Wikipedia talk:Civil POV pushing

What's all this talk about PCCTL?

Da Costa's syndrome

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

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

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 Of course, the condition is entirely superseded, so most of the refs are from before most editors were born.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion - addressing POV problems

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

F: Yeah. So what?

Good question; see below.

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

F: Correct.

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

GTB: Regardless of one's opinion on that question, there are going to be different strategies.

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

Well, I'm pretty much in agreement there.

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

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

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

GTBacchus: 'I was brought into this whole discussion because I saw people saying that "the community is obsessed with civility" and that what we need is more people "willing to call a spade a spade"'

No one in this discussion, either on the talk page or on the main page, has used the expressions quoted above, so I'm not sure how it is that you were "brought into this whole discussion" because people were saying these things. Perhaps you have this discussion mixed up with another one. Your post is the only place in this discussion where those expressions occur.

The discussion that formed the main content of these pages was helpful, informative, and positive, IMO, and I'm cautiously encouraged by the recommendations coming out of it, as well as by Jimbo's endorsement. At least there's an acknowledgement that someone is paying attention and is supportive of finding a real solution to a real problem. The post-discussion that started with section 25 has added nothing useful to the discussion, IMO, and I regret my part in it. I was exasperated by a failure to move beyond an obsession with the word "civil" toward some actual suggestions of solutions to the real problems that beset us, but I shouldn't have let my exasperation get the better of me. I apologize to the editors who have done such a good job of articulating and exploring the problem here. Thank you.Woonpton (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Woonpton, thanks for your comments. When I said I was brought into "this whole discussion", I'm definitely referring to a larger scope than this page. The comments that brought me to this issue were made at an RfC a couple of months ago, where editors who are active on this page said precisely the things that I quoted. If I've seemed obsessed with talking about civility versus incivility, it's because I have been handed the argument, repeatedly, that incivility is somehow necessary or a good idea, or that our civility policy should be scrapped or at least downplayed. If you never said that, then my comments along those lines have not been directed at you, and I apologize if it seemed that they were. I'm not always the best at articulating precisely what I want to say. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As someone mentioned above, there is an immense amount here, and it might not be possible given assorted constraints to respond to it. I guess I am still waiting to see more concrete examples with real substance. Pretend I am from Missouri. In the meantime, I will keep making what I perceive as potential solutions to attempt and placing them out there for consideration in various venues.--Filll (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Concrete examples of what? So far, I've been trying to ask a few questions, and defending myself against claims that I'm in favor of all manner of nonsense. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Another one bites the dust

For those of you who are so sure that there is no problem here, and that the only thing that needs to be done to fix the problem with POV pushers and pseudoscience and WP:FRINGE beliefs is to really kicking the holy living $#@% out of the pro-science side, I will note that we just lost another pro-science contributor: [1]. Woonpton is gone, and of course Raymond arritt left just a few days before that. They look, they see it is hopeless and they leave with regrets and general disgust. --Filll (talk | wpc) 20:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: "The Problem"

Filll wrote: If you want me to generate "evidence" of your hostility and harassment, it will be in the form of some administrative action. I normally try to avoid those as unproductive.

This reminded me of my recent experience with an RfC on Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs) (currently running). It's about his COI with chess, but as I've encountered problems with him elsewhere, I thought I might comment.

I drafted a "view" for the RfC. I scrapped it for being possibly uncivil -- "I believe Wikipedia would be a better place without this user" is likely to hurt someone's feelings, no matter how true it is, and our definition of civil sometimes seems to have more to do with the Kindergarten playground rules than with the adult definitions.

I drafted another version. I let it sit over night. I scrapped it for being too wordy and possibly unclear on the major point (i.e., that the net effect of a permaban on this user would be positive for the task of writing an encyclopedia).

I started to draft another version. I stopped. I couldn't answer the fundamental question: Why bother?

Nothing ever seems to happen as a result of these things. RfCs languish with a couple of comments and essentially form a convenient place for the principal disputants to carry on their arguments. They seem to close with a "y'all play nice, now" response from some overworked admin. The SPA is never convinced that his/her edits were a problem because so few users comment intelligently. Too few users comment because it seems like a waste of time.

Now perhaps my impression is wrong; perhaps there's a tally somewhere that says "Score: 26 RfC/U started 30 days ago, 19 certified, and 18 closed today: 2 "voluntary" permabans, 6 topic bans, 5 users on 1RR, 7 disputes resolved with professions of love for policy and fellow users, and 1 still pending."

But I kinda doubt it. And when they "work" -- that is, when you go through all the steps and finally, finally get a particularly tendentious editor blocked for more than 30 days -- it takes months and months. For editors who aren't particularly egregious, of course, it frequently just doesn't work.

So with that in mind, I propose that we add the "editors' lack of confidence in the usual procedures" and the references to the inefficiency, slowness, and time-consuming nature of the usual procedures to the section on this page called "The Problem". I'm thinking that it fits just above the ArbComm references.

Are there any objections? Would anyone like to take a stab at adding such a paragraph? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Guido blocked again? I saw his actions on some chess articles, then he jumped into one of his favorite activities, Alternative medicine. He ticked off an admin, who blocked him. There's no need for an RfC, although I do believe there is one lying around about him. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Guido's block expired a few days ago.[2] You are entitled to your own opinion on the matter, but I disagree with your characterization of why he was blocked: I'd say that calling me a liar had something to do with it, for example, and for his persistent inability to figure out that 3RR is not a license to revert three times. I posted the problems at AN/I and presumably the original messages are in the archives at that page. You might choose to read them.

Furthermore, I'm not sure that I've ever seen User:Davidruben behave in a way that suggested that "ticked off" was his reason for blocking anyone. Finally, the block was upheld by three different admins in response to Guido's repeated {{unblock}} requests, which also suggests that it wasn't merely a case of a hotheaded admin.

Guido's RfC is here if you're interested in it; it centers on his addition of books written by himself and/or published by his company to a chess article. His user talk page currently asserts that he intends to focus his efforts on "improving" Wikipedia's guidelines, which presumably accounts for his absence at his previous favorite articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Rotation of "lead" editors

About the following: "Where consensus cannot be attained through normal wiki processes, the arbitration committee can designate "lead" editors who have considerable expertise on that article or topic. Lead editors would be empowered to direct discussion, determine consensus and designate discussions as closed." - I don't think the arbitration committee need to designate such lead editors. Such lead editors should be assigned at random from a pool, and rotated on a regular basis. In theory, it shouldn't matter who is "leading" the current efforts on an article - if the "lead editors" are truly unbiased and objective, the end result should be the same. If, however, different lead editors would end up with different versions of the same article, how do you chose the best lead editor? For example, if Raul took the lead at Global Warming for three months, and then I took the lead for the next three months, but the articles that resulted were substantially different, what would the conclusions be there? Carcharoth (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk page structure

Just a minor point I found when reading the archives, but "we should find a way of structuring article talk pages in a way that makes that kind of behavior less profitable for a POV pusher" (GTBacchus). I agree absolutely. More organisation and structure of talk pages and discussions invariably helps. It also helps if the person doing that organisation is either the "lead" editor, or is relatively uninvolved and merely dedicated to tidying things up and smoothing discussions and helping things on their way. Carcharoth (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

We need people with a POV and mediators

This may be controversial, but I am going to explain here why I think we need people with a POV. I don't mean people who aggressively push their POV and dismiss other POVs, but we do need those who can present a POV, argue to a certain extent for that POV, and opine on what proportion that POV should be present in various articles, and the best way to approach certain articles. In other words, lay and professional subject matter experts with a clear and strong opinion. How to distinguish a cranky subject matter expert from a "POV pusher" is something that should be addressed here. Those here may not like me saying this, but sometimes it is difficult for those looking in from the outside to tell the two apart. We also need those who are not subject matter experts, but who can represent a POV. Distinguishing between those with a strong opinion and those with a closed-POV is something else that should be made clearer. Overall, what is needed is not to reduce civil POV pushing, but to have people who can correctly mediate and judge between different POVs, and help get the balance right in particular articles, and who can listen to different sides when those sides sometimes will not listen to each other. Carcharoth (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)