Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Patchouli (talk | contribs) at 22:47, 22 September 2006 (→Distinction from non-tendentious editors: typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The following is a proposed Misplaced Pages policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption.

Shortcut ]

This page in a nutshell: Editors whose contributions fall outside the realm of normal scholarship may be subject to administrative action after a consensus of uninvolved Wikipedians agrees that these edits constitute persistent violation of content policies and guidelines. Arbitration committee action is necessary for administrators to block editors who ignore such consensus. Banning is an option if repeated blocks fail to curb problem behavior.

Never let your persistence and passion turn into stubbornness and ignorance. Anthony J. D'Angelo

Summary

Misplaced Pages owes much of its success to its openness. However, that very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site as a mouthpiece for fringe viewpoints that constitute original research or long-discredited hypotheses. While notable minority opinions are welcome when verified through reliable sources, and normal editors occasionally make mistakes, sometimes a tendentious editor creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page with information that falls well outside mainstream thought - such as insisting that the moon is made of green cheese.

Tendentious editing already violates site policy, yet certain editors have succeeded in disrupting articles and evading disciplinary action for extended periods because their actions remain limited to a small number of pages and they do not commit gross violations of WP:CIVILITY. Collectively, tendentious editors harm Misplaced Pages by degrading its reliability as a reference source and by exhausting the patience of normal editors who may quit the project in frustration when a tendentious editor continues with impunity.

Tendentious editors may seek to disguise their behavior as normal editing, yet distinctive traits separate them from productive editors. When discussion fails to resolve the problem and when an impartial consensus of editors from outside a disputed page agree (through requests for comment or similar means), further disruption should be liable to blocking at the administrators' noticeboard and may lead to more serious disciplinary action through the dispute resolution process. In extreme cases this could include a site ban, either though the arbitration committee or by administrator consensus.

WP:3RR, if observed, shall not be construed as a defense against action taken to enforce this policy. As stated in that policy:

This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day.

Characteristics of problem edits and editors

A tendentious editor is an editor who:

• Is persistent: continues editing an article of group or articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
• Cannot satisfy WP:V and/or WP:NOR: fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable 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.

In addition, such editors may:

• Campaign 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.

Distinction from non-tendentious editors

Editors often post minority views to articles. This fits within Misplaced Pages's mission so long as the contributions are verifiable through reliable sources. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who wishes the information to remain. From Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Verifiable and noteworthy viewpoints include protoscience as published through reputable peer-reviewed journals. Editors may reasonably present active public disputes or controversies which are documented by reliable sources. This exemption does not apply to settled disputes; for example, insertion of claims that the Sun revolves around the Earth would not be appropriate today; even though this issue was active controversy in the time of Galileo.

Sometimes well-meaning editors may be misled by fringe publications or make honest mistakes when representing a citation. Such people may reasonably defend their positions for a short time, then concede the issue when they encounter better evidence or impartial feedback. Articles are acceptable which document widely discredited hypotheses (and/or their advocates) which have an organized following, such as the Flat Earth Society. However, claims that the Earth is flat would be inappropriate in articles such as Earth or geography even if presented as a minority opinion.

In order to protect against frivolous accusations and other potential exploitation, no editor shall be eligible for a tendentious editor block until after a consensus of neutral parties has agreed that an editor has behaved in a tendentious manner. This consensus can be achieved through requests for comment or similar means. This does not include editors whose edits constitute violations of probation or other edit restrictions, who may be blocked for such edits independent of this policy.

Dealing with tendentious editors

Following is a model for remedies:

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 an WP:RFC or other impartial dispute resolution.

5. Editor ignores consensus.

WP:ANI administrator intervention: warning or temporary block as appropriate.

6. Blocks fail to solve the problem.

Possible topic ban, site ban, or probation per ArbCom or administrator consensus.

See also

• Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing
• Crank (person)

• Misplaced Pages proposals