonest people do deserve punishment after they exhaust the assumption of good faith. Durova 17:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Can you point to any policy or guideline which suggests that any Wikipedia editor, administrator, arbitrator or founder has the power to "punish"? Let us not introduce the idea that a group of wikipedia people has the power to punish, it is completely against Wikipedia's stated goal to declare any of its users capable of punishing any other users. Terryeo 17:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Changed wording to "liable to..." Durova 18:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably better; blocks and bans are traditionally seen as preventative measures, not punative ones. Problem editors receive blocks not in order to spite them, but to protect the encyclopedia from further abuse.
One other change I'll make (being [WP:BOLD]]) is to change the references to "normal editors" to simply "editors"; "normal" is unnecessary in this context, and it makes the policy more divisive than it needs to be. The policy should focus on behavior, after all. --EngineerScotty 19:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Unclear on the concept

Can someone explain to me how this proposal will solve the problem it purports to solve in a more efficacious manner than the methods we now have in place? Because from my reading of the proposal, it looks to be Yet Another(tm) page to point someone at when they don't play nice with the other children.

All the best,
Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak
20:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Rather than just "show them the door" (see Sanger quote, above), some people are more interested in rehabilitation. Or something. Fuck that! These are "intellectual terrorists": they are not around to read policy or to negotiate. They are here to destroy the project's effectiveness. Once the target has been identified, send in the WP:CRUISE-MISSILE and move on to better things. mdf 20:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This would enable editors to post to the Administrators' noticeboard at a reasonable point in the process and get an editor blocked (or eventually sitebanned) for content edits. Currently all such instances go through ArbCom - which means many don't get addressed at all. So yes, this has teeth. Durova 22:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Honesty

Call these fruitcakes what they are: kooks, cranks, nutbars, etc. "Tendentious editor" is just politically correct bafflegab, an invention of utterly pointless jargon where existing common expressions in the English language communicate the concept more than adequately. "Intellectual spam" is better, but sadly, it is simply a description of the output of these kooks, not the kook himself. If a policy along these lines is needed, it should be called WP:CRANK or similar.

  • Right now WP:CRANK redirects to Wikipedia:Patent nonsense, an altogether different topic. (Though this seems a more appropriate target for the redirect). At any rate, Wikipedia has a longstanding policy of excluding inflammatory language from policies--which includes phrases like "kook", "crank", and "nutbar". But I know what you mean.

But I argue such policy it is not necessary at all, as it is covered quite well by WP:V and others. Even if WP:V did not exist, it behooves any administrator to just squish these crazies on sight. Anyone who is even remotely familiar with the history of USENET knows the damage these individuals can do. For heaven's sake, shoot to kill! If you can't bring yourself to do it, if you seriously believe you need to write another N page policy letter with carefully described scenarios, outcomes, and achieve a "concensus", then you ought to ask yourself if you really have the cajones to be an administrator in the first place. mdf 20:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, I'm not an admin; it's not a question of cajones. If you are suggesting that all one thousand admins ought to go WP:ROUGE on the editors described by this policy; the place to propose that is WP:PAIN and not here. A careful balance must be sought; there are a few admins (I won't name em!) who are known for (ab)using their admin tools to win edit wars. Be careful what you wish for; you might get it. --EngineerScotty 21:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree it shouldn't be necessary, but in practice it is. Too many of the people who do this to a small number of articles fly below the radar of administrators. This proposal outlines a mechanism for getting those people onto that radar. Durova 22:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

A stronger version

Having become somewhat dissatisfied at the direction this seems to have gone, I have been WP:BOLD and set out an agressive counter proposal at Wikipedia:Expert Retention/Burden of proof. Please comment, of course. Mangoe 21:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do think we'll have a better chance of getting something passed if we have one proposal rather than two. Key questions are at what point does it become reasonable to block an editor for a content edit, and how could the proposal (if passed) resist the inevitable attempts at Wikilawyering from participants in ordinary disputes? Durova 22:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
At this point "burden of proof" is proposed as a substitute for this one, not as something else to add to the mix. Of course they can be merged into one if consensus so holds, but right now I feel that "burden" can be made to work and that this isn't going to be different enough from what we have now.
I'd prefer to discuss "burden" on its merits under its own talk page, but part of the reason I think it would work better is that it denies that there is a right to three reverts. Mangoe 03:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Currently, this proposal doesn't appear to mention 3RR at all. Of course, WP:3RR itself states that it doesn't grant a "right" to three reverts per day; just that exceeding this limit is considered prima facie evidence of disruption, and thus merits a block. --EngineerScotty 03:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't mention it because it (by implication) supersedes it in this context. Mangoe 03:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

comments

I only just stumbled on this discussion. Just to say, as well as acknowledging the many excellent points made here, that I would like to stick with 'tendentious'. There seems some confusion about the meaning of this word. It is not to be confused with 'tenacious', which means sticking strongly, perhaps reasonably, to some view. Tendentious by contrast, as its Latin roots imply, strongly connotes inherent bias of some kind which, by implication, the tendentious person cannot be persuaded out of. No tendentious person can be truly neutral (i.e. free from bias). So keep the word.

On the forking of this policy, strongly feel that the best chance is to decide on a single, simple policy that the community would accept. I for one would return to WP editing if some of the ideas here were brought into effect. Dbuckner 08:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose forking. We should stick with this proposal. Having said that, I think the policy in a nutshell from burden of proof could be added to the guidance here, if you add the word repeatedly:
In disputes over content, the burden of proof is upon those who edit articles with novel or contrary statements. Administrators may block or ban users who repeatedly introduce such changes to articles without reliable sources and in the face of requests to discuss said changes before editing the article, without having to wait for further attempts at dispute resolution.
This proposal is important, we don't want to lose it through forking Viv Hamilton 08:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Thus far I haven't figured out how to combine them. I personally meant something stronger than "repeatedly", which given WP:3RR could be argued to mean "more than three times". What I meant was "not more than once, if at all". And my focus was actually on editing forward, not reversion. Mangoe 18:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

1-2 months?

Just to note; 1-2 months can be a long time. Maybe this should be linked to the number of edits made not just the time. A large number of edits all requiring (sometimes demanding!) responses can sap the will to live. Responses may become increasingly brief and less civil, and the page can come to look like a squabble between one apparently reasonable editor and a gang of editors who seem to be acting in concert and don't seem to be listening. This can make it hard for an outsider to recognise what has really been happening. Gleng 10:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. I've often noticed that it is very difficult to spot the crank when going through the talk page. Often the crank is polite, and the reasonable editors uncivil (see once again the Einstein talk page. Dbuckner 13:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
NB the case here may be of interest. The disruptive editor in this case has views that I would support (i.e. he seems to be strongly against pseudoscience). However his behaviour has been disruptive in the extreme - the comments to which I have linked are all good value - and even the people who support him don't support him, if you see what I mean. Dbuckner 11:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to comment on this particular case because I am an involved party. However, I think everyone must be clear, this is not' about editors we don't agree with - it is about those who are promoting their opinions in unreasonable ways, whether or not we agree with those opinions. It seems to me that we have a greater obligation to stand against those whose motives we might be expected to agree with, in the hope that at least our motives won't be misinterpreted. This, however, might be a vain hope...Gleng 11:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
When I first proposed 1-2 months it was with a question mark. The question mark came off because nobody objected to that benchmark - rather than discuss definitions people were discussing consequences. Do you have a better proposal? Durova 15:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's merge these two proposals into one

What would it take to fold Burden of proof together with Tendentious editors? I'd rather have either than none - and we'll probably wind up with none if both get put to a formal vote in competition with each other. Durova 15:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see these combined, as each has merits and problems. This page has the important merits of being very elegantly phrased and carefully argued, and is transparently fair and reasonable. However it looks like a potentially slow and cumbersome process, with procedural complexities and ambiguities that might lead to wrangling. The alternative has the merit of a nutshell policy that is simple, clear, and unambiguously decisive in intent. A weakness is uncertainty in what constitutes "reliable sources",and who is to judge this, because standards vary considerably and it is not possible to impose common standards across WP. I think that what constitutes an acceptable level of V RS on any given page must be something that is provisionally settled by the consensus of editors contributing to that page, but the standard must be applied consistently - i.e. the same level of V RS must apply to all information and all viewpoints on that page, and not selectively applied to favour one. So the editors on a page should be the arbitors of V RS for that page. Attempts to add information that the other editors do not accept as adequately sourced may be one defining characteristic of tendentious editing.

WP VRS is at present loose enough to allow tendentious editors to argue that their "sources" are V RS by WP standards, even when they may not considered adequate by other editors on the page; this might leave the TE believing that he is being unfairly censored. In my view, explicitly giving the power to decide to the editors on a page enhances democratisation of WP, devolves responsibility for standards appropriately, and takes the pressure off admins having to make too many judgement calls on these complex issues. There is the danger that pages will be "hijacked" by a group of editors; but I suspect that the more common effect will be to drive standards everywhere up, because editors who care about a topic will tend to want higher and higher standards for all sources.Gleng 21:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Here's my attempt at merging the two:

Wikipedia:Tendentious editors/Merger proposal

Added some comments to the talk page. Main issues (other than style issues) are when blocking/banning kicks in; and the issue of stare decisis on Wikipedia. --EngineerScotty 20:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Dead on Arrival

Copied from WP:EXR

I can name three quick reasons why the guideline/proposed policy is "grounded" and dead on arrival.
  • Use and meaning of Tendentious is not understood by the average wikipedian editor. "WTF is Tendentious...REJECT!"
  • Use of a Larry Sanger quote at the top of the policy will rattle those loyal and protective of Jimmy Wales.
  • "Laying the smack down" on certain editors is a polarizing process and won't fly. Technical solutions are the answer, and specifically solutions to stablize featured articles and stop edits on featured articles from being instant. The current proposed solution can be compared to the US war on drugs, where people using them are treated as criminals. Before criminalizing drugs, we treated drug abuse as a medical problem/disorder and abuse only created more medical problems. By criminalizing, we created more criminals and eroded society view of government and morals. Ugly. If we treat teneditious editors as vandals and ban and block them willy nilly, we criminalize and polarize wikipedian society. This will eventually erode wikipedia and cause a fork or project abandonment.
Seek novel positive solutions, don't criminalize. Electrawn 23:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, it is already here, and so far you are the only person who has so attacked it. Why don't you raise objections for yourself, rather than positing objections for others? Mangoe 01:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
You mean do, instead of talking about doing? I am, by direct means. I have added a brainstorming page to WP:IAR, involved with defining/improving WP:SNOW, Brainstorming on WP:LIBEL, reading/writing the mailing lists, and a bunch of other policy related talk and commentary. Occasionally, I have been editing articles. Electrawn
I moved LinaMinsha's page on expert editors leaving from userpspace to wikipedia space for more eyeballs on the problem. Edits to Village pump provide the eyeballs. Expert Retention was so named in order to work on a solution, not a soapbox for editors leaving wikipedia. The page describes a sort of super-problem that wikipedia faces with unclear policies and guidelines. Electrawn
Since I can't be in a thousand places at once, I pick battles carefully. The problem is a super-problem, and a heavy handed one size fit all super-solution solution, banning, will never fly. I don't have all the answers, but certainly a bunch of novel ideas. Until I consider more severe issues on my palate resolved, I will only offer guidance here. Electrawn 01:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: This is a cross-posted objection with discussion on multiple pages. Durova 05:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

4288

Please vote for bug 4288. It will allow you to tag the good revisions of articles and help with the Tendentious editing problem. --Gbleem 18:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain that proposal? The citecheck template was created at my request a while back to deal with inappropriate citations. I'm not clear on what this new template would do. Durova 00:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Reunifying the different proposals

All editors are invited to answer the following questions; several of you have had these posted to your talk pages. I'm also posting here.

  • Can you support Wikipedia:Tendentious editors as it currently stands?
    • If no, what changes need to be made in order to for you to support it?
  • Can you support Wikipedia:Expert Retention/Burden of proof is it currently stands?
    • If no, what changes need to be made in order to for you to support it?
  • Can you support Wikipedia:Tendentious editors/Merger proposal is it currently stands?
    • If no, what changes need to be made in order to for you to support it?
  • Of the above three, which do you like best? Any changes to that policy which would make it better?
  • What should the policy be called?

My answers:

  • Yes
    • N/A
  • Somewhat
    • See concerns below.
  • Yes
    • N/A
  • Currently, Wikipedia:Tendentious editors/Merger proposal appears to address the issues with the other two. I'd remove the Larry Sanger quote per User:Electrawn, and tighten up a few loose ends. One remaining issue is that of stare decisis: If I understand it right, Mangoe has proposed use of WP:PROTECT to keep tendentious editors out of disputes while a debate is going on--the current version of Wikipedia:Tendentious editors/Merger proposal does not explicitly call for this. While I'm all for the principle that controversial changes require evidence to implement; WP:PROTECT is IMHO too blunt an instrument. In many cases, with long-standing disputes, selecting a stable baseline version to protect might be difficult--blocking a user (or better yet, telling a user to keep out momentarily, on pain of blocking) is less disruptive to the project. (It would be nice if MediaWiki had the ability to block a specific user from a specific page...). If I've misunderstood what Mangoe has in mind (the discussion is scattered among several places at the moment), I apologize--my only concern is around use of page protection to settle edit disputes (as opposed to cooling off edit wars).
  • Wikipedia:Tendentious editors. The only real objection I've seen to this is from User:Terryeo; other than that this name appears to be acceptable (and has current informal use on Wikipedia).

Let's keep this discussion moving, folks. Many good policy proposals have died due to lack of forward progress.

--EngineerScotty 17:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

User:mangoe response

My answers:

  • Yes, but...
    • I think it needs to be stronger (see below)
  • Yes
    • My proposal, after all
  • Yes, but...
    • Same concerns as for first version

My main concern is that I think that the main proposal is in practice going to stick us with the status quo. Expert editors will still be faced with the prospect of having to drag the unrepentant through ArbCom. The discription of the problem is good, but I think that BoP needs to be incorporated to produce something worth fighting for, and I think the current combined form isn't strong enough. I recognize the issue with longstanding controversies. I'm not sure what to do with this except to hope that as controversies resolve, it should become hard to reintroduce them.

To summarize how I would combine the two proposals:

  • general discussion of tendentious editing
  • An informal WP:BAN on editing a change forward while it is being contested. This would escalate to a WP:BLOCK if violated.
  • WP:BLOCK for those who persist in tendentious edits

Mangoe 18:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • The intent has long been that the ArbCom isn't needed; perhaps the combined proposal should be edited to make that more explicit. One other thought, which I think will help smooth things out--see what you think:
    • Add language explicitly stating (if not there already) that the ArbCom is not needed.
  • Regarding stability; there are three likely scenarios:
    • Article is currently (and has been for a period of time) in a state which doesn't take any "crank" positions, a tendentious editor then attempts to WP:OWN it. This is the easiest one; the prior stable version is selected.
    • Article is currently "owned" by a crank, and includes dubious claims; an editor citing WP:RS seeks to change the article to match the knowledge of the field. The "stable" version here is likely the wrong on. What should happen then is the expert proposes a change (including being WP:BOLD and implementing it--the first edit should never get you in trouble), the TE reverts claiming his version is stable. The editor citing WP:RS should immediately request dispute resolution (at least a RFC; a 3O is probably not enough) in order to get consensus to bring about the change.
    • Article has never been stable. This should be treated as the second case.
  • Once a stable baseline version exists which (as far as dispute resolution can tell) represents the current state of the field--any blocks or bans under this policy should come after an official warning from a neutral admin; at which point an RFC should be triggered.
  • Thoughts? Again, I think we're close; this discussion could fix the unresolved last section.
  • --EngineerScotty 19:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes.
    • N/A
  • Borderline
    • See below.
  • Borderline
    • See below.
  • See below.

I'm not certain where the idea arises that Wikipedia:Tendentious editors requires the ArbCom, but that certainly was never my intention. What I aimed for was a mechanism that could get tendentious editors onto the administrative notice board for blocking and possible administrator consensus sitebanning without necessarily invoking ArbCom.

However, in order to do that successfully, there needs to be some mechanism to guard against Wikilawyering and abuse. What the original proposal has that both of the other proposals lack is a requirement for impartial consensus before an editor gets blocked: uninvolved editors come in from WP:RFC or WP:3O or some other place such as the guerilla mediation committee and agree that one editor has stepped outside the realm of normal scholarship. I'd be willing to jettison a lot of other steps such as warning templates, but I regard impartial feedback as essential. Otherwise it's inevitable that some biased edit warriors would try to request frivolous blocks. We can't expect one admin to judge a complex debate, but we can expect an admin to respect an RfC summary where five impartial Wikipedians all agree that a source isn't reliable. Durova 20:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

We tossed "ban" and "block" around a little too loosely at first. I think the mechanisms here are reasonable, perhaps as reasonable as we are going to get. Mangoe 03:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

User:SteveMcCluskey response

I'm really troubled by the line beginning "There is no right to edit an article to a user's POV...", I can see people claiming that someone whose views they oppose are not allowed to edit, until their edits are first approved by consensus. It's a phrase that asks for trouble.
I agree that this statement is a a problem, and have removed it. Mangoe 19:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The passage that "When a change to an article is challenged, the editor is expected to justify it, through references and discussion." is unnecessarily weak and seems to have it backwards. Every point that is likely to be challenged is supposed to be justified through references when it is first written. See Wikipedia:Citing sources#When you add content.
The reason I left it weaker is my sense that a lot of articles have unreferenced statements which are uncontested because they are accurate. A policy which encourages challenges to these on principle is an invitation to disruption. Mangoe 19:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
It has the same two failings (in slightly different terms) mentioned above.
  • Of the above three, which do you like best? Tendentious editors.
Any changes to that policy which would make it better? Can't think of any at the moment.
  • What should the policy be called? "Wikipedia:Tendentious editors" sounds fine with me.

Incidentally, I haven't been involved in this discussion previously because I just stumbled across these pages in trying to deal with a tendentious editor. Thanks for all the effort to put these together.

My problems are in some areas where I consider myself an expert -- 30 years experience, PhD, publications, etc. -- but I don't see any reason why anyone should publish Original Research. I have a lot of draft material in the file that I could dump here, but there are more than enough reliable sources out there to cite. --SteveMcCluskey 19:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem I have with this proposal...

I'll admit that I haven't been able to give a truly in-depth examination of this proposal, so there may be something I'm missing... but one thing I don't see is just what, if anything, is going to stop this policy/guideline/whatever becoming a weapon for the very editors it was intended to rein in. For instance, one of the most tendentious editors I know is very fond of mislabelling as "original research" anything unfavorable to his POV that he can construe as imperfectly cited. It doesn't matter how many verifiable, reliable sources it can be sourced to (frequently enough he's simply misreading, or purporting to misread, the citation) he likes to label it "original research" (which is rather like referring to people who can't produce their birth certificates the second you ask as bastards.) What's to stop someone like that from exploiting this proposal? -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit-conflicted question; apparently there's a meme going around. I'm concerned that, like 3RR, some people will end up treating whatever resolution steps are outlined here as a basic right. For example, a case where someone minorly violates other rules, is briefly blocked, and then whines that he didn't get his RfC/3O/whatever. Or a crank with a crappy but existent reference tries to use this proposal as a mechanism for attacking those who remove his "sourced" material. Opabinia regalis 03:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what we could do about such a case. As far as BoP is concerned, I would consider such a challenge to established text in the article as tantamount to a edit and requiring of proof. As a challenge to new material, well, more of a problem. I have to say that we (and the tendentious) are always going to be able to come up with scenarios which are clearly going to have to be taken further along adjudication. But I don't think the proposal is going to make the case in question worse. Mangoe 04:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Ever the optimist, this discussion is very constructive. Whether its finished now (and recorded for posterity), or if its used as a proposal or an adjustment for other policies, it is constructive nevertheless. The most important aspects of the discussion can be identified and used to assess other policies to see if they need tweaking or improving in some way. There are problems I see with the proposal itself and I agree with Antaeus. As it stands, its far too easy to spit at people willy nilly and use against legitimate editing. But the activity of tendentious editing exists. I do feel that Wikipedia can cope with such activities fairly well already, but it just needs better definition of scope and some useful subclauses for guidance. Well, the discussion has been quite long and broad, so I suggest the most worthy aspects be identified and clarified. That way this big brainstorm is less likely to just be shelved indefinitely. Wikipedia is still evolving and your helpful and experienced input is part of that. So, in sum so far.....? KrishnaVindaloo 06:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's a question for Antaeus. Assuming you have experience dealing with cranks (and I'm certain you do)... how effective are the non-binding dispute resolutions mechanisms at assessing problems? I'll ignore WP:3O--anything with a sample size of one is not likely to produce statistically valid information--but given the classic battle of "expert" vs "crank", when the two editors in question have similar dispositions, are content RFCs useful in determining who has the stronger position, and who is full of it? Or is RFC just as likely to attract more cranks to the debate? Much of the proposal hinges on RFC being a somewhat effective hinging/gating mechanism; the requirement (discussed above, perhaps not explicit in the policy as written--the policy will need updating to reflect the above) that RFC or other dispute resolution be employed prior to measures such as blocks/bans, was intended to screen out bad-faith uses of this policy. It's a legitimate concern, I agree. Of course, if the wolves outnumber the sheep, no policy, no matter how well crafted, is going to permit the sheep to thrive. --EngineerScotty 16:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Scotty. I was posting something to the same effect when we got into an edit conflict. Mangoe, I hope you're following this point: it's something I've expressed seven or eight different ways and your feedback hasn't acknowledged the importance I place on it: nobody should be eligible for a tendentious editor block until after a consensus of impartial third party editors agree on what's been happening at a page. Durova 16:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
To further clarify: This does not mean the ArbCom (though again, I think WP:3O is insufficient. A content-RFC is probably sufficient; these can happen very quickly. One of the key signs of a crank editor, after all, is that they disregard dispute resolution; good-faith editors will, if they receive an adverse result from an RFC, either back down or attempt to bring better evidence. It's those who ignore the RFC because they are certain of correctness (or simply have an axe to grind, correctness be damned) that we have problems with. --EngineerScotty 16:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I think perhaps my cynicism has been turned up too high of late, and it's obvious that I've not read some of this as carefully as I ought.
After further consideration, I'll put myself behind the proposal as it stands, and it seems that we ought to mark BoP as "rejected". Mangoe 17:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added a few lines to this proposal. Early on I make it explicit that banning (for extreme cases) can either be ArbCom or administrator consensus. This just spells out what normal dispute resolution already consists of. I also added the following:

In order to protect against frivolous accusations and other potential exploitation, no editor shall be eligible for a tendentious editor block until after a consensus of three neutral parties has agreed that an editor has behaved in a tendentious manner. This consensus can be achieved through requests for comment or similar means.

For an example of how that consensus can build, at one page I came to visit through a Wikiquette alert. After reading the article and talk discussion thoroughly I invited the editors to work together and tried to mediate informally. The attempt didn't work. They'd already done a 3O and had an open request for mediation that was growing stale because no mediator had responded. An administrator had also dropped a few lines on the talk page. Right now the matter is in a user conduct RfC and the article remains edit protected. That solution might work, but the page has been protected for nearly a month which I think is too long. Under this proposal it would be possible for three neutral people to say, "We've agreed that all your references violate NOR. If you keep holding up the article without better evidence we'll alert the administrators' noticeboard and you'll probably get blocked." Durova 17:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Careful how you word that consensus-seeking requirement. Three cranks of the same political platform are easy to find, and as currently worded they could argue that they form a "consensus" if they arrive fast enough. "Boroad consensus of at least X neutral editors" might be better, but anything with numbers on it is fraught with peril, IMO. -- nae'blis 17:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Point taken: I'll remove any mention of exact numbers. Durova 18:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Numbers removed. As with any other consensus, though, the deciding admin normally checks the edit history of the parties involved to guard against meat puppets and sock puppets. Durova 18:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Added explicit mention of 3RR

Added a section relating this policy to WP:3RR, noting that 3RR is not a defense. (In other words, an editor could limit his reverts to thrice per day, and still run afoul of and be sanctioned under this policy). --EngineerScotty 18:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

BoP

I'm new to this discussion, but what does the TLA BoP refer to? --SteveMcCluskey 19:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I found my own answer: Expert Retention/Burden of Proof -- Obvious wasn't it. Sorry about that. --SteveMcCluskey 19:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed specific time frame

The 1-2 months, which was pretty much a guess, is gone now.

Also, unless someone specifically wants to create warning templates, I suggest we remove that step from the bottom of the proposal.

This leads to a new question: should we propose this as policy or guideline? Durova 20:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Coconut to walnut

Let's find a way to condense the nutshell version of this proposal. It's hard to follow unless the reader already knows what it means. Durova 21:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Users who persist in making unfounded or inappropriately-sourced edits in the face of opposition, who continually attempt to include original research, or who continually attempt to use Wikipedia to promote theories which are generally discredited among reliable sources, despite attempts at dispute resolution and warnings from neutral parties that this pattern of editing is inappropriate, may be subject to penalties imposed by administrators, up to and including being blocked or banned from editing Wikipedia.
Suggested rewording - a little shorter and I hope it's clearer:
An editor whose contributions fall outside the realm of normal scholarship may be subject to administrative action after a consensus of uninvolved Wikipedians agrees that these edits constitute persistent violation of content policies and guidelines such as WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR. Arbitration committee action shall not be necessary for administrators to block editors who ignore impartial consensus. Banning is an option if repeated blocks fail to curb problem behavior. Durova 22:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks good. I'd make two changes:
Highlight administrative -> administrative
Change block to "impose sanctions including blocking"; admin-imposed page/subject edit bans are a good idea. --EngineerScotty 22:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that a separate discussion of other sanctions is necessary. The nutshell already states "administrative action" in general terms. I added the sentence to specify the proposal's shortcut around ArbCom. Definitely highlighting admin per your suggestion. Durova 23:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I took out the Larry Sanger quote, per User:Electrawn's advice above. While I still agree with the sentiment, it does sound like quoting Sanger will hurt more than it will help. --EngineerScotty 23:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe there's a different quote that would fit in its place. Durova 01:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed the template step from the dispute resolution sequence. Found a few possible quotes to replace the old one:

  • To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant. - Amos Bronson Alcott
  • Never let your persistence and passion turn into stubbornness and ignorance. Anthony J. D'Angelo
  • Those are tendentious words without knowledge of the facts. - Peter Bienert

I like the second one best. Durova 02:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Still shorter?

An editor may be subject to administrative action after a consensus of uninvolved Wikipedians agrees that his or her edits constitute persistent violation of content policies and guidelines. Arbitration committee action shall not be necessary for administrators to block editors who ignore impartial consensus. Banning is an option if repeated blocks fail to curb problem behavior.


Gleng 08:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I could live with that. Durova 13:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that we have to capture the sense of "an editor whose contributions fall outside the realm of normal scholarship" if we are going to tie this to "tendentious" editing. In this version the implication is that policies about content and discussion are good enough as they stand, which I don't think was where we stodd at the beginning of this discussion. Mangoe 15:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. -- Bertrand Russell

Regarding the "nutmeat" and "normal scholarship", this language may cause more problems than it solves. Each and every crackpot who is brought to heel under this policy will claim that their particular theory of cosmology is of course normal scholarship, merely suppressed by a great conspiracy. Arguments will ensue as to what is "normal scholarship" under other conditions as well. And--it's redundant. Normal scholarship falls under our normal "content policies and guidelines" (excluding the issue of original research); crackpottery generally does not.

BTW: Our next project, I think, ought to be to take a firehose to WP:RS and inject some sense into that mess. I'm all for starting a Wikipedia:List of reliable sources and a Wikipedia:List of unreliable sources; the latter of which 'may not be used to source claims here.  :) All who want to volunteer for a suicide mission, take two steps backwards.  :) Back to our instant discussion.

--EngineerScotty 15:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

--EngineerScotty 15:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia would be a lot better off if existing content guidelines and policies were enforced more consistently. What we've got is a realistic means for that to improve. Let's finish dotting the Is and crossing the Ts here and put this up for a vote. That concern about normal scholarship in the wording doesn't really resonate with me: one tendentious editor can't overrule an impartial consensus. Durova 17:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
So essentially the point of the policy now would be to essentially empower admins to act sooner?
BTW, having looked at WP:RS, I note the following passage:
"It is always appropriate to ask other editors to produce their sources. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question, and any unsourced material may be removed by any editor."
That's BoP in a nutshell, so with that I'm going to mark the separate BoP proposal as redundant. I'm going to try to work this passage into what we have here. Mangoe 17:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, I've changed my mind, and will leave the text of this propsal unchanged. Mangoe 17:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Re: So essentially the point of the policy now would be to essentially empower admins to act sooner? That's a good way of putting it. We need a supermajority so our best chance of getting this accepted is to keep it uncomplicated. People who aren't involved in drafting the proposal will probably decide in five minutes or less whether they support it, and as we've seen on this talk page readers may miss something important when they skim. One inflammatory post can really rattle a vote even if the complaint stems from a misreading. Nothing stops us from drafting other proposals once this is decided. Is everyone comfortable with that approach? Durova 19:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, strong support; desperately need a mechanism to step in early.Gleng 19:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I support as written. Mangoe 19:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I obviously do so. Per Wikipedia:How to create policy, are we ready to advertise this to a larger audience? A consensus of a half-dozen or so of us ain't gonna be sufficient for this to become official {{policy}}. --EngineerScotty 20:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

One last question here is whether this ought to be policy or guideline. I've browsed the policies and guidelines a bit and it seems closer to the existing guidelines. Thoughts? Durova 20:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe guideline may be more appropriate, because it is more of an issue or characteristic than a problem per se. Also, perhaps to stimulate more discussion; How do we handle a group of conspiring tendentious editors who campaign to drive away a productive contributor? If the example of the Vitalism discussion and article are to go by, its not an easy problem to solve. KrishnaVindaloo 05:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:How to create a policy

Looking over that page, we've already followed some of their recommended steps: there's an existing request for comment on this proposal and we were listed on the community portal for a week. Since it looks like only about 1 in 10 proposals become policy, and one of the cautions is that some proposals fail for lack of adequate discussion, I'm adding a query at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and at Jimbo's talk page. He supported some of the proposals that became policy. Maybe he'll have some useful input and maybe he'll like what we've done so far. It's a little bit of WP:BOLD to contact him at this point, but I think we're ready for it. Durova 21:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Anything where the nutshell is as long as this may be suffering from a lack of focus. I might edit it mercilessly... Guy 13:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I read Wikipedia:Expert Retention, by the way, and I see a problem here (which also probably applies to Citizendium). There are a lot of people who consider themselves experts in a given field, but who turn out to have fringe points of view and subtle or not-so-subtle bias which is not readily understood other than by other experts. Of course, it is precisely those who have a barrow to push who will be most motivated to contribute. This may apply even more to experts than it does to non-experts. Actually, though, the biggest problem I find is that mature articles on well-defined subjects are still being edited dozens of times a day, often adding nothing but bloat. Anyone finding an article on a subject they know tends to start out by adding something, whether it needs it or not. Perhaps we should add IS YOUR EDIT REALLY NECESSARY? to the edit box header. Guy 13:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

We've been over this territory along the way, and the sense right now is to address article stability and edit creep separately. Mangoe 13:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
You'll notice that this policy, as it currently stands, nowhere includes the word "expert" or any of its synonyms (probably the closest it comes is a mention of academic peer review; something long covered under WP:RS). While I am only speaking for myself here... I'm coming to the opinion that the main problem Wikipedia has isn't an expert problem (meaning retention of experts--we still have plenty), but an abusive user problem. It is the latter that this proposal seeks to address. One of the most common complaints from disgruntled expert editors is that they have neither the time nor inclination to deal with cranks and such--and experts, many of them being notable persons in their own right, often command more attention than do productive editors who lack visible credentials (or choose to remain anonymous). I'll certainly agree with you that there are some experts who do attempt to (usually not intentionally) inject bias, WP:OR, or other inappropriate content (and/or to WP:OWN articles)--an example of such an occurrence can be found at Talk:Eiffel programming language. Addressing the abusive user problem (which would include experts, should they attempt to publish original research in Wikipedia), I think, would go a long way to improving both the encyclopedia and the community. --EngineerScotty 15:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Well put, Scotty. While this proposal is an outgrowth of the expert retention discussion, it really doesn't attempt to create a special class of experts. It just says that if a consensus of impartial editors agree that someone consistently violates content policies, admins can take action without the long hassle of ArbCom. Durova 23:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for the goal/problem specification again. As long as a group of impartial editors can be found to judge whether you, I, or anyone else is tendentiously editing, then there is a fine solution. I would also like to point out that the use or the commitment to use such a solution will be a boon to legitimate editing, and a palpable threat or warning to those who are editing abusively. It may be appropriate, if this is to be a policy, to consider more carefully or more specifically, the guidelines for the application of such measures. I.e. a process of justifiable warnings to apply application for impartial editors to make judgments. For sure, if one is going to illegitimately accuse someone of tendentious editing, there may be consequences, as it is often the case that those making such kind of accusations are themselves pushing a particular view themselves. It may be that the accuser and the accused both hold extreme views that they want to push. Thus, it may be worth considering a process that would make it harder (or risky) to illegitimately spit the accusation. It would also be worth considering making it at least possible for an abusive editor to back off and away from such abusive editing if the threat of impartial judges is legitimately made (official measures will help). If anyone can see particular problems or benefits in such measures, listing them here would be helpful. KrishnaVindaloo 07:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Further to this, if an editor claims to be an expert, I don't think it matters. Anyone can make such a claim. If a tendentious editor is to be sufficiently warned I can imagine the following:
  • A list of diffs should be presented to them to show tendentious editing.
  • The minority or fringe bias of their edits should be specified
  • Time scale should be accurately represented, together with the "density" or "richness" of those tendentious edits.
  • Any abusive attacks on other editors should be presented (together with any abusive attacks by other members of the group on that editor)
  • Failure to work with other editors should be presented, though any known biases of those others should also be presented.
  • The editor in question should be warned that if their tendentious editing continue, it will be presented for impartial editors to judge.
Any adjustments or other steps are welcome. KrishnaVindaloo 07:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Just a comment: The abusive attacks info may be useful for getting this policy accepted. It will encourage the group to remain civil in order to deal with an abusive editor. I can imagine that may make such a policy pretty acceptable. KrishnaVindaloo 07:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
While some of these suggestions are good, I think the best parts are already covered. This proposal does have a list of differences. Wikipedia:How to create a policy advises against specifying n violations (because problem users will then act n-1 times). Admin is already pretty good at enforcing WP:NPA. Failure to work with other editors shows up on the article talk page. RfC is open to any editor at any time - other RfCs do lead directly to user blocks, such as American (ethnic group).
BTW there's been a suggestion at the Jimbo Wales user talk page about converting this proposal into a modification to WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. I'm more interested in results than in process so that sounds fine to me. What do other editors think? Durova 14:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I've just looked at those three articles, and I don't think it will work:
  • WP:V isn't going to deter classic cranks, who are going to be able to find plenty of other cranks to cite.
  • WP:NOR similarly lacks in deterrence, although it can be used against the "I just realized" crowd.
  • WP:RS is the most relevant, but it is only a [[11]] and is thus subject to "ignore all rules"-based flouting. Some of WP:RS needs to be elevated into a policy on unacceptable sources, but even that would not fully address the issue.
This proposal is chiefly about the process of editing and discussing articles, not about resources used in writing them or even specifically about content. The three policies/guidelines listed above are about sources and content. If the problem is to be addressed in terms of disruption, the problem with current policies is that WP:DISRUPT does not address this specific issue, and moreover, it is a guideline, not a policy. Mangoe 15:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm with Mangoe; it's useful to separate the content policies from the administrative policies. This is especially since "tendentious editing" is intertwined with multiple methods of unscholarly or disruptive editing, and isolated violations of NPOV/NOR/V (or RS) shouldn't result in any disciplinary action whatsoever. Perhaps expanding or clarifying WP:DISRUPT might be useful; but certain types of disruptive behavior (i.e. WP:POINT, WP:3RR, WP:VAND are already dealt with in their own policies). --EngineerScotty 16:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Mangoe's mention of discussing articles has hit what my limited experience shows to be the core of tendentious editing. TEs often know the system well enough not to put blatantly OR in the main text of an article. Some use the tactic, however, of putting small statements with marginal support in the article, and when questioned, defending those statements by dumping massive essays based on their original research into the talk pages, and starting a time consuming dispute there. The focus should be at least as much on procedures in the talk pages as in the articles. --SteveMcCluskey 18:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Would some of you look at Jimbo's talk page? Although the core editors here largely agree, I'm concerned by some of the reactions there. Durova 18:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I thank you for being invited here. I will support your "tendentious editors" policy page as it is if you find that it makes your incredibly difficult jobs here easier. You have my praise and my congratulations. This encyclopedia is the best that there is, and no one in the history of the universe has been able to present human knowledge in one NPOV place as well as you have here. But I cannot see that the text of this "tendentious editors" policy or the other supporting pillar policies, such as WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V, have the clear definitions that can help with the problem of the "tendentious editor." For example, the person with a valid minority viewpoint, such a military expert in Turkey who wishes to portray with accuracy the real trade-offs in the relationship between the civilian government and the Turkish National Security Council finds it difficult to establish a safe harbor for "verifiability" by "reputable sources." Surely a quote from a linked Turkish government website should satisfy "verifiability" to a "reputable source." But it does not in practice--because there is no definition of a safe harbor within which minority viewpoints can present their significant published POVs. Hence, it comes down to how big a localized faction the minority viewpoint can organize in defense of what should have been already clearly defined by wide community decision as a safe harbor. And of course, I use the "Turkish National Security Council" as a euphemism and metaphor for the big problems in the intersections of politics, religion, and science that we all know loom over the horizon here and in the world at large. That is, it seems to me, whether the aggressive editor is a 1) crank or representative of a 2) significant viewpoint, it would simplify the job of policing the magnificent work here to be able to point the crank and scholar alike to a safe harbor of "reputable sources," for example, that, if presented in a "NPOV" manner, defined clearly including Due weight, is a contribution that cannot be deleted by any consensus of editors other than a consensus in the whole community such as by RfC or changing the definition of the safe harbor. As for blocks, let's define the safe harbor rules with clarity so that the admins have authority to block after three warnings--and I don't mean three warnings in each 24 hours, I mean over the lifetime of the account. Period. Let's make it simple, clear, and gentle. With clearly defined safe harbors, the would-be "tendentious editors" can see clearly what it is they are supposed to do--and tenacity will not help. Just ideas. What do you think? By my observations, none of the above discussion should hold up implementing the policy as written because it is de facto already policy in operation, so let's go forward with it. --Rednblu 19:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments. A few points:
    • There was language in an earlier draft of the policy--that got removed in a refactoring/cleanup--which dealt with two categories of topics which this proposal isn't really intended to address. One category of topics are highly controversial issues with significant public debates--this would include most foreign policy arguments, things like creationism, and such. This addition shouldn't be controversial, and should put the policy more squarely in line with WP:NPOV, which does stipulate that significant minority viewpoints need to be presented (and appropriately sourced)--I believe such language would allay many of your concerns. (The second category of topic which was dealt with consisted of "fluffy" topics which aren't the subject of significant scholarship or formal study, such as most articles on pop culture topics--these things Wikipedia generally handles well, don't attract crackpot editors, and don't reflect as poorly on the encyclopedia if we get them wrong).
      • Unless people object, I'll reinsert the following back in the article:
        Certain topics are not the subject of formal study, or are inherently controversial, involve competing epistomologies, or have ample bodies of literature supporting opposing or contradictory positions. Per WP:NPOV, the various positions in active controversies shall be presented and attributed to their proponents. User editing such topics are, however, expected to afford the same respect to the depictions of the various positions and sides of the controversy.
    • As others have mentioned, putting in explicit numbers tends to cause wikilawyering around the number; many users think that WP:3RR is a fundamental right, rather than a tripwire which serves to identify disruptive editing. Numbers are most effective when they are found in administrative practice rather than formal policy--such as the practice among admins not to block vandals until after the fourth warning is given (a practice which can be disregarded in severe cases).
    • We will always have arguments over which sources are reliable--and in borderline cases, WP:NPOV will and should prevail. It doesn't harm the encyclopedia IMHO to acknowledge and attribute minority viewpoints. It's when they are portrayed as fact (or when utterly discredited ideas are portrayed as having some currency), that problems arise.
    • --EngineerScotty 19:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • See, it's like this: I'm an admin, I watch a number of controversial articles. I have no problem controlling tendentious editors, the problem is getting them to realise they are tendentious editors, and rescue the good contributions which they might make. Where there are no good edits a community ban is an easy choice. We don't need more policy, we need more dialogue, and I need more ideas of how I, personally, can help the otherwise productive tendentious editor to mend their ways. My essay at Wikipedia:Tentendtious editing was a start. This proposal is about stick, what we need is carrot. Guy 21:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that more carrots are needed. Mentorship is a good thing and should be employed more often. Perhaps Wikipedia needs more formal recognition of excellence other than promotions to admin or throwaway items like barnstars. But we also need an environment where editors who aren't tendentious can improve content, rather than having to safeguard it from attack. We don't wield sticks because we enjoy inflicting a beating or teaching someone a lesson--blocks aren't intended to be punitive, after all--we do so because sometimes it is better that a person not contribute than contribute. Wikpedia:Community probation I think is a step in the right direction. I think this proposal is also a step in the right direction. --EngineerScotty 22:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • In a sense I see this policy as being a carrot, though indirectly. Remember that this arose out of a discussion of expert retention. The carrot of this policy is the reassurance for reasonable (and not infinitely patient) editors that they won't have to waste all their efforts defending against crankish positions. Also, it acknowedges a sad truth: some people can't work within the rules, and for the good of others, they must be cut short. Mangoe 00:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Administrator Concensus

Since this potential policy has the potential force for misuse may I introduce the idea that 3 Administrators must agree on blocking ? If this project comes into full force, there is the potential that an administrator could (not that anyone on the project would, but that an administrator could) block someone for a handful of tendentious edits. But, if an administrator was required to get the agreement of 2 other administrators in order to implement this policy, it would add significant substance. It would still be much faster and more direct than an RfC or an RfA. But then no single administrator would have the whole responsibility on their shoulders alone. The 3 administrators could sign the block (perhaps), or the 3 could give their reason on the blocked person's discussion page. Also, if a person is blocked and reads 3 administrator's reasons on his discussion page, he is more likely to understand. While if a single administrator tells him the reason, he is more likely to consider it some kind of personal thing. (I say this from past experience.) Terryeo 19:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that we'd like to bring practical enforcement of content policies into line with practical enforcement of other policies. It doesn't take more than one administrator to block a user for violation of WP:NPA or WP:3RR. Borderline cases can and do get discussed at the administrators' noticeboard and sometimes blocks get shortened or appealed. The same process should work equally well for WP:V or WP:NOR. Durova 21:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Established controversies

I do some editing in the religion articles, and I think it's about time we quit using religion as an example. The difference isn't between controversial and uncontroversial topics, but the manner in which the real world manifests those controversies. In religion the various controversies are well-understood, and while there is a lot of jockeying for position, it is possible to write articles that can talk about a particular topic while mapping out the various camps, even though most knowledgeable editors are prone to writing as if their own sect were the one true version. We had some action of late with episcopal polity in which the article was tending to turn into an explication of Roman Catholic theology; it took some work, and the article is hardly in great shape, but by and large the responsible editors can accept that these articles have to be worked out cooperatively.

  • I'm not thinking of religious topics per se; I was thinking more along the lines of perpetual edit wars like anything having to do with Israel/Palestine.
    • I should say that this section was elicited by the phrase "big problems in the intersections of politics, religion, and science" from above.

The complaints have tended to come from other fields. It is much more difficult to manage articles in fields which, in the real world, have an established body of quackery alongside a established expert position. To call these topics "controversial" is really to debase the word, and in these topics Wikipedia ought to find itself in the position of endorsing the expert position as The Truth and identifying the the quackery as exactly that. This is not always an absolute division, as some topics partake of both this and the earlier-described group (cf creation science); in these cases surely it will be harder to find NPOV and I don't think we can construct a policy that's going to give clear direction. Mangoe 20:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Solving that problem, I think, is beyond the scope of this proposal. IMHO it will require reform at WP:RS--the way to do solve the problem is to have an official declaration that Science and other mainstream academic publications lie at the top of the heap of reliability; and that non-peer-reviewed sources which contradict peer-reviewed journals are to be considered unreliable. Wikipedia needs to take a firm stance against the "they laughed at Einstein" line of argumentation. This proposal is part of that, but dealing with organized cranks (including the sort who who publish reams of papers in their own collection of journals) will be harder. And, at some point NPOV does come into play; cranks which have large number of adherents do get to have their position presented here, even if mainstream science finds that distasteful. (OTOH, we should be able to document mainstream scientific literature which contradicts such theories--lots of it in some cases--and present that as well; also per NPOV). --EngineerScotty 20:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Haaa, but one man's quackery is another man's zealousness. Myself, I consider certain aspects of Islam to be quackery (a man may be judge jury and executioner of his wife because he imagines she has been unfaithful, as one example). While you or I would never think of shooting a person because his idea about god was different than our own, certain Islamic Fundamentalists would. Terryeo 20:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Zealots and bigots can be found of all stripes. I'm not sure what this particular example has to do with the policy being proposed, however--one cannot shoot another through the Wikipedia.--EngineerScotty 20:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Mostly, Terryeo, this tells me that you need to revise your understanding of what quackery entails. It is not just about zeal, or perhaps not even about zeal itself. Whether Islam even teaches such things is a point of considerable ontological controversy; however, your value judgement as to the integrity of Islamic moral theology is not a proper basis for editing an article in Wikipedia. In the current discussion, ex Wikipedia, it isn't hard for someone who understands principles of research to figure out for the examples that were cited in "expert retention" which view deserved respect and which was quackery. Mangoe 21:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Editors can document that certain religious movements have a long history and an established following among notable experts. Some varieties of fringe science - such as perpetual motion machines - have an established following only outside peer reviewed journals and notable experts. Existing Wikipedia policies already handle this distinction. Durova 21:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Definition of tendentious

Here is the definition I find, "Marked by a strong tendency in favor of a particular point of view." [12]. Note that there is no mention of the viewpoint being a minority or crackpot viewpoint. In the Wikipedia context, it essentially refers to aggressive bias. As this article does not use tendentious in this sense, I find it quite objectionable. Fred Bauder 00:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

In other words: "This does not have the approval of the-powers-that-be. Pick up your things and go home. When we want you to make policy, we'll tell you what it will be. 70.51.172.145 02:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, nonsense. Fred Bauder 02:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC) I was just making a comment. Fred Bauder 02:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

We've been around this before. Perhaps you should consult a better dictionary. Mangoe 03:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Fred raised the exact issue that was present from the begining of the project. Having and sticking to a point of view is desireable, not undesireable. "Disruptive" was even used in discussion to describe what this project was trying to address. The move is entirely appropriate. Terryeo 16:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep an eye on exactly what you think the problem is, because I am either a problem myself or a victim of the problem (or possibly both) (see pseudoscience and now vitalism). If most active editors on a page take a common view, then there seems little point in challenging that except by careful discussion on the Talk page presenting strong V RS, or carefully challenging points that have weak V RS. If this clearly doesn't work in convincing a majority of editors, then accept gracefully that maybe your case isn't quite as strong as you thought it was, or take the case to arbitration if you think that a V RS is being unreasonably discounted. What is needed is an effectiive and swift mechanism for ensuring that this happens, that comments are strictly confined to discussion of the edits themselves and not to editors' presumed motives, and that it doesn't degenerate into revert wars, or into endless recycling of controversies long resolved, because any or all of these will drive away good editors. I won't comment further on this page precisely because it might be seen that I am levering this discussion to favor my interpretation of V RS.Gleng 10:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the tendentious editing may be that of the "majority" who for one reason or another wish to present their viewpoint to the exclusion of other. They too need to produce verifiable reliable sources. What I have seen in the past is that very very strict rules are applied to the viewpoint they would exclude. Fred Bauder 11:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely; no double standards, high quality sources throughout.Gleng 12:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to complete the picture on the examples given by Gleng on allegations of dishonesty etc. The vitalism article has had no minority views excluded, and there is no evidence of any attempt to remove minority views. There is only evidence of extensive OR by Gleng, and racist and otherwise incivility and attacks to myself by co-defenders. The majority view is being occluded by a pro-chiropractic pro-vitalistic set of editors who are creating pov forks on the article to remove any majority view that vitalism is a dead, pseudoscientific, or discredited concept. It is indeed a good example for the tendentious editing of a group who wishes to see a pefectly NPOV compliant editor (myself) dismissed as disruptive, a pathalogical liar, or tendentious editor who deserves no assumption of good faith whatsoever. Your intense scrutiny of the said example is absolutely welcome. I believe it will help this proposal. KrishnaVindaloo 04:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps "sez you" is not the most polite response, but it is striking to note that Mechanism (philosophy), its opposite, is much better written (particularly in its first graf) and doesn't even have a discussion page yet. It's hard to say whether this reflects more the pseudoscience angle, or the desire to reduce the topic strictly to one of science. In any case, I do not think we can formulate an editing rule under the aegis of Wikipedia:Expert Retention that is going to work for this particular topic, because it could be argued that the experts at this particular point are philosophers, not scientists. Mangoe 11:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Tendentious is not an appropriate label for the "characteristics" of the problem editor. Probably, Outlaw would be a better term, given that we have in mind a set of "laws" that include NPOV, NOR, V, RS, NPA, . . . . And this particular policy page is merely attempting to state that an admin has the authority to block an Outlaw the next time the Outlaw breaks the "laws"--given that the Outlaw has already demonstrated an established pattern of "outlawry." Perhaps, the title of this page should be some eloquent version of "Editors_blockable_on_the_next_violation" where the definitions of what the Outlaw is violating will be found in the NPOV, NOR, V, RS, NPA, . . . pages. Is it something like that? --Rednblu 12:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Obviously you're not serious. So are you trolling, or just trying to be funny? Disrutive is accurate and does just fine. FeloniousMonk 14:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Move to disruptive editing

I have moved this and edited it to see how it would look. Please take a look at this and see if the intended purpose is not served. Fred Bauder 14:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Good move in my opinion. Much improved. Though we need as many carrots as we do sticks, this long-standing convention needed to be codified. FeloniousMonk 14:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Much better because "disruptive" is a word any editor can understand while "tendentious" isn't descriptive of the area being addressed. Terryeo 16:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The move should have waited for more consensus, rather than this preemptive strike (which, if I may be frank, is one of the characteristic problem edits). That said, the problem with "disruptive" is that breaking an article free of subculture owning an article and holding to a tendnetious version-- that is "disruptive" too. Mangoe 16:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I dont think so. Anyone making that argument would clearly be wikilawyering, thereby making their tendentiousness all the more obvious. FeloniousMonk 16:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Excellent move. I recommend we strike "tendentious" from the list of wiki-isms we throw around and use "disruptive" instead. Of course what will happen is people will use "WP:DE" instead of "disruptive" as a sign they're part of the in crowd. WAS 4.250 16:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I am to blame for introduction of "tendentious", using in the context of arbitration decisions for aggressive biased editing (which can be substituted for it). It is not a wikism, just a hard word. Fred Bauder 17:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Good move in the right direction, in my opinion, away from the vagueness of tendentious. But I also note with Mangoe above that the word disruptive may be too broad by including editing behavior that we would want to encourage. Accordingly, does "disruptive editing" consist merely of continued violations of what is found in the NPOV, NOR, V, RS, NPA, . . . pages? Or is the "Disruptive editor" policy intended to prohibit some new pattern of editing not defined in NPOV, NOR, V, RS, NPA, . . . pages? --Rednblu 17:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I think we are talking about gross obvious repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree. Fred Bauder 18:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Could we say that explicitly in the "characteristics" section? --Rednblu 18:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
While "tendentious" is not an everyday word, I don't see what is "vague" about it. OED: "adjective – calculated to promote a particular cause or point of view." The article now has to repeatedly use the pejorative word "crank" to clarify what kind of disruption we are talking about. So, IMO, "disruptive" may too general on its own – vandals are disruptive, for example. Colin°Talk 15:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Aggressive biased editing is an exact synonym for tendentious editing, at least as I use it. Fred Bauder 15:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
May I gently point out that there exists a tendentious point of view which would insist that NPOV be present in every article? The word does not necessarily constrain itself to a bais and can manifest equally as any strongly held purpose. "having a definite purpose, bias or tendency" [13]. I have re-sequenced those 3 terms, but the word "or" says that all 3 are equally manifestations of "tendentiousness". Terryeo 16:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I can see where your argument comes from, but I think you are reading too much into one word from one definition. The root of the word is (as your reference states) tendency. A (poor) analogy might be to say that insisting all government elections are held democratically is a totalitarian insistance. NPOV is core policy and the fact that it applies to all Wikipedia is axiomatic, what defines Wikipedia. The issue with tendentious editors is that they don't accept policy and attempt to redefine Wikipedia to allow them to promote their POV. Colin°Talk 20:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Tendentious means tendency, persistant tendency. A person might be tendentious about presenting a NPOV even when the "other side" was narrowly published. Tendentious behavior, by itself, it is not offensive. Were an editor to follow policy and guideline and be polite and persistant with thier point of view, the editor would not be offensive, is what I'm attempting to communicate. Some of the people who made scientific history were tendentious in the face of religious persecution, for example. The issue seems to be with disruption, rather than with tendentiousness. Terryeo 21:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No good

The nutshell version is no good; it essentially says, "we have policies, and you have to follow them." It's vacuous and justifies business as usual. I predict that the experts will oppose this version; I think simply guts the effort. Mangoe 16:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

That's the whole point. Read between the lines: "This doesn't meet our approval, and we will not let it go to vote. You can chose to save face by going along with the 'consensus' that we are handing down, or go away" 70.51.177.199 16:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps one of you could explain the difference in tone between your posts now and a week ago? A week ago there was community effort toward handling a problem. I remember asking both Scotty and Mangoe, "what problem is being addressed here, can you give me an example" and both replying. There was effort by everyone posting toward handling a problem. There were difficulties yet to resolve. There were hints of "punishment", there were hints that "tendentious" was going to be used even though it was "Wikipedia-speak" and not the common dictionary's definition of the word. Now, suddenly, the tone of the posts has changed. Has the situation being handled changed? What prevents the harmonious work toward a useful project page? Everyone can edit, same as a week ago. Terryeo 16:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this initiative was seen as being in opposition to the cabal, but one of the things the cabal has been doing is devolving responsibility to administrators. Obvious cranks and seriously disruptive editors should not have license to wreak havoc for weeks or months, until there is finally an arbitration case and decision. Fred Bauder 17:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I support the nutshell as it is. Considering a member of the arbcom, Fred Bauder, has been editing the page, has left it as is and is clearly an expert, I think it's safe to declare it good over these objections. I have some small experience in dealing with disruptive editors as well. FeloniousMonk 17:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I really didn't look at it or think hard about it. Being experienced, I've learned to leave introductions and summaries alone. Fred Bauder 17:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Took a hand at it, but feel free to revise. Fred Bauder 17:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
A definite improvement. Thanks for taking time to assist on this, it's been a big help. FeloniousMonk 20:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
It looks fine to me as well. And Fred is quite right regarding the license to wreak havoc until an RfAr is resolved -- cranks tend to take advantage of the time period to gleefully waste the time of productive editors. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
We might explicitly state somewhere in the "Disruptive editing" page what kind of editing on a TalkPage would amount to "Disruption"--other than gross, obvious and repeated violations of WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL of course. Do we intend the phrase "editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors" to apply in the absence of MainPage edits to the arguments an editor makes on TalkPages about what should appear on the MainPage? If we do, then have we clearly defined for TalkPages where the tipping point is between 1) "Productive editing" on TalkPages only using WP:V and WP:RS and 2) "Disruptive editing"? Just some questions about our intentions here. Is the policy text of "Disruptive editing" clear? What do you think? --Rednblu 23:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
For whatever it's worth, User:Jon Awbrey is, in my opinion, an example of someone justifiably banned for talk page disruptive behavior; in spite of expert quality article page edits. WAS 4.250 23:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Good example. Would the current text of the "Disruptive editing" page provide the admins with sufficient authority to be proactive in preventing the harm and disruption in the User:Jon Awbrey case? --Rednblu 23:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, looking at Talk:Graph theory, it doesn't appear to exhibit the behavior discussed in Wikipedia:Expert Retention. I'm not justifying his conduct in saying so, but the argument there seems to be a bunch of experts (or nearly enough so) fighting among themselves. And the article itself suffers from not so much edit creep as from a forced march away from consistent terminology.
I feel that at this point the proposal has been co-opted to a different purpose-- indeed, perhaps to the point of obliterating its original intent. Indeed, the only reasons why this very proposal hasn't been the site of an edit war is that the move cannot be undone. And here I see that a posse has ridden to the rescue a participant in this discussion who Terryeo has a bad history on this very topic. It would be painfully ironic if the proposal should fail because of this, but that is the road I see us taking. Mangoe 02:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't appreciate you're hiding my username under a link Mangoe, and I expanded your edit to include my username for everyone to read, rather than being hidden in a link. Please be WP:CIVIL. Terryeo 02:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, are you pretending that you have a good history on this topic??? Are you under the impression that the ArbCom decided unanimously to put you under a complete and indefinite topical ban because you have a good record as regards disruptive editing??? If not, then I fail to see why you think it was somehow uncivil for Mangoe to name you as "a participant in this discussion", which you are, without naming you as Terryeo. It's not as if your very pronounced history as a disruptive editor is irrelevant to the fact that you're trying to steer development of policy on disruptive editors. Are you saying that you would have preferred it if Mangoe had said "And now we have Terryeo, who was placed under an indefinite topical ban precisely because he was a disruptive editor"? I suspect that your preferred alternative would actually be to have the fact that your disruptiveness earned you that ban hidden away completely and never referred to, but that is hardly called for by WP:CIVIL. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Which is why I asked for your original intent, Mangoe. So that your original intent could be duplicated, understood and fulfilled. And in being fulfilled, perhaps additional factors (which arise in areas which you don't edit in) might be easily included. Thus, we might arrive at a solid, useable guideline or policy. While I don't understand your strong reaction for my request for your original intention, nor do I understand your pointing to me (I've hardly contributed and barely understand what your original intention was), I'm willing to talk with you. Terryeo 02:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
To be blunt Terryeo, it is a bit hard to take seriously your participation in this discussion. Most people in this disucssion seem to favor some form of this and many seem to favor the current version (and having finally had a chance to read throuhg the discussions on this page, I also favor it). Indeed, dare I say there is almost a self-referrential quality to your attempt to derail this policy? JoshuaZ 03:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Hold on, my friends, can we cool it for a second please? I have two questions.
  1. Are there still strong feelings that this PolicyName should be moved back to "Tendentious editors"?
  2. Would the "Expert retention" problem be addressed sufficiently by having two versions of TechnicalPages, for example 1) Natural selection (expert edition) and 2) Natural selection (public edition) where Natural selection (public edition) would be governed as the Natural selection page is now and the Natural selection (expert edition) would be opened for edit only by those experts that we as a community would elect based on citations to their work in the publications available on PubMed? --So then the reader could judge between the two versions, and, given our community, one version would lead the other. Maybe something like that? At least as an interim measure? What do you think? --Rednblu 04:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
That sort of stuff would be fine on Wikinfo, but has never had any traction here. Here experts and the hoi polloi both edit the same article. A challenge for both. Fred Bauder 18:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Disruptive is clearly better than tendentious, the latter describing a cause, the former its effect. We generally respond to effects, not their causes. The notion of "expert retention" is not central to this guideline. The retention of an expert whose behavior is disruptive enough to come up on the scope because this guideline would probably not want to be retained. Having two versions of articles, expert and public, is antithetical to the project's longstanding spirit of being accessible to anyone. FeloniousMonk 18:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Guideline

Despite the current crop of chronic gainsayers, the majority of the established, credible contributors here appear to support this as a guideline. Considering that it is not establishing a new process but codifying what has been done as a matter of convention for quite some time now, moving to guideline from proposed seems warranted. To that end, I've reinstated Rednblu's placing of the guideline template. FeloniousMonk 04:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Go off Wiki for a day...

and all heck breaks loose.  :)

I was a bit surprised to the the policy moved; however, given that it was moved by Fred (and for the reasons indicated), I'm OK with it. I'm also OK with the document as it now stands as of 07:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC). I do have one comment to make. In a edit summary justifying marking this as {{guideline}}, User:FeloniousMonk noted that this "codifies existing practice". In the experience of many of us at Wikipedia:Expert Retention, that wasn't the case--many cranks managed to disrupt articles for a long time without being dealt with, unless brought before the arbcom. That's why we advanced the proposal in the first place. But now that it is codified; at least we'll have something to refer people to (both editors who need to be explained the error of their ways, and editors who are having to deal with the first kind).

At this point, I'm satisfied with the result; though I've one more question--mainly for the admins and policy experts around here: Is there any reason that this should be promoted to policy; or is guideline sufficient for it to be largely effective? The difference between the two is sometimes difficult to grasp.

--EngineerScotty 07:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

In practical terms, the question is whether you can put this on Wikipedia:Blocking policy and keep it there. I see two problems: blocking people who might come around and be productive editors if given a chance and labeling people as "cranks" in an unkind way. We need to be as compassionate as possible. Fred Bauder 12:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, swift changes here. Most of them look good to me and I'm glad to see the meat-and-potatoes of the proposal is at guideline level now. Thank you. One thing that concerns me is use of the word "crank." During the draft phases the editors had compromised on "tendentious" because it's somewhat less off-putting. I'd be willing to accept some other replacement, but introducing "crank" to editing discussions seems counterproductive. Durova 16:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

"disruptive editor"? WAS 4.250 17:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, crank is an appropriate English word to describe the social dynamics of the situation. In English, a crank is merely an eccentric, that is, someone different from the consensus, especially someone who is zealous. Accordingly, I suggest subdividing this section with 1) Wikipedia definition of crank, 2) If you think you are dealing with a crank, here is what you do (this section is already there), and 3) If the consensus is calling you a "crank," here is what you do. This third section is an opportunity for giving the "crank" a safe harbor for operating productively with WP:V and WP:RS. This third section might begin with something like the following. If the consensus repeatedly calls you a "crank," you have an increased duty to follow WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:V, and WP:RS even when you think the consensus flagrantly violates all rules. If you really do have something important to say and the consensus keeps calling you a "crank," then you must take responsibility and have compassion for the long and arduous learning it will take for the consensus to understand the WP:V and WP:RS that you present. And, as I have said many times above, these comments are only about eventual opportunities and should not hold up anything such as the "Disruptive editor" policy that would make the jobs of the admins easier and more effective. --Rednblu 18:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you try that out? Then we can see what it looks like. Might take some of the edge off. Fred Bauder 20:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
We have two problems: (1) The change to retitle "disruptive" is, IMO, too general and so needs some additional adjective to describe somone excessively pushing a (usually minority) POV. (2) The use of the word crank may fall foul of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. It is also, I think, not general enough. Consider someone pushing non-mainstream but widely held beliefs – they would not be considered a crank by the general population. An example, would be homeopathy, which most scientists agree is bollocks but is so widely accepted by the public that it is available on the NHS. (If this example offends, please accept my apologies). Another issue with this pejorative word is that the person may (as whole) be quite a rounded individual. They have just come unstuck over some particular aspect of an article. So I'd favour some word or phrase that described their editing style rather than their personal failings. Colin°Talk 21:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Just a thought; rather than crank, why not just work in terms related to edits, such as majority, minority and fringe? KrishnaVindaloo 01:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Distinguishing two species of "dislikeable" editing

I'm new to editing Wiki this year. I've already had two kinds of experience which seem relevant to this very interesting discussion.

Case A: I've been pursued by someone I would term a "crank editor," who uses abusive language, reverts without explanation, repeatedly ignores attempts at discussion by simply reiterating hirs view as a kind of "nonnegotiable demand", disregards admin input, and some other things. After quite a few attempts to deal with the matter one-on-one in what I, at least, perceive to be a patient way (after, alas, a brief detour into revert-warring, for which I apologized), I placed the issue on RfC--thinking it would be best to start out by treating this as a content dispute, deferring the question of editor conduct until that aspect had been commented upon by someone neither hse or I. No response in more than a week; the individual has now spread his activities to a second article to which I have contributed edits. Here again, an ostensible content dispute (which certainly strikes me as crackpottery; then again, one always thinks oneself to be the sane one) broached via inappropriate, uncivil behavior.

Case B: I did some editing on a completely unrelated topic. There was some criticism, some back-and-forthing, a few moments of heat edging toward incivility--and yet the discussion repeatedly righted itself and there was a good deal of reasonable compromise between the parties.

Now it seems to me that this proposal is aimed at a certain challenge, namely how to address the difficulties caused by the kind of editor found in my Case A, without stultifying those in my Case B. Much of this discussion seems to be addressing this basic tension, but in a somewhat oblique manner. Both "sides" are advancing considerations that are not only legitimate and significant, but seem to me absolutely vital; in that failure to "get it right" works against the concept of this big participatory enterprise.

And there is a secondary issue, equally important, sometimes stated, but in danger of being allowed to drift away. My (obviously limited) experience suggests that existing Wiki mechanisms to deal with certain kinds of disruptive editors aren't nimble enough to address an ongoing "Case A situation." There are rules about multiple warnings from admins, a kind of "post it and see if anyone's interested" procedure, exhaust this/that remedy...and so it goes. Editors like myself, who (defeasibly!) feel they have sane, positive, relatively noncontroversial contributions to make, quickly have to deal with rising degrees of frustration and discouragement. Which, I gather, is a situation Wiki specifically and officially seeks to forestall. Persons in my position feel a Case A is, pretty obviously, a "no-brainer" decision that needs to be made with all deliberate speed. I say that because I assume I'd "prevail," obviously. But let's assume I'm in the wrong. Doesn't the very fact that I myself regard this as a no-brainer suggest that someone, namely me, is so off base that some kind of rapid-response correction is justified?

In other words, someone with a degree of offical status needs to glance at a purported developing "problem" and be able to say: "Here's what I see, it's obvious who's running wild and who isn't, and I'm putting it on the fast-track for some kind of action." Do note--it's very relevant--that this kind of thing is much more about edit behavior than about the specifics of disputed content: even though persistently inserting/deleting page content from a "crackpot" perspective is valid evidence of "what kind of person" is involved.

So: to summarize my views and make suggestions:

1) Focus on how to distinguish between the two kinds of editor, the "useful controversialist" vs. the "disruptive contrarian." 2) Come up with a quick, straightforward mechanism that protects against the latter without inhibiting the former... 3) --which probably means finding a subgroup of admins specifically committed to attending to a page, separate from existing RfC and so forth, upon which such possible cases are posted. 4) Immediately edit-blocking a specific editor (and puppets) with respect to a specific page or topic will usually be the solution (not always). 5) The "usual methods" could then be engaged for a slower consideration of the issue if the blockee so desires. 6) And note that what is rapid is the response to the problem. It comes about, not instantly on the basis of one or two incidents, but upon considering a pattern of edit behavior.

Here's hoping I've helped. Doxmyth 20:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. I certainly know that putting up a Requests for Comments and no one takes an interest is frustrating. Having a policy which permits blocking of aggressively biased crank editing is one thing. Actually dealing with an individual is quite another. For one thing, the situation has to attract the attention of small group who have the time and interest to look into it. Requiring that they be "uninvolved" is in itself a problem; they have to get up to speed as to what's going on and then come to an agreement. So how should someone who is having a problem of this nature ask for help? Do we need a special page or will Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents do? Fred Bauder 20:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is best as a general "Help me someone!" page. Other pages have been created and notices put there get ignored. Forcing categorization of type of disruption or disruption as a seperate type of incident is too much rule making. More TLAs we won't know, Fred. WAS 4.250 21:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Doxmyth says "all deliberate speed" and "some kind of rapid-response correction is justified" and "fast-track" and "Immediately edit-blocking" and "what is rapid is the response to the problem. It comes about, not instantly on the basis of one or two incidents, but upon considering a pattern of edit behavior." I don't think consensus of noninvolved editors can be as timely as you indicate. You have to find people who care, they have to evaluate the situation, they have to decide if they have a consensus. Ping a few people and talk pages about an issue and do other stuff for a month works wonders. If nothiong happens, try it again and wait another month. Trying to get your way immediately no matter how right you are works poorly in a consensus environment. WAS 4.250 21:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
That's about where we got on this train. The testimony of the various experts which got us down the path indicated a problem in clamping down on the tendentious cranks: namely, that it was turned into a chore for anyone who resisted them, because it now appears to require too much process. That's why I've been turned to opposing this.
Along the way I proposed a "burden of proof" standard under which the cranks could get shut down quickly. It got merged into this proposal, and now it's gone entirely. It seems to me that if we don't write something that gets the problem people closed down more quickly, there's little point in writing anything. And as to the rehabilitation issue: whether or not these people can be rehabilitated, it seems to me more prudent to bet on the contributions of the knowledgeable contributors who are otherwise being driven away. Mangoe 23:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the missing element is an administrator who is willing to take the lead and mobilize around the issue presented by the individual crank, a prosecutor, if you will. We need to encourage and support administrators who do this well. As to rehabilitation, as has been recently pointed out on citizendium-l my early editing can fairly be characterized as crank editing (I really like original research). Patience with problem editors pays off. We can't simply throw everyone off who gives a professor a hard time. Fred Bauder 00:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Why don't you run that "burden of proof" standard by us again. I didn't see that. Fred Bauder 00:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
There are a few bases to cover here. I'll start with Mangoe because of long-term contributions to the proposal: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence already places the burden of proof on the person who wants information in an article. What makes me wary of getting too procedure-oriented over that is because sometimes it could be reasonable for information to remain while editors seek sources. Talk:Hippie is a good example (go check out the ongoing RfC there for details). While I'm all for verification, it seems more disruptive than productive if someone summarily deletes uncontroversial material until other editors source it. If there are other important elements from Wikipedia:Burden of proof got lost then please raise them.
Doxmyth, there are a few other ways besides RfC to garner outside opinions. Maybe this guideline should name them or link to them for newish editors who aren't familiar with Wikipedia. A combination of WP:30 and Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts can supplement RfC.
Regarding "crank" as a term, one example where I wouldn't feel right applying that is at Talk:Charun where one editor has been disruptive over scholarship that doesn't meet WP:V, but that would probably be fine for a university term paper. Wikipedia policy just doesn't allow reasonable inference. Even in a case that is blatant crankery it could go over as name calling - just as it's bad form to cite WP:DICK in a dispute. Durova 02:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Unless I'm just misunderstanding Wiki process, one problem with pinging admins on their Talk Pages is that I'm concerned that this is viewed as "canvassing" or in a sense trying to recruit and mobilize favored admins to ride to the rescue of one's position--ie, "judge shopping". I've now done it a little, but...no response, and I'm concerned that it looks like I'm gaming the system. I should add that I'm not unwilling to take things in a slow and measured way: the joker in the deck is that the problem has now spread to a second page. Anyway, yes to Fred Bauder's suggestion above. And--I too am a rehabilatee here! Doxmyth 02:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Not sure if I read that comment correctly - the guideline recommends reporting to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard rather than individual admins' talk pages if problems continue after impartial consensus has formed. As I understand the consensus from the draft stages, we sought to establish some baseline that would merit administrator intervention (short of ArbCom) that would be resistant to attempts at misuse. The best we came up with was a consensus of uninvolved editors. While no solution is perfect, editors agreed that most of the time this would protect rules-abiding Wikipedians from frivolous accusations and give well-meaning but misled editors a fair chance to adjust without punitive action. Another advantage (less discussed, but of interest to admins) is that it would offer an appropriate defense in case an admin who issued a block got accused of misconduct by a disruptive editor. Durova 05:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor editing problem (inappropriate link)

Under item 6 in the section on Dealing with disruptive crank editors is "Possible topic ban..." with a link to Wikipedia:Community probation. That article doesn't address topic bans. A search in Wikipedia and Wikipedia Talk space found no obvious article on topic bans; although a number of cases in which they were imposed or recommended turned up.

Does anyone know the appropriate link? --SteveMcCluskey 13:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community probation indeed addresses topic bans. The first official community topic ban, "Mccready is issued a 30 day community probation related to Pseudoscience articles," is listed there. FeloniousMonk 15:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


Should this be included?

I found this passage somewhere on the project, and felt it might help here.

Disruption has an amorphous definition that can be construed to fit the need of a blocking administrator. While this of course has been and can be abused, it is also necessary for blocking users who are damaging to the community. WP:IAR spawned the ability to block for disruption, as we cannot define a certain action as 'disruption', but it can only be interpreted as such.

Should it be included? FeloniousMonk 15:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

A consensus of uninvolved Wikipedians agreeing that someone's edits constitute persistent violations of fundamental policies is how "disrupton" is defined in the context of this guideline. WAS 4.250 15:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Some possible terms

As some of the above discussion involved finding just the right term, and there was at least a little questioning of "tendentious" and "disruptive", here are three notions-- (1) the contentious editor (who is argumentative and quarrelsome), (2) the oppositional editor (who defines his editing tasks in terms of opposition rather than consensus-seeking, suggested by the psych term oppositional personality disorder), (3) the bad-apple editor (because sometimes a colloquialism really does say it best). Doxmyth 19:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The philosopher in me loves your distinctions. The pragmatist in me prefers the operational definition I gave above. We aren't defining reality here; only trying to supplement common sense. WAS 4.250 19:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
We've brainstormed a lot in the effort to find the best term for this. None of the proposals has really gained enthusiastic acceptance yet. I'm open to new ideas. So far they've tended to have one or more of the following drawbacks:
  • Too vague: the term isn't specific to rulebreaking behavior.
  • Too adversarial: stigmatizes rulebreaking editors.
  • Too obscure: a typical reader might not understand the reference because it's too intellectual or too idiomatic or just idiosyncratic.
Durova 20:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Some things just don't boil down to one word. It's ok to use sentences. WAS 4.250 20:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
"Disruptive, Tendentious Editors" ? Terryeo 21:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
A term could be a short phrase, of course. Then again, sometimes the wording people just settle on turns out to be the best: the famous final line of Some Like it Hot is, "Well, nobody's perfect." To anyone who hears the rest of the scene it's a howler. Durova 21:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Disruptive_editing/Archive_1&oldid=1142511387"