Line 439: | Line 439: | ||
::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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APseudoscience&diff=74928207&oldid=74921294] 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? [[User:KrishnaVindaloo|KrishnaVindaloo]] 04:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC) |
::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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APseudoscience&diff=74928207&oldid=74921294] 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? [[User:KrishnaVindaloo|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 [http://www.aasect.org/PDFs/June%2006%20CS%20-%20FINAL.pdf]; the relevant issue is not on the on-line archive. I checked every paper listed in the ISI author search [http://portal.isiknowledge.com/portal.cgi?DestApp=WOS&Func=Frame&Init=Yes&SID=R1FF514O8fJcab23gc4] 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 [http://www.meritcare.com/guidebook/directories/info.aspx?id=626] 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 editors[[User:Gleng|Gleng]] 08:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Food for thought: Persistence and minority dissent== |
==Food for thought: Persistence and minority dissent== |
Revision as of 08:32, 15 September 2006
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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Does this discussion of other issues mean the editors here accept my definition of a tendentious editor? Durova 18:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
- I second that. >Radiant< 16:21, 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.
- I've copied some content over (trimming it quite a bit--essays have greater license for verbosity than does policy), but there is still quite a bit left. --EngineerScotty 19:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- WP:BAN already discusses "partial bans". Perhaps the need being addressed in this proposal might be met within existing mechanisms. 192.75.48.150 16:42, 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)
- That article simply describes mechanisms. The issue here is grounds for action. Mangoe 16:53, 11 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- (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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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."
- http://www.synonym.com/synonym/tendentious ->Partisan
- http://www.synonym.com/synonym/partisan -> Guerilla (like that one),underground, irregular (nope), one-sided, biased, sectarian, zealot (maybe), enthusiast
- Perhaps a contrapositive that implies action...
- http://www.synonym.com/antonym/partisan -> nonpartisan, independant
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
- Guerilla, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/guerilla . More widely known, general negative connotations. Electrawn 04:20, 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)
- No, that the editor thinks he is an intellectual, or is engaging in such pursuits. --EngineerScotty 04:55, 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)
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
- Per the discussion above. Durova 16:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Neutral
- Either the current name or the proposed one are OK with me; better ideas are still welcome. --EngineerScotty 16:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
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.
- 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)
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.
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.
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)
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:
- continued non-productive disruption harms Wikipedia's goal more than it helps and therefore administrators may block such an editor ... Terryeo 17:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)