Misplaced Pages:Civil POV pushing: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:27, 2 May 2024 view sourceThebiguglyalien (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers19,552 edits →Examples: removing several, these haven't been relevant for the last decadeTags: Reverted 2017 wikitext editor ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 22:03, 1 October 2024 view source Remsense (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Template editors59,292 edits Undid revision 1248843270 by Affinepplan (talk): unneededTag: Undo
(6 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 3:		Line 3:
	{{Nutshell\|Civil POV-pushers argue politely and in compliance with Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.}}

	Misplaced Pages, and specifically the dispute resolution process, has a difficult time dealing with ] POV pushers. The ] (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 ] Misplaced Pages's content policies but are superficially civil, or not-quite-uncivil-enough to merit sanctions.		Misplaced Pages, and specifically the dispute resolution process, has a difficult time dealing with ] POV pushers. The ] (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 ] Misplaced Pages'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 ], ], 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 Misplaced Pages's policies on ] and ]. 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 ], ], 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 Misplaced Pages's policies on ] and ]. Unfortunately, they tend to burn out. Usually they burn out in one of two ways:
Line 20:		Line 20:

	===Neutrality===		===Neutrality===
	* They attempt ], ], unreasonably exclude information, push views beyond the requirements of ], or give ] to ] ~~such as pseudoscience, crankery, conspiracy theories, historical revisionism, etc.~~		* They attempt ], ], unreasonably exclude information, push views beyond the requirements of ], or give ] to ]
	* They frivolously request ] for ].		* They frivolously request ] for ].
	* They argue endlessly about the ] and particularly try to undermine the ]. They try to add information that is (at best) peripherally relevant on the grounds that "it is ], so it should be in".		* They argue endlessly about the ] and particularly try to undermine the ]. They try to add information that is (at best) peripherally relevant on the grounds that "it is ], so it should be in".
Line 50:		Line 50:
	Topics affected by this problem include:		Topics affected by this problem include:
	{{div col\|colwidth=30em}}		{{div col\|colwidth=30em}}
			* ] and ]
	* ]		* ]
			* ]
	* ] issues		* ] issues
	* ]		* ]
			* The ]
	* ] topics		* ] topics
	* ]-related topics		* ]-related topics
Line 60:		Line 63:
	* Marginal or idiosyncratic ]		* Marginal or idiosyncratic ]
	* ]s		* ]s
			* The ]
			* The ]
			* ]
	* ]		* ]
	* ]s		* ]s
	* ]		* ]
	* ]		* ]
			* ]
	* ]		* ]
	* ]		* ]
	* ]		* ]
	* ]-related topics		* ]-related topics
			* ]
	{{div col end}}		{{div col end}}

Line 78:		Line 86:

	==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 Misplaced Pages ] ''at the expense of core policies and consensus-based editing'' should be warned, restricted, or ultimately blocked by any ]. 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 Misplaced Pages's core policies.		* Accounts which use Misplaced Pages ] ''at the expense of core policies and consensus-based editing'' should be warned, restricted, or ultimately blocked by any ]. 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 Misplaced Pages'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.

Latest revision as of 22:03, 1 October 2024

"WP:SEALION" redirects here. For the more specific sense of stonewalling via disruptive demands for "help", see WP:You can search, too. Essay on editing Misplaced Pages

This is an essay on the Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view and Misplaced Pages:Civility policies.
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcuts

This page in a nutshell: Civil POV-pushers argue politely and in compliance with Misplaced Pages 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.

Misplaced Pages, and specifically the dispute resolution process, has a difficult time dealing with civil POV pushers. The 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 manipulate Misplaced Pages'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 neutrality, 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 Misplaced Pages's policies on proper sourcing and appropriate weight. Unfortunately, they tend to burn out. Usually they burn out in one of two ways:

The impatient ones tend to become angry as a result of the seemingly never-ending problems these articles cause, become uncivil, and get sanctioned by ArbCom for incivility.
The patient ones tend to go more quietly. They become disillusioned by the never-ending problems and the lack of support from the Misplaced Pages community, and stop editing on these topics or quit the site entirely.

This is an untenable situation.

On occasion the Arbitration Committee acknowledges the existence of this problem. In response to suggestions that ArbCom use a related arbitration case to set down some "far-reaching, well-written, solid, effective principles for dealing with POV pushers who are civil" it was suggested to formulate a list of principles and remedies. The original impetus for this page was to provide such a list, though in the end ArbCom declined to address the issue.

Behaviors

These are editors who are superficially polite while exhibiting some or all of the following behaviors:

Locality

They often edit primarily or entirely on one topic or theme.

Neutrality

They attempt to water down language, whitewash, unreasonably exclude information, push views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV, or give undue weight to fringe theories
They frivolously request citations for obvious or well known information.
They argue endlessly about the neutral point of view policy and particularly try to undermine the undue weight clause. They try to add information that is (at best) peripherally relevant on the grounds that "it is verifiable, so it should be in".
When they are unable to refute discussion on the talk page against their point of view, they will say the discussion is original research.

Editing

They revert war over such edits.
They may use sockpuppets, or recruit meat puppets.

Discussions

They repeatedly use the talk page for soapboxing, and/or to re-raise the same issues that have already been discussed numerous times.
They hang around forever, wearing down more serious editors and become an expert in an odd kind of way on their niche POV. They outlast their competitors because they're more invested in their point of view.
They often make a series of frivolous and time-wasting requests for comment, mediation or arbitration, again in an attempt to wear down other editors.
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 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 articles for deletion discussions, keeping articles that support their beliefs and deleting articles that do not, even if the articles otherwise have similar notability.

Sources

They argue for the inclusion of material of dubious reliability; for example, using commentary from partisan think tanks rather than from the scientific literature.
They argue that reliable sources are biased while their own preferred sources are neutral.
They ignore their burden to demonstrate verifiability, insisting attempts be made to find reliable sources for dubious claims before removing them from an article.
When pressed for reliable sources, in lieu of honoring the request they:
- use a source to verify claims outside its author's expertise. For example, a foreword to an electrician's handbook is used to verify a statement of historical fact;
- engage in cherrypicking; and
- cite non-English language sources most people can't read, or obscure books that most people can't find.

Examples

Topics affected by this problem include:

Evolution/creationism and intelligent design
Alternative medicine
Global warming
Nationalist issues
Parapsychology
The September 11 attacks
Racial topics
Caste-related topics
Religion-related topics
Gender-related topics
Pseudoscience
Marginal or idiosyncratic scientific speculation
New religious movements
The free software movement
The Shakespeare authorship question
Tea Party Movement
Gun control
School shootings
Mass killings under communist regimes
Uyghur genocide
Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war
Alt-right
Neo-Nazism
Cryptocurrencies
COVID-19-related topics
World War II and the history of Jews in Poland

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 baiting, frivolous or vexatious use of process, ill-considered but politely phrased accusations, unrelenting pestering, and 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.
Using Misplaced Pages as a vehicle for advocacy, or to advance a specific agenda, damages the encyclopedia and disrupts the process of collaborative editing. Misplaced Pages is not here to right great wrongs. Even when such behavior is superficially civil it is just as harmful to the project, if not more so, than incivility.
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.
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.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages'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.
If an editor insists on continuing to bring up an issue which has been discussed and decided, especially if they have no new information that can add to the issue, they should be pointed to the previous discussion, warned, restricted and ultimately blocked by any uninvolved administrator. An "involved administrator" (for the purposes of allowing uninvolved administrators to impose sanctions on problem users) is one who has a current, direct, personal conflict with a problem user on the specific issue at hand. Previous interactions on other articles or topics does not make one involved; previously editing the same article (but a different matter) does not make one involved. Broad definitions of "involved" that exclude administrators who have any prior experience with the article or editors in question are counterproductive. They result in overemphasis on superficial civility at the expense of more complex and long-term behavior. See WP:UNINVOLVED.

External links

Sea lioning, from the original Wondermark comic

Misplaced Pages essays (?)

Essays on building, editing, and deleting content

Philosophy	Article content Articles must be written All Five Pillars are equally important Avoid vague introductions Be a reliable source Civil POV pushing Cohesion Competence is required Concede lost arguments Dissent is not disloyalty Don't lie Don't search for objections Editing Misplaced Pages is like visiting a foreign country Editors will sometimes be wrong Eight simple rules for editing our encyclopedia Explanationism External criticism of Misplaced Pages Here to build an encyclopedia Leave it to the experienced Levels of competence Levels of consensus Most ideas are bad Need Neutrality of sources Not broken is ugly Not editing because of Misplaced Pages restriction The one question Oversimplification Paradoxes Paraphrasing POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields Process is important Product, process, policy Purpose Reasonability rule Systemic bias There is no seniority Ten Simple Rules for Editing Misplaced Pages Tendentious editing The role of policies in collaborative anarchy The rules are principles Trifecta We are absolutely here to right great wrongs Misplaced Pages in brief Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia Misplaced Pages is a community Misplaced Pages is not RationalWiki
Article construction	100K featured articles Abandoned stubs Acronym overkill Adding images improves the encyclopedia Advanced article editing Advanced text formatting Akin's Laws of Article Writing Alternatives to the "Expand" template Amnesia test A navbox on every page An unfinished house is a real problem Articles have a half-life Autosizing images Avoid mission statements Be neutral in form Beef up that first revision Blind men and an elephant BOLD, revert, discuss cycle Build content to endure Cherrypicking Chesterton's fence Children's lit, adult new readers, & large-print books Citation overkill Citation underkill Common-style fallacy Concept cloud Creating controversial content Criticisms of society may be consistent with NPOV and reliability Deprecated sources Dictionaries as sources Don't demolish the house while it's still being built Don't get hung up on minor details Don't hope the house will build itself Don't panic Don't "teach the controversy" Editing on mobile devices Editors are not mindreaders Encourage the newcomers Endorsements (commercial) Featured articles may have problems Formatting bilateral relations articles Formatting bilateral relations templates Fruit of the poisonous tree Give an article a chance How to write a featured article Identifying and using independent sources History sources Law sources Primary sources Science sources Style guides Tertiary sources Ignore STRONGNAT for date formats Inaccuracy Introduction to structurism Mine a source Merge Test Minors and persons judged incompetent "Murder of" articles Not every story/event/disaster needs a biography Not everything needs a navbox Not everything needs a template Nothing is in stone Obtain peer review comments Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area Permastub Potential, not just current state Presentism Principle of Some Astonishment The problem with elegant variation Pro and con lists Printability Pruning article revisions Publicists Put a little effort into it Restoring part of a reverted edit Robotic editing Sham consensus Source your plot summaries Specialized-style fallacy Stub Makers Run an edit-a-thon Temporary versions of articles Tertiary-source fallacy There are no shortcuts to neutrality There is no deadline There is a deadline The deadline is now Try not to leave it a stub What is a reliable source Understanding Misplaced Pages's content standards Walled garden What an article should not include Misplaced Pages is a work in progress Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source Misplaced Pages is not being written in an organized fashion The world will not end tomorrow Write the article first Writing better articles
Writing article content	Avoid thread mode Copyediting reception sections Coup Don't throw more litter onto the pile Gender-neutral language Myth vs fiction Proseline Use our own words We shouldn't be able to figure out your opinions Write the article first Writing about women Writing better articles
Removing or deleting content	Adjectives in your recommendations AfD is not a war zone Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions Arguments to make in deletion discussions Avoid repeated arguments Before commenting in a deletion discussion But there must be sources! Confusing arguments mean nothing Content removal Counting and sorting are not original research Delete or merge Delete the junk Deletion is not cleanup Does deletion help? Don't attack the nominator Don't confuse stub status with non-notability Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument Emptying categories out of process Follow the leader How the presumption of notability works How to save an article proposed for deletion I just don't like it Identifying blatant advertising Identifying test edits Immunity Keep it concise Liar liar pants on fire Nothing Nothing is clear Overzealous deletion Relisting can be abusive Relist bias The Heymann Standard Unopposed AFD discussion Misplaced Pages is not Whack-A-Mole Why was the page I created deleted? What to do if your article gets tagged for speedy deletion When in doubt, hide it in the woodwork No Encyclopedic Use

Essays on civility

The basics	Accepting other users Apology Contributing to complicated discussions Divisiveness Don't retaliate Editors' pronouns Edit at your own pace Encouraging the newcomers Enjoy yourself Expect no thanks High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors How to be civil Maintaining a friendly space Negotiation Obsessive–compulsive disorder editors Please say please Relationships with academic editors Thank you Too long; didn't read Truce Unblock perspectives We are all Wikipedians here You have a right to remain silent
Philosophy	A thank you never hurts A weak personal attack is still wrong Advice for hotheads An uncivil environment is a poor environment Be the glue Beware of the tigers! Civility warnings Deletion as revenge Failure Forgive and forget It's not the end of the world Nobody cares Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals Old-fashioned Wikipedian values Profanity, civility, and discussions Revert notification opt-out Shadowless Fists of Death! Staying cool when the editing gets hot The grey zone The last word There is no Divine Right of Editors Most ideas are bad Nothing is clear Reader The rules of polite discourse There is no common sense Two wrongs don't make a right Misplaced Pages clichés Misplaced Pages is not about winning Misplaced Pages should not be a monopoly Writing for the opponent
Dos	Assume good faith Assume the assumption of good faith Assume no clue Avoid personal remarks Avoid the word "vandal" Be excellent to one another Be pragmatic Beyond civility Call a spade a spade Candor Deny recognition Desist Discussing cruft Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Encourage full discussions Get over it How to lose Imagine others complexly Just drop it Keep it concise Keep it down to earth Mind your own business Say "MOBY" Mutual withdrawal Read before commenting Settle the process first
Don'ts	ALPHABETTISPAGHETTI Misplaced Pages:Because I can Civil POV pushing Cyberbullying Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack Don't be a fanatic Don't be a jerk Don't be an ostrich Don't be ashamed Don't be a WikiBigot Don't be high-maintenance Don't be inconsiderate Don't be obnoxious Don't be prejudiced Don't be rude Don't be the Fun Police Don't bludgeon the process Don't call a spade a spade Don't call people by their real name Don't call the kettle black Don't call things cruft Don't come down like a ton of bricks Don't cry COI Don't demand that editors solve the problems they identify Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid Don't eat the troll's food Don't fight fire with fire Don't give a fuck Don't help too much Don't ignore community consensus Don't knit beside the guillotine Don't make a smarmy valediction part of your signature Don't remind others of past misdeeds Don't shout Don't spite your face Don't take the bait Don't template the regulars Don't throw your toys out of the pram Do not insult the vandals Griefing Hate is disruptive Nationalist editing No angry mastodons just madmen No Nazis No racists No Confederates No queerphobia No, you can't have a pony Passive aggression POV railroad Superhatting There are no oracles There's no need to guess someone's preferred pronouns You can't squeeze blood from a turnip UPPERCASE
WikiRelations	WikiBullying WikiCrime WikiHarassment WikiHate WikiLawyering WikiLove WikiPeace

Essays on notability

Humorous essays

About essays

About essays	Essay guide Value of essays Difference between policies, guidelines and essays Don't cite essays as if they were policy Avoid writing redundant essays Finding an essay Quote your own essay
Policies and guidelines	About policies and guidelines Policies Guidelines How to contribute to Misplaced Pages guidance Policy writing is hard

Categories:

Misplaced Pages

:Civil POV pushing: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages