Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing/Archive 1

message: Preliminary discussion for this proposal may be found at Wikipedia:Expert Retention and its associated discussion. Mangoe 02:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: i agree with the proposal to merge.Locriani 07:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: ...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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  If I understand correctly... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  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)

text: See my essay at Wikipedia:Tendentious editing for my take.  But the behaviour of a tendentious editor is already disruptive, already violates WP:V and WP:NOR, almost always violates WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA - getting such editors banned is surely not so very difficult?  We seem to see them almost daily on the admin noticeboard now.  Guy 13:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completing absent sections 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Personal certainty 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Minor addition 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Added clause 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Persistent disruptive editors?  --EngineerScotty 22:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Well, "Tendentiously Disruptive editors" would be a clear description. Terryeo 04:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great idea 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Thanks for the input.  The default would be to keep it unless something better arises. Durova 02:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No, that the editor thinks he is an intellectual, or is engaging in such pursuits.  --EngineerScotty 04:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Intellectual spam - I like that. Durova 14:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  More tweaks 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Support Intellectual spam as policy name 

message: ===Support===
# Per the discussion above. Durova 16:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll: change proposal name from [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editors]] to [[Wikipedia:Intellectual spam]]? 

message: # Per the discussion above. Durova 16:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: # 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)
thread_title: Oppose

message: # Either the current name or the proposed one are OK with me; better ideas are still welcome.  --EngineerScotty 16:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral

message: 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)
thread_title: Relevant RfArb

message: 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 ; 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)
thread_title: Motives of editors and issues of dishonesty

message: 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.
* Agreed that persistence is a key point.  There is a distinction between "minority" views and "flat-out batshit" views; it's the latter that this proposal seeks to address.  Minority views on controversial subjects such as chiropractic need to be presented per WP:NPOV; as much has been written on the subject by folks other than chiropractors--even if mainstream medicine considers chiropractic to be quackery or otherwise of little theraputic value.  Obviously, viewpoints should, in this case, be attributed to sources.
* What this proposal seeks to address are attempt to insert complete left-field claims, such as a (hypothetical) claim that drinkng beer would cure cancer, which are not referenced anywhere else (other than material self-published by the same individual).  These don't belong in Wikipedia per WP:V and WP:NOR.
* I should note that the dispute over chiropractic, and other particular arguments, are unwelcome on this page.  Feel free to reference them, but we're not here to debate specific topics; we're here to discuss the proposed policy.
* --EngineerScotty 15:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First things first; Yes Scotty, on further exploration of the rules, I believe Wikipedia has adequate coverage of the aggression/persistence issues.  The groupthink issue does come into effect when a responsible but less knowledgable editor is working on an article with pushers.  Some pseudoscientific ideas (left right brain theory) for example, are very convincing as they are actually good science, but when turned into practical applications, they are total PS.  So you can get ganged up on by baddies and a few goodies also. RfC could also involve this situation.  So an editor who dissents against this crowd may well end up getting called tendentious nevertheless.  There is also the issue of "hidden" information.  An editor may want to show the complete picture against the will of a group of NAMBLA (pro paedophile) or zoophile editors.  When a whole article has a huge bias (by glossing over or hiding facts) a single editor is going to have a very hard time getting that information out. The pressure against that single editor is going to be pretty heavy. How does consensus work there? Is there an adequate mechanism that helps distinguish between consensus and con-censors?  KrishnaVindaloo 04:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Food for thought: Persistence and minority dissent

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Unclear on the concept 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Honesty 

message: 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)
replies: text:  Absolutely agree.  I've often noticed that it is very difficult to spot the crank when going through the talk page.  Often the crank is polite, and the reasonable editors uncivil (see once again the Einstein talk page.  Dbuckner 13:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title: 1-2 months?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Let's merge these two proposals into one 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Please vote for bug 4288. It will allow you to tag the good revisions of articles and help with the Tendentious editing problem. --Gbleem 18:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you explain that proposal?  The citecheck template was created at my request a while back to deal with inappropriate citations.  I'm not clear on what this new template would do. Durova 00:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  4288 

message: My answers:
* Yes, but...
**I think it needs to be stronger (see below)
* Yes
** My proposal, after all
* Yes, but...
**Same concerns as for first version
My main concern is that I think that the main proposal is in practice going to stick us with the status quo. Expert editors will still be faced with the prospect of having to drag the unrepentant through ArbCom. The discription of the problem is good, but I think that BoP needs to be incorporated to produce something worth fighting for, and I think the current combined form isn't strong enough.
I recognize the issue with longstanding controversies. I'm not sure what to do with this except to hope that as controversies resolve, it should become hard to reintroduce them.
To summarize how I would combine the two proposals:
* general discussion of tendentious editing
* An informal WP:BAN on editing a change forward while it is being contested. This would escalate to a WP:BLOCK if violated.
* WP:BLOCK for those who persist in tendentious edits
Mangoe 18:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We tossed "ban" and "block" around a little too loosely at first. I think the mechanisms here are reasonable, perhaps as reasonable as we are going to get. Mangoe 03:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:mangoe]] response

message: Added a section relating this policy to WP:3RR, noting that 3RR is not a defense. (In other words, an editor could limit his reverts to thrice per day, and still run afoul of and be sanctioned under this policy).  --EngineerScotty 18:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added explicit mention of 3RR 

message: I'm new to this discussion, but what does the TLA BoP refer to?  --SteveMcCluskey 19:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found my own answer: Expert Retention/Burden of Proof -- Obvious wasn't it.   Sorry about that. --SteveMcCluskey 19:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BoP 

message: The 1-2 months, which was pretty much a guess, is gone now.
Also, unless someone specifically wants to create warning templates, I suggest we remove that step from the bottom of the proposal. 
This leads to a new question: should we propose this as policy or guideline? Durova 20:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed specific time frame 

message: Since this potential policy has the potential force for misuse may I introduce the idea that 3 Administrators must agree on blocking ?  If this project comes into full force, there is the potential that an administrator could (not that anyone on the project would, but that an administrator could) block someone for a handful of tendentious edits.  But, if an administrator was required to get the agreement of 2 other administrators in order to implement this policy, it would add significant substance.  It would still be much faster and more direct than an RfC or an RfA.  But then no single administrator would have the whole responsibility on their shoulders alone. The 3 administrators could sign the block (perhaps), or the 3 could give their reason on the blocked person's discussion page.  Also, if a person is blocked and reads 3 administrator's reasons on his discussion page, he is more likely to understand.  While if a single administrator tells him the reason, he is more likely to consider it some kind of personal thing.  (I say this from past experience.) Terryeo 19:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's safe to say that we'd like to bring practical enforcement of content policies into line with practical enforcement of other policies.  It doesn't take more than one administrator to block a user for violation of WP:NPA or WP:3RR.  Borderline cases can and do get discussed at the administrators' noticeboard and sometimes blocks get shortened or appealed.  The same process should work equally well for WP:V or WP:NOR. Durova 21:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administrator Concensus 

message: I do some editing in the religion articles, and I think it's about time we quit using religion as an example. The difference isn't between controversial and uncontroversial topics, but the manner in which the real world manifests those controversies. In religion the various controversies are well-understood, and while there is a lot of jockeying for position, it is possible to write articles that can talk about a particular topic while mapping out the various camps, even though most knowledgeable editors are prone to writing as if their own sect were the one true version. We had some action of late with episcopal polity in which the article was tending to turn into an explication of Roman Catholic theology; it took some work, and the article is hardly in great shape, but by and large the responsible editors can accept that these articles have to be worked out cooperatively.
* I'm not thinking of religious topics per se; I was thinking more along the lines of perpetual edit wars like anything having to do with Israel/Palestine.  
** I should say that this section was elicited by the phrase "big problems in the intersections of politics, religion, and science" from above.
The complaints have tended to come from other fields. It is much more difficult to manage articles in fields which, in the real world, have an established body of quackery alongside a established expert position. To call these topics "controversial" is really to debase the word, and in these topics Wikipedia ought to find itself in the position of endorsing the expert position as The Truth and identifying the the quackery as exactly that. This is not always an absolute division, as some topics partake of both this and the earlier-described group (cf creation science); in these cases surely it will be harder to find NPOV and I don't think we can construct a policy that's going to give clear direction. Mangoe 20:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Editors can document that certain religious movements have a long history and an established following among notable experts.  Some varieties of fringe science - such as perpetual motion machines - have an established following only outside peer reviewed journals and notable experts.  Existing Wikipedia policies already handle this distinction. Durova 21:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Established controversies 

message: Here is the definition I find, "Marked by a strong tendency in favor of a particular point of view." . Note that there is no mention of the viewpoint being a minority or crackpot viewpoint. In the Wikipedia context, it essentially refers to aggressive bias. As this article does not use tendentious in this sense, I find it quite objectionable. Fred Bauder 00:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words: "This does not have the approval of the-powers-that-be. Pick up your things and go home. When we want you to make policy, we'll tell you what it will be. 70.51.172.145 02:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, nonsense. Fred Bauder 02:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fred raised the exact issue that was present from the begining of the project.  Having and sticking to a point of view is desireable, not undesireable. "Disruptive" was even used in discussion to describe what this project was trying to address.  The move is entirely appropriate.  Terryeo 16:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem is that the tendentious editing may be that of the "majority" who for one reason or another wish to present their viewpoint to the exclusion of other. They too need to produce verifiable reliable sources. What I have seen in the past is that very very strict rules are applied to the viewpoint they would exclude. Fred Bauder 11:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to complete the picture on the examples given by Gleng on allegations of dishonesty etc. The vitalism article has had no minority views excluded, and there is no evidence of any attempt to remove minority views. There is only evidence of extensive OR by Gleng, and racist and otherwise incivility and attacks to myself by co-defenders. The majority view is being occluded by a pro-chiropractic pro-vitalistic set of editors who are creating pov forks on the article to remove any majority view that vitalism is a dead, pseudoscientific, or discredited concept. It is indeed a good example for the tendentious editing of a group who wishes to see a pefectly NPOV compliant editor (myself) dismissed as disruptive, a pathalogical liar, or tendentious editor who deserves no assumption of good faith whatsoever. Your intense scrutiny of the said example is absolutely welcome. I believe it will help this proposal. KrishnaVindaloo 04:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps "sez you" is not the most polite response, but it is striking to note that Mechanism (philosophy), its opposite, is much better written (particularly in its first graf) and doesn't even have a discussion page yet. It's hard to say whether this reflects more the pseudoscience angle, or the desire to reduce the topic strictly to one of science. In any case, I do not think we can formulate an editing rule under the aegis of Wikipedia:Expert Retention that is going to work for this particular topic, because it could be argued that the experts at this particular point are philosophers, not scientists. Mangoe 11:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes.  Tendentious is not an appropriate label for the "characteristics" of the problem editor.  Probably, Outlaw would be a better term, given that we have in mind a set of "laws" that include NPOV, NOR, V, RS, NPA, . . . .  And this particular policy page is merely attempting to state that an admin has the authority to block an Outlaw the next time the Outlaw breaks the "laws"--given that the Outlaw has already demonstrated an established pattern of "outlawry."  Perhaps, the title of this page should be some eloquent version of "Editors_blockable_on_the_next_violation" where the definitions of what the Outlaw is violating will be found in the NPOV, NOR, V, RS, NPA, . . . pages.  Is it something like that?  --Rednblu 12:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously you're not serious. So are you trolling, or just trying to be funny? Disrutive is accurate and does just fine. FeloniousMonk 14:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of tendentious

message: I have moved this and edited it to see how it would look. Please take a look at this and see if the intended purpose is not served. Fred Bauder 14:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good move in my opinion. Much improved. Though we need as many carrots as we do sticks, this long-standing convention needed to be codified. FeloniousMonk 14:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Much better because "disruptive" is a word any editor can understand while "tendentious" isn't descriptive of the area being addressed. Terryeo 16:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The move should have waited for more consensus, rather than this preemptive strike (which, if I may be frank, is one of the characteristic problem edits). That said, the problem with "disruptive" is that breaking an article free of subculture owning an article and holding to a tendnetious version-- that is "disruptive" too. Mangoe 16:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think so. Anyone making that argument would clearly be wikilawyering, thereby making their tendentiousness all the more obvious. FeloniousMonk 16:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent move. I recommend we strike "tendentious" from the list of wiki-isms we throw around and use "disruptive" instead. Of course what will happen is people will use "WP:DE" instead of "disruptive" as a sign they're part of the in crowd. WAS 4.250 16:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am to blame for introduction of "tendentious", using in the context of arbitration decisions for aggressive biased editing (which can be substituted for it). It is not a wikism, just a hard word. Fred Bauder 17:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Good move in the right direction, in my opinion, away from the vagueness of tendentious.  But I also note with Mangoe above that the word disruptive may be too broad by including editing behavior that we would want to encourage.  Accordingly, does "disruptive editing" consist merely of continued violations of what is found in the NPOV, NOR, V, RS, NPA, . . . pages?  Or is the "Disruptive editor" policy intended to prohibit some new pattern of editing not defined in NPOV, NOR, V, RS, NPA, . . . pages?  --Rednblu 17:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we are talking about gross obvious repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree. Fred Bauder 18:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we say that explicitly in the "characteristics" section?  --Rednblu 18:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: While "tendentious" is not an everyday word, I don't see what is "vague" about it. OED: "adjective – calculated to promote a particular cause or point of view." The article now has to repeatedly use the pejorative word "crank" to clarify what kind of disruption we are talking about. So, IMO, "disruptive" may too general on its own – vandals are disruptive, for example. Colin°Talk 15:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aggressive biased editing is an exact synonym for tendentious editing, at least as I use it. Fred Bauder 15:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  May I gently point out that there exists a tendentious point of view which would insist that NPOV be present in every article?  The word does not necessarily constrain itself to a bais and can manifest equally as any strongly held purpose. "having a definite purpose, bias or tendency" .  I have re-sequenced those 3 terms, but the word "or" says that all 3 are equally manifestations of "tendentiousness". Terryeo 16:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see where your argument comes from, but I think you are reading too much into one word from one definition. The root of the word is (as your reference states) tendency. A (poor) analogy might be to say that insisting all government elections are held democratically is a totalitarian insistance. NPOV is core policy and the fact that it applies to all Wikipedia is axiomatic, what defines Wikipedia. The issue with tendentious editors is that they don't accept policy and attempt to redefine Wikipedia to allow them to promote their POV. Colin°Talk 20:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tendentious means tendency, persistant tendency.  A person might be tendentious about presenting a NPOV even when the "other side" was narrowly published. Tendentious behavior, by itself, it is not offensive.  Were an editor to follow policy and guideline and be polite and persistant with thier point of view, the editor would not be offensive, is what I'm attempting to communicate.  Some of the people who made scientific history were tendentious in the face of religious persecution, for example. The issue seems to be with disruption, rather than with tendentiousness. Terryeo 21:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to disruptive editing

message: Despite the current crop of chronic gainsayers, the majority of the established, credible contributors here appear to support this as a guideline. Considering that it is not establishing a new process but codifying what has been done as a matter of convention for quite some time now, moving to guideline from proposed seems warranted. To that end, I've reinstated Rednblu's placing of the guideline template. FeloniousMonk 04:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline 

message: and all heck breaks loose.  :)
I was a bit surprised to the the policy moved; however, given that it was moved by Fred (and for the reasons indicated), I'm OK with it.  I'm also OK with the document as it now stands as of 07:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In practical terms, the question is whether you can put this on Wikipedia:Blocking policy and keep it there. I see two problems: blocking people who might come around and be productive editors if given a chance and labeling people as "cranks" in an unkind way. We need to be as compassionate as possible. Fred Bauder 12:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: "disruptive editor"? WAS 4.250 17:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, crank is an appropriate English word to describe the social dynamics of the situation.  In English, a crank is merely an eccentric, that is, someone different from the consensus, especially someone who is zealous.  Accordingly, I suggest subdividing this section with 1) Wikipedia definition of crank, 2) If you think you are dealing with a crank, here is what you do (this section is already there), and 3) If the consensus is calling you a "crank," here is what you do.  This third section is an opportunity for giving the "crank" a safe harbor for operating productively with WP:V and WP:RS.  This third section might begin with something like the following.  If the consensus repeatedly calls you a "crank," you have an increased duty to follow WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:V, and WP:RS even when you think the consensus flagrantly violates all rules.  If you really do have something important to say and the consensus keeps calling you a "crank," then you must take responsibility and have compassion for the long and arduous learning it will take for the consensus to understand the WP:V and WP:RS that you present.  And, as I have said many times above, these comments are only about eventual opportunities and should not hold up anything such as the "Disruptive editor" policy that would make the jobs of the admins easier and more effective.  --Rednblu 18:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you try that out? Then we can see what it looks like. Might take some of the edge off. Fred Bauder 20:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: We have two problems: (1) The change to retitle "disruptive" is, IMO, too general and so needs some additional adjective to describe somone excessively pushing a (usually minority) POV. (2) The use of the word crank may fall foul of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. It is also, I think, not general enough. Consider someone pushing non-mainstream but widely held beliefs – they would not be considered a crank by the general population. An example, would be homeopathy, which most scientists agree is bollocks but is so widely accepted by the public that it is available on the NHS. (If this example offends, please accept my apologies). Another issue with this pejorative word is that the person may (as whole) be quite a rounded individual. They have just come unstuck over some particular aspect of an article. So I'd favour some word or phrase that described their editing style rather than their personal failings. Colin°Talk 21:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a thought; rather than crank, why not just work in terms related to edits, such as majority, minority and fringe? KrishnaVindaloo 01:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Go off Wiki for a day... 

message: Under item 6 in the section on Dealing with disruptive crank editors is "Possible topic ban..." with a link to Wikipedia:Community probation.  That article doesn't address topic bans.  A search in Wikipedia and Wikipedia Talk space found no obvious article on topic bans; although a number of cases in which they were imposed or recommended turned up.
Does anyone know the appropriate link?  --SteveMcCluskey 13:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Community probation indeed addresses topic bans. The first official community topic ban, "Mccready is issued a 30 day community probation related to Pseudoscience articles," is listed there. FeloniousMonk 15:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor editing problem (inappropriate link) 

message: I found this passage somewhere on the project, and felt it might help here. 
::Disruption has an amorphous definition that can be construed to fit the need of a blocking administrator. While this of course has been and can be abused, it is also necessary for blocking users who are damaging to the community. WP:IAR spawned the ability to block for disruption, as we cannot define a certain action as 'disruption', but it can only be interpreted as such.
Should it be included? FeloniousMonk 15:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A consensus of uninvolved Wikipedians agreeing that someone's edits constitute persistent violations of fundamental policies is how "disrupton" is defined in the context of this guideline. WAS 4.250 15:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this be included?