Wikipedia talk:Infestation

The idea

This policy is proposed in a nutshell for cases of forum infestations where many people with similar views gather together to push systematic bias.

An infamous case is the Greek/Macedonian conflict.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 07:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree

I'm sorry; I can't agree with any proposal that attempts to address vote packing. I object on several grounds:

I favor the action of getting out the vote on an issue. Naturally, editors -- by definition, activists on an issue -- will attempt to get out the vote that is favorable to their own views. This is human nature. Consensus is found in the interplay of biases, not the cold-blooded meeting of totally impartial neutrons, while those with opinions are locked out of the discussion. It's important that we be civil and respect others' opinions. If you feel an activist is effective in getting out a vote favorable to his bias, then I suggest you make an effort to get out a vote favorable to yours.

I don't agree that blatant vote packing is particularly effective. By "blatant", I mean something that goes beyond contacting editors who may be favorable. Perhaps a highly biased demand for support is placed on a number of talk pages of users who don't have an existing relationship with either the issue or the activist. I rely on the good common sense of editors in general to cause this effort to backfire. In any given case it may appear successful; but on the average, I believe, it lacks credibility.

Even assuming that, in the worst case, an activist is able to subvert process by so-called vote packing, I don't see that we can ever have an effective policy against it. By its very nature, an accusation of vote packing is highly contentious. Simply making the charge is enough to cause the fur to fly. Given that the charge will almost certainly be dropped into an already-divisive debate, it borders on irresponsibility. We do not need to do anything to support such charges.

Perhaps the most difficult part of participating in policy issues here is losing. This happens; to some of us it happens often; to all of us it happens sometimes. It's important to remember that nothing here is a big deal; nothing is graven in stone; prior versions are stored in history and even deleted pages are archived. Nearly every action can be undone; and of course anything can be redone. So there's never any need for an editor to strap himself to a tree and dare the bulldozers. It's better to wait and re-raise the issue at a more favorable time.

When we lose an argument it is a great temptation to cry "foul". Indeed, the opposition may have been underhanded. But we need to move on. There are better ways to deal with controversy and opposing views than to attempt to label our opponents as unworthy of the right to participate. John Reid 13:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed policy has nothing to do with votes. It is more about forum infestations as in 10 friends gather around and edit articles in a group effort establishing their "biased" concensus and disregarding everyone else. This behaviour is disrupive.

I am not sure what the heck are you refering to regarding me loosing, last time I checked wikipedia was not a battleground with winners and loosers. I havent labeled anyone unworthy of anyhthing.

I have absolutely no reason to wait. I am not concerned with wiki-politics. I am here to help create an encyclopedia, not to satisfy a cabal. I am an engineer not a politician.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also am an engineer, and while I understand your Bones-like reaction, anyone who chooses to become a Wikipedian and wants to avoid politics must either confine himself to subjects with an agreed-upon standard of proof, or to non-controversial ones. There is a lot of work to be done on engineering and mathematics topics, as well as well-settled historical questions that don't excite passions if you so choose.

Politics is neither more nor less than the art of reaching decisions in concert with those who have divergent goals, beliefs and interests. Wikipedia has a structure for doing this. It is far from perfect, but it works astonishingly well most of the time.

I agree with comments below that this proposal as stated is redundant with Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Advertising and soliciting meatpuppets. The issue of a small group of highly-commited editors' being able to dictate an article to a larger number of less-committed editors is termed by some people an asymmetric controversy, and is a problem.

In each case, the ideal is to bring in a broader set of editors, and that is what a WP:RfC was designed to do. Unfortunately, it now seems to be used mostly as a first-step to an RfA. Perhaps it needs to be split. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, and this policy is ment to be a crieria to be cited as evidence of "disruptive behaviour" on rfcs. I would not expect mass blocks just because of this policy. This isn't as strict as the 3rr. I also believe RfC to be most useless, it just has no teeth. You cant block someone over an RfC.

The problem with that is that 'sockpuppets' are infact the same person. A person is not a sockpuppet unless confirmed and sometimes a checkuser can be inconclusive.

On the other hand 'Infestation' is commited by different people who share same ideas with minor differences who make a joint effort to push systematic bias oon a number of articles. A combination of vote stacking and article dictation results in what I'd call infestation.

This is parallel to many policies, but I do not believe this concern has been approporately addressed even though it can be interpreted from existing policies. I just feel it is necesary to spell it out directly.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; when I read this I thought it was another version of Wikipedia:Vote Stacking. It's really about comment packing, though; right? John Reid 20:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I copy pasted stuff on Vote Stacking to copy the format (I am lazy yes). You are somewhat right, this policy is a side order of Vote stacking. They compliment each other... --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heck no

WP:BITE says "Do not use disparaging terms for newcomers". Calling them an "infestation" is certainly disparaging.

It's easy to see newcomers who arrive en masse from another site as a faceless mob, but every single one of those people is being introduced to the editing side of Wikipedia individually, and some of those individuals can become good editors.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BITE is to prevent biting of individuals, not masses. I have no objection to newbies.

faceless mob aka a forum infestation is NOT welcome. In other words if a group of people arive to enforce NPOV (pushing bias in the process) thats very very problematic. This policy is against such cases.

I have objection to newbies and oldies that talk alike, vote alike, and edit alike... monopolising articles...

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also newbies will not ever be good editors if there is no polciy explaining that dominating articles as a group as a very very bad practice. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 09:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to change this proposal to a redirect to Wikipedia:Vote stacking, but then I realized, I don't WANT this term being used, and it's not appropriate for this idea to redirect there. This is totally redundant, in content, with WP:MEAT and WP:VS, just less civil. Mangojuice 17:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't about votes. If you have an alternative word, feel free to suggest it. Infestation is a perfectly civil word. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infestation is a word used pretty exclusively of vermin and disease: one speaks of a malaria-infested swamp or a rat infested warehouse. Such terms are considered fighting words in most places, and fighting words are incivil by definition. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you feel that way...

Do you have an alternative suggestion? How about 'Comment Packing'? I kinda like that one though I have to admit it does sound a bit odd.

I really would prefer us to discuss the product (policy) rather than the marketing strategy (name of the policy)

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are your trying to prohibit?

I'm not sure what to call it, but let's use "infestation" for the nonce.

Let's consider a hypothetical edit war over Richard III of England -- an historical figure about which there is much debate. Which of the following behaviors would constitute an infestation? I will assume everyone has sources for their POV, claims that their position represents scholarly consensus, Wikipedia consensus or both, that no one uses sockpuppets, and everyone denies being a meatpuppet.

User Alpha edits the article to completely include the many crimes attributed to Richard.
User Beta, who has previously edited the article, reverts them to a mere mention and a probability of exculpation.
User Gamma, who has never edited the article before, changes to exculpate Richard of all wrongdoing, including the Princes in the tower.
User Beta asks for support in the revert war from Delta, Epsilon and Zeta, all of whom edit articles on the history of England, but some of whom have never edited this article.
Users Eta, Theta, Iota, Kappa, and Lambda all pile in on Alpha's side, with similar details.
Users Mu, Nu, Omicron and Xi pile in on Gamma's side, same thing.
Eventually, users Pi through Omega (nine more users, thirteen in all) pile in to support some version that looks like the status quo ante bellum.

Now, who is guilty of infestation? Robert A.West (Talk) 22:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For one, revert wars are disruptive and should be avoided.

For second, wikipedia is not censored and all notable views if presented in a neutral tone is welcome. So by providing biased info (assuming it is biased) one of your groups is violating NPOV. The other group by 'censoring' is violating WP:NOT [censored]. This can also happen through a sub-artcile.

For third, this policy intends to discourage such incidents. Wikipedia is not a battleground where two brigades of editors clash. We have to coexist. Great articles are written through cooperation not conflict. So my verdict is all sides are wrong and are guilty for not cooperating and instead waging a [revert] war.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 05:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I never said anything about a "revert war". I mentioned one reversion (Beta's). The problem is that there are three irreconcilable views that about what the scholarly consensus is:

Alpha's view is that the consensus is the tradition represented by Shakespeare, a view rejected by somewhere around 95% of modern scholars. It is entitled to a small mention, but his edit gave undue weight.
Beta reverted to a version that was already pretty good NPOV. There is already a separate article on the one noteworthy crime of which Richard is suspected by modern scholars, and the disagreement is mentioned in the status quo article with a link.
Gamma is taking the opportunity to push a substantial, respectable POV as if it were consensus.

So, what is Beta supposed to do? About all he can do is to ask for the help of the other scholarly editors who are interested in the period to show up and demonstrate a Wiki-consensus about what the scholarly-consensus is. This is not an unreasonable or uncommon example. There are a lot of articles that are pretty good NPOV now, that are periodically afflicted by what a friend of mine calls, "People of one book." The position may deserve a small mention (is often already mentioned), but the new editors, having read their book or attended their seminar, want to give it undue weight. A "compromise" that makes the article less NPOV is hardly a good idea for Wikipedia. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that your proposal for a set of POV sub-articles is deprecated by WP:NPOV. I should also add that the opposite does happen occasionally. A group of editors, with a reasonable handle on what the scholarly consensus is, band together to improve an article that strongly POV, and that is likely to be defended by a small group of editors who "know the truth." What is your proposed alternative? Robert A.West (Talk) 17:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"with a reasonable handle" is the key word. This policy is intended for mobs without a reasonable handle. What is reasonable is an entierly different debate I would rather not get induldged in.

I do believe you are not sugesting we should accept that "earth is flat" just because some wierd religious group of newbies (all 27 of them) determines that as the concensus? This was a hypotetical scenario pointing out an obvious case where this policy would apply. How many people can you gather against 27 problematic people? I dont believe we need to inconviniance 28 good wikipedia editors to handle a crisis that could be dealt with much sqiftly. This article does not prohibit help but on the contrary it exists to help out.

Consensus is stuff like the distance between the Earth and the Sun. Verifiable information can be concensus. This policy is against artificial consensus imposed on articles such as personal feelings of people (against a topic), their beliefs on a certain topic (AKA their POV) that wouldn't be remotely considered as 'concensus' if a mob wasn't campaigning for them.

This policy exists to deal with problematic behaviour not to inconviniance people editing in good faith. This policy is against a 'mob' pushing pov.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a policy against that. Read WP:Consensus#Consensus vs. other policies. What would this new policy add? How would it be enforced? How would we know when it has been violated? I believe this policy would end up being either a nullity or unable to tell the difference between the fire brigade and the fire. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

How are you going to enforce this? And how are you going to prove that users are guilty of infestation? --Osbus 02:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a group is owning an article, or if few 'groups' (alliances) are clashing on an article waging a revert war, I'd think we wouldn't be hesitant to call in a peace effort. On such cases pages are protected as per 'common sense' but without policy basis. Not that I object the action of protecting such nonsense, I would think it would be easier for admins if the 'protection' had some policy basis.

This is something that is somewhat enforced but only after things get really bad. The intention is to get sides cooperating. Another intention is to flush people who are only 'participating' to push their view (and supressing other views in the process) or someone elses view just to cause conflict (trollling).

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 08:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making this thing policy won't help cooperation any. You intend for it to used as a last resort, but people in a heated conflict are going to see it as "the last resort" early on. Then you'll have people accusing each other of "infestation" (or "comment packing", or whatever) and adding to the hostility which was already there.

The correct policy to apply is NPOV. If the NPOV is truly neutral, it won't change based on who is editing the article. Edit wars that occur on the way there can be handled with existing policies against edit warring. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Systematic bias is hard to deal with and its quite nasty. Since comment packing is not welcome, I dont see the problem. Existing policies do not cover systematic reverting etc. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they do. Reversion of edits by a group is mentioned by WP:3RR as specifically not a violation of policy, rather it may be evidence of consensus. Obviously, if something can be done to improve the article, it should be done, but there are times when there is nothing redeeming about a particular set of edits. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EXACTLY my point, it doesnt cover such problematic behaviour (infact it encourages it unintentionaly). If 27 nutcases declared earth as flat and revert war for it, I doubt we are going to keep the article that way. So why is it so difficult to establish that bad behaviour in a policy.--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have an epistemological disagreement. You seem to be saying that it should be against policy to form a temporary supermajority in violation of NPOV. That is already against policy. I am saying that Wikipedia's only mechanism for detecting NPOV is consensus (or functional consensus in the form of a supermajority), and that this policy adds nothing to prohibit a bad consensus, but could act to preserve one. Objectivist vs pragmatist? Robert A.West (Talk) 20:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as bad concensus. There is always one concensus which diferent sides of an argument can agree up on. If KKK members (that 27 new editors) decide to rewrite African American in an extremely racist tone, that doesnt mean the concensus agrees that all African Americans should be rounded up and shot. Current wikipedia policies only encourage this behaviour. It can be said that the best way to push pov is to do so by gathering 20 friends. We should openly declare such bheaviour as problematic. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 09:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No disrespect meant, but the word is "consensus" as in "general consent" not "concensus" as in "taking a census". One of my idee fixes is that the etymology of words matters, and in this case I think that the wrong association can actively mislead.Robert A.West (Talk) 18:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for consensus, within Wikipedia it is used to mean at least four distinct things. In each case, a substantial supermajority may have to stand in for a true consensus.

The nearly-universal opinion of respectable scholars. It is consensus in this sense that the Holicaust happened or that tobacco use causes cancer, the KKK and hired-gun scientists aside.
The nearly-universal opinion of serious Wikipedians about Wikipedia. Among this consensus is the belief that Wikipedia articles should be verifiable and NPOV. Part of NPOV is that articles must relate consensus #1 when it exists.
The nearly-universal opinion of the subset of Wikipedians who are editing a particular article.
The hypothetical opinion that the Wikipedia community at large would have about an article, if everyone voiced their opinion.

Of these, only consensus type #3 can be measured with any certainty. Yes, it is obvious to you and me that the KKK position is anti-consensus #1, but what we do in practice, and about all we can do unless Wikipedia estabishes a TruthCom, is to form a consensus #3 about what consensus #1 is. If someone thinks that a consensus #3 fails to reflect consensus #1 or consensus #2, the proper thing to do is to start an RfC. This gets more people involved. If this method works, there is no need for a new rule. If this method does not work, what is your proposed method of enforcing the new rule? Robert A.West (Talk) 18:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more point of disagreement: Of course there can be a bad consensus of each type. For centuries there was a consensus (#1) that bleeding the patient was good treatment for nearly everything. Was that good? If at some future date Wikipedia became 90% KKK, would the resulting policies be good? Your example about 27 new editors of the article does not cease to be a local consensus until editors show up to oppose it. It is still a bad consensus. A quality decision-making process cannot ensure quality results unless the decision makers are infallible. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involvement of new editors

I have seen at least one new editor who joined wikipedia from another forum as part of what amounted to an attempt at votestacking. As a result, that user became a productive useful Wikipedian. This policy would strongly discourage that sort of thing from occuring. And "infestation" is just an awful term. It would be hard to invoke this policy without violating WP:CIVIL. JoshuaZ 20:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice of him/her. We are however trying to discourage the "votestacking"/"commentstacking" part. Please do not treat newbies as if they are the best thing since sliced bread. This policy would strongly discourage that (votestacking/commentstacking) sort of thing from occuring, something you agree as bad. This policy would discourage people who disregard wikipedia policies such as 3rr.

If you dont like the make up (name) suggest an alternative.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 08:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppets

Wouldn't this policy be better made as a minor extension of this other policy, which already states that it is acceptable to treat the "mob" of new editors as if they are a bunch of sockpuppets? –Tifego^(t)_{08:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

This policy isn't limited to new users but old ones. Forumers sometimes prefer to have 100 etc minor edits and then voice opinion. Assume cases such as a number of old wikipedians gathering and making highly disruptive (biased or not) edits.

That policy does not cover such cases this policy is a more general case.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 13:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be highly interested in an example where at least 3 people have come from a forum, made over 50 (not even 100) edits and then voiced an opinion somewhere. JoshuaZ 13:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dealt with a case much like this on several articles related to Kurds:

Aucaman, Diyako, Heja helweda seems to share pov and vote, edit, talk acordingly.
Their actions often self contradict:
- Voting keep an article explaining/establishing Kurds with an Iranian genetic origin
- Replacing "Iranian" referance with Indo-European.
I am not facinated with the nature of the dispute but the panic voting and copycating edits in a 'harmonious' manner is quite disruptive. It is merely a colition against people who dont share the same pov. One of them edits about a topic and others back him/her up while another edits another topic. It successfully dominates multiple articles.

I am trying to discourage group efforts to push bias as well as other similar disruptive behaviour. I do not believe I can label the editors in question as "meatpuppets" of each other since they are not new.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree that labeling people as "meatpuppets" rarely helps anything, but a policy like this won't help that situation either. Everyone would just invoke the policy whenever they see a group of users doing something they disagree with. You've got a content dispute with those users, so start an RfC. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]