Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing - Revision history

Remsense: This is a pretty abject essay as they go but semi-dummy edit to clarify that i realized "carte blanche" made no sense there as soon as i hit enter

2024-09-12T04:18:18Z

This is a pretty abject essay as they go but semi-dummy edit to clarify that i realized "carte blanche" made no sense there as soon as i hit enter

← Previous revision		Revision as of 04:18, 12 September 2024
Line 3:		Line 3:
	{{Nutshell\|Civil POV-pushers argue politely and in compliance with Wikipedia civility principles, but also with bad faith, which discourages or upsets the other contributors. In a discussion, blame is often assigned to the person who loses their temper, which is even more frustrating for good-faith contributors trapped in such discussions.}}		{{Nutshell\|Civil POV-pushers argue politely and in compliance with Wikipedia civility principles, but also with bad faith, which discourages or upsets the other contributors. In a discussion, blame is often assigned to the person who loses their temper, which is even more frustrating for good-faith contributors trapped in such discussions.}}

	Wikipedia, and specifically the dispute resolution process, has a difficult time dealing with [[Wikipedia:Civility\|civil]] POV pushers. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee\|Arbitration Committee]] (ArbCom) has a mixed record in dealing with such problem users. The Arbitration Committee has chosen to avoid focusing on content, because admittedly they are not subject experts, and often these issues are complicated enough that knowledge of the topic is necessary to identify pseudoscience, crankery, conspiracy theories, marginal nationalist or historic viewpoints, and the like. (One important reason for this is that oftentimes there is a great deal of misinformation surrounding these topics.) Rather than focusing on content the Arbitration Committee has focused on behavior. The problem is compounded because it often takes the form of long-term behavior that cannot accurately be summarized in a few diffs. As such, the committee has difficulty dealing with "''civil''" POV pushers—editors who repeatedly disregard or [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system\|manipulate]] Wikipedia's content policies but are superficially civil, or not-quite-uncivil-enough to merit sanctions.		Wikipedia, and specifically the dispute resolution process, has a difficult time dealing with [[Wikipedia:Civility\|civil]] POV pushers. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee\|Arbitration Committee]] (ArbCom) has a mixed record in dealing with such problem users. The Arbitration Committee has chosen to avoid focusing on content, because admittedly they are not subject experts, and often these issues are complicated enough that knowledge of the topic is necessary to identify pseudoscience, crankery, conspiracy theories, marginal nationalist or historic viewpoints, and the like. (One important reason for this is that oftentimes there is a great deal of misinformation surrounding these topics.) Rather than focusing on content the Arbitration Committee has focused on behavior. The problem is compounded because it often takes the form of long-term behavior that cannot accurately be summarized in a few diffs. As such, the committee has difficulty dealing with "civil" POV pushers—editors who repeatedly disregard or [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system\|manipulate]] Wikipedia's content policies but are superficially civil, or not-quite-uncivil-enough to merit sanctions.

	As a result of the Arbitration Committee's failure to deal with these issues, the committee has effectively abdicated the responsibility for ensuring [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view\|neutrality]], [[Wikipedia:Verifiability\|verifiability]], and other content standards to a few users (mostly, but not entirely admins) who patrol these articles and attempt to keep them free of disruption. These users are generally very knowledgeable about the subject and committed to Wikipedia's policies on [[Wikipedia:No original research\|proper sourcing]] and [[WP:WEIGHT\|appropriate weight]]. Unfortunately, they tend to burn out. Usually they burn out in one of two ways:		As a result of the Arbitration Committee's failure to deal with these issues, the committee has effectively abdicated the responsibility for ensuring [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view\|neutrality]], [[Wikipedia:Verifiability\|verifiability]], and other content standards to a few users (mostly, but not entirely admins) who patrol these articles and attempt to keep them free of disruption. These users are generally very knowledgeable about the subject and committed to Wikipedia's policies on [[Wikipedia:No original research\|proper sourcing]] and [[WP:WEIGHT\|appropriate weight]]. Unfortunately, they tend to burn out. Usually they burn out in one of two ways:

Remsense: /* Neutrality */ not really sure how "historical revisionism" carte blanche is WP:FRINGE, but the whole list is unneeded

2024-09-12T04:09:03Z

Neutrality: not really sure how "historical revisionism" carte blanche is WP:FRINGE, but the whole list is unneeded

← Previous revision		Revision as of 04:09, 12 September 2024
Line 20:		Line 20:

	===Neutrality===		===Neutrality===
	* They attempt [[WP:WEASEL\|to water down language]], [[Whitewash (censorship)\|whitewash]], unreasonably exclude information, push views beyond the requirements of [[WP:NPOV]], or give [[WP:UNDUE\|undue weight]] to [[WP:FRINGE\|fringe theories]] ~~such as pseudoscience, crankery, conspiracy theories, historical revisionism, etc.~~		* They attempt [[WP:WEASEL\|to water down language]], [[Whitewash (censorship)\|whitewash]], unreasonably exclude information, push views beyond the requirements of [[WP:NPOV]], or give [[WP:UNDUE\|undue weight]] to [[WP:FRINGE\|fringe theories]]
	* They frivolously request [[WP:CITE\|citations]] for [[Wikipedia:Common knowledge\|obvious or well known information]].		* They frivolously request [[WP:CITE\|citations]] for [[Wikipedia:Common knowledge\|obvious or well known information]].
	* They argue endlessly about the [[WP:NPOV\|neutral point of view policy]] and particularly try to undermine the [[WP:WEIGHT\|undue weight clause]]. They try to add information that is (at best) peripherally relevant on the grounds that "it is [[WP:V\|verifiable]], so it should be in".		* They argue endlessly about the [[WP:NPOV\|neutral point of view policy]] and particularly try to undermine the [[WP:WEIGHT\|undue weight clause]]. They try to add information that is (at best) peripherally relevant on the grounds that "it is [[WP:V\|verifiable]], so it should be in".

PBZE: /* Examples */

2024-08-14T07:14:34Z

Examples

← Previous revision		Revision as of 07:14, 14 August 2024
Line 75:		Line 75:
	* [[Cryptocurrency\|Cryptocurrencies]]		* [[Cryptocurrency\|Cryptocurrencies]]
	* [[Coronavirus disease 2019\|COVID-19]]-related topics		* [[Coronavirus disease 2019\|COVID-19]]-related topics
			* [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland\|World War II and the history of Jews in Poland]]
	{{div col end}}		{{div col end}}

Valereee: /* Suggested remedies */ +

2024-05-04T12:49:23Z

Suggested remedies: +

← Previous revision		Revision as of 12:49, 4 May 2024
Line 85:		Line 85:

	==Suggested remedies==		==Suggested remedies==
			* This is a type of behavior that is very easy to do; all it takes is a willingness to spend the time creating the necessary walls of text until the other editor(s) become frustrated, give up in disgust and go away. It is incredibly tedious to prove and almost as tedious to assess because by its very nature it requires many multiple diffs. You simply cannot prove it with 3 or 4; editors assessing the situation would have to then take the complaining editor’s word for it that this was being repeated over the course of a long wall of text. Because of this, complaints of sealioning/civil POV pushing about an editor who has been found to be exhibiting this behavior before should be taken seriously, and such complaints should not be closed until someone has been willing to investigate.
	* Accounts which use Wikipedia [[WP:SPA\|for the sole or primary purpose of advocating a specific agenda]] ''at the expense of core policies and consensus-based editing'' should be warned, restricted, or ultimately blocked by any [[WP:UNINVOLVED\|uninvolved administrator]]. Care should be taken to distinguish ''new'' accounts from those with an established pattern of disruptive single-purpose advocacy. Likewise, this remedy is not meant to apply to editors who work within a narrow range of topics but adhere to Wikipedia's core policies.		* Accounts which use Wikipedia [[WP:SPA\|for the sole or primary purpose of advocating a specific agenda]] ''at the expense of core policies and consensus-based editing'' should be warned, restricted, or ultimately blocked by any [[WP:UNINVOLVED\|uninvolved administrator]]. Care should be taken to distinguish ''new'' accounts from those with an established pattern of disruptive single-purpose advocacy. Likewise, this remedy is not meant to apply to editors who work within a narrow range of topics but adhere to Wikipedia's core policies.
	* Where consensus cannot be attained through normal wiki processes, the Arbitration Committee could 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. However, the Arbitration Committee has done this only very rarely, and there is considerable opposition to it doing it at all: the committee is expected to deal with behavior, not content.		* Where consensus cannot be attained through normal wiki processes, the Arbitration Committee could 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. However, the Arbitration Committee has done this only very rarely, and there is considerable opposition to it doing it at all: the committee is expected to deal with behavior, not content.

Nutez: Undid revision 1221791293 by Thebiguglyalien (talk) – still incredibly relevant

2024-05-02T19:52:53Z

Undid revision 1221791293 by Thebiguglyalien (talk) – still incredibly relevant

← Previous revision		Revision as of 19:52, 2 May 2024
Line 50:		Line 50:
	Topics affected by this problem include:		Topics affected by this problem include:
	{{div col\|colwidth=30em}}		{{div col\|colwidth=30em}}
			* [[Creation–evolution controversy\|Evolution/creationism]] and [[intelligent design]]
	* [[Alternative medicine]]		* [[Alternative medicine]]
			* [[Global warming]]
	* [[Nationalism\|Nationalist]] issues		* [[Nationalism\|Nationalist]] issues
	* [[Parapsychology]]		* [[Parapsychology]]
			* The [[September 11 attacks]]
	* [[Race (human classification)\|Racial]] topics		* [[Race (human classification)\|Racial]] topics
	* [[Caste]]-related topics		* [[Caste]]-related topics
Line 60:		Line 63:
	* Marginal or idiosyncratic [[:Category:Scientific speculation\|scientific speculation]]		* Marginal or idiosyncratic [[:Category:Scientific speculation\|scientific speculation]]
	* [[New religious movement]]s		* [[New religious movement]]s
			* The [[free software movement]]
			* The [[Shakespeare authorship question]]
			* [[Tea Party Movement]]
	* [[Gun control]]		* [[Gun control]]
	* [[School shooting]]s		* [[School shooting]]s
	* [[Mass killings under communist regimes]]		* [[Mass killings under communist regimes]]
	* [[Uyghur genocide]]		* [[Uyghur genocide]]
			* [[Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war]]
	* [[Alt-right]]		* [[Alt-right]]
	* [[Neo-Nazism]]		* [[Neo-Nazism]]

Thebiguglyalien: /* Examples */ removing several, these haven't been relevant for the last decade

2024-05-02T00:27:54Z

Examples: removing several, these haven't been relevant for the last decade

← Previous revision		Revision as of 00:27, 2 May 2024
Line 50:		Line 50:
	Topics affected by this problem include:		Topics affected by this problem include:
	{{div col\|colwidth=30em}}		{{div col\|colwidth=30em}}
	* [[Creation–evolution controversy\|Evolution/creationism]] and [[intelligent design]]
	* [[Alternative medicine]]		* [[Alternative medicine]]
	* [[Global warming]]
	* [[Nationalism\|Nationalist]] issues		* [[Nationalism\|Nationalist]] issues
	* [[Parapsychology]]		* [[Parapsychology]]
	* The [[September 11 attacks]]
	* [[Race (human classification)\|Racial]] topics		* [[Race (human classification)\|Racial]] topics
	* [[Caste]]-related topics		* [[Caste]]-related topics
Line 63:		Line 60:
	* Marginal or idiosyncratic [[:Category:Scientific speculation\|scientific speculation]]		* Marginal or idiosyncratic [[:Category:Scientific speculation\|scientific speculation]]
	* [[New religious movement]]s		* [[New religious movement]]s
	* The [[free software movement]]
	* The [[Shakespeare authorship question]]
	* [[Tea Party Movement]]
	* [[Gun control]]		* [[Gun control]]
	* [[School shooting]]s		* [[School shooting]]s
	* [[Mass killings under communist regimes]]		* [[Mass killings under communist regimes]]
	* [[Uyghur genocide]]		* [[Uyghur genocide]]
	* [[Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war]]
	* [[Alt-right]]		* [[Alt-right]]
	* [[Neo-Nazism]]		* [[Neo-Nazism]]

Thebiguglyalien: /* Discussions */ +2, would be helpful if someone had a better way to word them

2024-05-02T00:26:11Z

Discussions: +2, would be helpful if someone had a better way to word them

← Previous revision		Revision as of 00:26, 2 May 2024
Line 35:		Line 35:
	* They will often misrepresent others or other discussions in an attempt to incriminate or belittle others' opinions.		* They will often misrepresent others or other discussions in an attempt to incriminate or belittle others' opinions.
	* They will attempt to label others or otherwise discredit their opinion based on that person's associations rather than the core of their argument. See ''[[ad hominem]]''.		* They will attempt to label others or otherwise discredit their opinion based on that person's associations rather than the core of their argument. See ''[[ad hominem]]''.
			* They will use inconsistent logic across discussions, applying an argument or standard in one situation but using a contradictory one in the next discussion if it suits them.
			* They may participate in [[WP:AFD\|articles for deletion]] discussions, keeping articles that support their beliefs and deleting articles that do not, even if the articles otherwise have similar [[WP:N\|notability]].

	===Sources===		===Sources===

AirshipJungleman29: /* Principles */ add link

2024-04-18T00:57:53Z

Principles: add link

← Previous revision		Revision as of 00:57, 18 April 2024
Line 79:		Line 79:
	* Just as [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:V]], and [[WP:NOR]] cannot be applied in isolation, [[WP:CIVIL]] should not be interpreted or enforced without reference to other guidelines and policies. Civility is important, but it does not trump other core behavioral and content policies.		* Just as [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:V]], and [[WP:NOR]] cannot be applied in isolation, [[WP:CIVIL]] should not be interpreted or enforced without reference to other guidelines and policies. Civility is important, but it does not trump other core behavioral and content policies.
	* Using Wikipedia as a vehicle for advocacy, or to advance a specific agenda, damages the encyclopedia and disrupts the process of collaborative editing. Wikipedia is not here to [[WP:GREATWRONGS\|right great wrongs]]. Even when such behavior is superficially civil it is just as harmful to the project, if not more so, than incivility.		* Using Wikipedia as a vehicle for advocacy, or to advance a specific agenda, damages the encyclopedia and disrupts the process of collaborative editing. Wikipedia is not here to [[WP:GREATWRONGS\|right great wrongs]]. Even when such behavior is superficially civil it is just as harmful to the project, if not more so, than incivility.
	* [[WP:AGF\|The requirement to assume good faith]] is not an excuse for uncooperative behavior. There is a limit to how long good faith can be extended to editors who are continually shown to be acting in a manner that is detrimental to the growth and improvement of the encyclopedia. Nor is AGF defined as doublespeak for urging all editors to agree with a particular viewpoint and accept any changes that are advocated.		* [[WP:AGF\|The requirement to assume good faith]] is not an excuse for uncooperative behavior. [[WP:PACT\|There is a limit]] to how long good faith can be extended to editors who are continually shown to be acting in a manner that is detrimental to the growth and improvement of the encyclopedia. Nor is AGF defined as doublespeak for urging all editors to agree with a particular viewpoint and accept any changes that are advocated.
	* Civility does not mean that editors cannot disagree. Academe is well known for spirited debates and disagreements and these often point the way to progress. The key principle is "stay on topic"; that is, arguments should be on the merits and not personalities. Editors should bear in mind that a disagreement with their point is ''not'' an attack on their honor.		* Civility does not mean that editors cannot disagree. Academe is well known for spirited debates and disagreements and these often point the way to progress. The key principle is "stay on topic"; that is, arguments should be on the merits and not personalities. Editors should bear in mind that a disagreement with their point is ''not'' an attack on their honor.

IOHANNVSVERVS: /* Neutrality */ Add whitewash, rephrase poorly written sentence

2024-02-14T05:35:44Z

Neutrality: Add whitewash, rephrase poorly written sentence

← Previous revision		Revision as of 05:35, 14 February 2024
Line 20:		Line 20:

	===Neutrality===		===Neutrality===
	* They attempt [[WP:WEASEL\|to water down language]], ~~unreasonably~~ ~~exclude~~, ~~marginalize~~ or push views beyond the requirements of [[WP:NPOV]], or give [[WP:UNDUE\|undue weight]] to [[WP:FRINGE\|fringe theories]] – pseudoscience, crankery, conspiracy theories, ~~marginal~~ ~~nationalist or historic viewpoints~~, ~~and the like~~.		* They attempt [[WP:WEASEL\|to water down language]], [[Whitewash (censorship)\|whitewash]], unreasonably exclude information, push views beyond the requirements of [[WP:NPOV]], or give [[WP:UNDUE\|undue weight]] to [[WP:FRINGE\|fringe theories]] such as pseudoscience, crankery, conspiracy theories, historical revisionism, etc.
	* They frivolously request [[WP:CITE\|citations]] for [[Wikipedia:Common knowledge\|obvious or well known information]].		* They frivolously request [[WP:CITE\|citations]] for [[Wikipedia:Common knowledge\|obvious or well known information]].
	* They argue endlessly about the [[WP:NPOV\|neutral point of view policy]] and particularly try to undermine the [[WP:WEIGHT\|undue weight clause]]. They try to add information that is (at best) peripherally relevant on the grounds that "it is [[WP:V\|verifiable]], so it should be in".		* They argue endlessly about the [[WP:NPOV\|neutral point of view policy]] and particularly try to undermine the [[WP:WEIGHT\|undue weight clause]]. They try to add information that is (at best) peripherally relevant on the grounds that "it is [[WP:V\|verifiable]], so it should be in".

Stifle: /* Principles */ +link

2024-01-24T15:30:56Z

Principles: +link

← Previous revision		Revision as of 15:30, 24 January 2024
Line 76:		Line 76:

	==Principles==		==Principles==
	* Civility is not limited to superficial politeness but includes the overall behavior of the user. Superficially polite behaviors still may be uncivil. Some examples are politely phrased [[WP:BAIT\|baiting]], frivolous or vexatious use of process, ill-considered but politely phrased accusations, unrelenting pestering, and [[WP:TPG\|abuse of talk pages]] as a platform to expound upon personal opinions unrelated to specific content issues.		* Civility is not limited to superficial politeness but includes the overall behavior of the user. Superficially polite behaviors still may be uncivil. Some examples are politely phrased [[WP:BAIT\|baiting]], [[frivolous or vexatious]] use of process, ill-considered but politely phrased accusations, unrelenting pestering, and [[WP:TPG\|abuse of talk pages]] as a platform to expound upon personal opinions unrelated to specific content issues.
	* Just as [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:V]], and [[WP:NOR]] cannot be applied in isolation, [[WP:CIVIL]] should not be interpreted or enforced without reference to other guidelines and policies. Civility is important, but it does not trump other core behavioral and content policies.		* Just as [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:V]], and [[WP:NOR]] cannot be applied in isolation, [[WP:CIVIL]] should not be interpreted or enforced without reference to other guidelines and policies. Civility is important, but it does not trump other core behavioral and content policies.
	* Using Wikipedia as a vehicle for advocacy, or to advance a specific agenda, damages the encyclopedia and disrupts the process of collaborative editing. Wikipedia is not here to [[WP:GREATWRONGS\|right great wrongs]]. Even when such behavior is superficially civil it is just as harmful to the project, if not more so, than incivility.		* Using Wikipedia as a vehicle for advocacy, or to advance a specific agenda, damages the encyclopedia and disrupts the process of collaborative editing. Wikipedia is not here to [[WP:GREATWRONGS\|right great wrongs]]. Even when such behavior is superficially civil it is just as harmful to the project, if not more so, than incivility.

← Previous revision		Revision as of 04:18, 12 September 2024
Line 3:		Line 3:
	{{Nutshell\|Civil POV-pushers argue politely and in compliance with Wikipedia civility principles, but also with bad faith, which discourages or upsets the other contributors. In a discussion, blame is often assigned to the person who loses their temper, which is even more frustrating for good-faith contributors trapped in such discussions.}}		{{Nutshell\|Civil POV-pushers argue politely and in compliance with Wikipedia civility principles, but also with bad faith, which discourages or upsets the other contributors. In a discussion, blame is often assigned to the person who loses their temper, which is even more frustrating for good-faith contributors trapped in such discussions.}}

	Wikipedia, and specifically the dispute resolution process, has a difficult time dealing with [[Wikipedia:Civility\|civil]] POV pushers. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee\|Arbitration Committee]] (ArbCom) has a mixed record in dealing with such problem users. The Arbitration Committee has chosen to avoid focusing on content, because admittedly they are not subject experts, and often these issues are complicated enough that knowledge of the topic is necessary to identify pseudoscience, crankery, conspiracy theories, marginal nationalist or historic viewpoints, and the like. (One important reason for this is that oftentimes there is a great deal of misinformation surrounding these topics.) Rather than focusing on content the Arbitration Committee has focused on behavior. The problem is compounded because it often takes the form of long-term behavior that cannot accurately be summarized in a few diffs. As such, the committee has difficulty dealing with "''civil''" POV pushers—editors who repeatedly disregard or [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system\|manipulate]] Wikipedia's content policies but are superficially civil, or not-quite-uncivil-enough to merit sanctions.		Wikipedia, and specifically the dispute resolution process, has a difficult time dealing with [[Wikipedia:Civility\|civil]] POV pushers. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee\|Arbitration Committee]] (ArbCom) has a mixed record in dealing with such problem users. The Arbitration Committee has chosen to avoid focusing on content, because admittedly they are not subject experts, and often these issues are complicated enough that knowledge of the topic is necessary to identify pseudoscience, crankery, conspiracy theories, marginal nationalist or historic viewpoints, and the like. (One important reason for this is that oftentimes there is a great deal of misinformation surrounding these topics.) Rather than focusing on content the Arbitration Committee has focused on behavior. The problem is compounded because it often takes the form of long-term behavior that cannot accurately be summarized in a few diffs. As such, the committee has difficulty dealing with "civil" POV pushers—editors who repeatedly disregard or [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system\|manipulate]] Wikipedia's content policies but are superficially civil, or not-quite-uncivil-enough to merit sanctions.

	As a result of the Arbitration Committee's failure to deal with these issues, the committee has effectively abdicated the responsibility for ensuring [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view\|neutrality]], [[Wikipedia:Verifiability\|verifiability]], and other content standards to a few users (mostly, but not entirely admins) who patrol these articles and attempt to keep them free of disruption. These users are generally very knowledgeable about the subject and committed to Wikipedia's policies on [[Wikipedia:No original research\|proper sourcing]] and [[WP:WEIGHT\|appropriate weight]]. Unfortunately, they tend to burn out. Usually they burn out in one of two ways:		As a result of the Arbitration Committee's failure to deal with these issues, the committee has effectively abdicated the responsibility for ensuring [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view\|neutrality]], [[Wikipedia:Verifiability\|verifiability]], and other content standards to a few users (mostly, but not entirely admins) who patrol these articles and attempt to keep them free of disruption. These users are generally very knowledgeable about the subject and committed to Wikipedia's policies on [[Wikipedia:No original research\|proper sourcing]] and [[WP:WEIGHT\|appropriate weight]]. Unfortunately, they tend to burn out. Usually they burn out in one of two ways: