Wikipedia talk:Tendentious editing/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Some Comments

I LIKES IT! Syrthiss 11:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• This is a good essay, and potentially useful. I'd expand upon the concept of "undue weight", and point out that sometimes, even if certain information is true, including it in a particular fashion in a particular article skews the article. For instance, if there's a stub biography for a certain individual that goes into detail over a particular point of controversy, while at the same time failing to give more general biographical details or outline the individual's contributions, the article is unbalanced and biased against that individual. I find undue weight to be the primary "sin" of many of the tendentious editors I've encountered. --woggly 09:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Haha, this is great, did you write it while reviewing the contribution history of User:RJII? :)) - FrancisTyers · 09:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Cut from intro:

• On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors.

Wait, are you saying that if multiple other editors resist these "repetitive attempts" then by definition those were tendentious edits?

If so, there would appear to be 2 different definitions of tendentious here:

1. Edits which violate NPOV policy because their result is a biased article
2. Edits which go against the 'consensus' (i.e., majority) of contributors to an article - regardless of the merits of that edit.

In other words, if 2 or 3 editors want to violate NPOV, and 1 editor tries multiple times to return the article to neutrality THEN the editor trying to restore neutrality is guilty of "tendentious editing". --Uncle Ed 20:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Most policies and guidelines address more than one state of violation. In fact, it there are few policies where there is only one way to violate it, perhaps just WP:3RR, but even that there are creative ways around it that are addressed in the policy. Repeatedly bringing up baseless objections after being shown that they are baseless is by definition of tendentious editing. I think the passage is accurate is necessary, so I've replaced it. FeloniousMonk 18:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

When I first read this essay, I misunderstood the bit about "the term also carries the connotation". If the term carries the connotation, it means that if you describe someone as being a tendentious editor, you are implying they s/he probably has made repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors. However, after rereading, I gather the sentence doesn't necessarily imply that if someone has made repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors, s/he is tendentious. Overall, I prefer the Ed's shorter version, which I think is clearer, however I don't believe the current version is actually wrong. Addhoc 21:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand why material which is true and important to know is deleted if it is derrogatory about a subject. There are a couple of radio stations that have some ugly information about them that is verrifiable and true yet these bits get edited.

violation of this

I think there is tedentious editing (and edit warring), and tedentious comments on here Template talk:History of Manchuria. What do you do if editors are violating this? They are clearly biased but they have done nothing wrong like edit warring, 3RR, or vandalism. Good friend100 23:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Another talk page trick

Another thing I've noticed, besides failure to thread, is endlessly restarting new sections of the talk page on the same topic after they were unable to gain consensus last time -- sometimes immediately following the very same section -- and then claiming users are refusing to discuss (if everyone is tired of it by that point). Anyone else seen this? Of course the more general problem is talking an issue to death and claiming victory. Maybe re-sectionalizing lets them pretend to themselves they aren't just fillibustering, or that they are making ground somehow and not just running in place? -- 146.115.58.152 17:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Righting Great Wrongs section

lol, maybe I'm tendentious, but Mother Theresa does not strike me as the ideal antitheses to Stalin, looking at her public tributes to people like the Duvaliers and Enver Hoxha. Not to mention her belief that the suffering of others was a good thing, which perhaps led to the appalling practices of her clinics as documented by the British Medical Journal and The Lancet. Perhaps there are apologias for Stalin that are similarly reputable, and this section is very clever. 86.42.124.92 07:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"Defamation case" removal

My edit comment was truncated, so just explaining here. I removed "One defamation case could bankrupt the Foundation and see us shut down." because I don't think this is a wholly accepted or complete explanation of the motivation behind BLP. Better to leave that to the BLP page itself. Dcoetzee 21:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be wiser to legally doubt this. Wiki is a public medium, as such noone and certainly not the foundation is responsible to the whole of its content at every given time. Certainly most contemporain historical issue's that have warranted legal procedures will give people thoughts, and may lead them to unjustly defame or feel bias. In none of these cases wiki would bear any responsability as the mechanisms to undo flawed aspects of contributions are always there. If in a certain article one such bias would remain over years, it actually proves noone had a such severe interest to change it, that it could actually not consist (significant) defamation. Lastly, If something is on a well visited wiki, stays there for a long time, and is obviously eronneous or defaming, the fact it stayed there proofs it had not much significance. Saying you can loose a proces over defamation now, opens up the possibility that the actual investment in wiki can later be made undone at will (preempting an (il)legal proces, through censory mechanism (governmental or corporate), that would hold personal blame over knowledge, basically). Limiting ones owns freedom of expression provides tools in the hands of the ones that don't favour these freedoms. It's a bit like how promoting familylife will cause overpopulation as a sideeffect. We should not promote the limiting of freedom of expression by legalising it ourselves. That said i'd excuse in advance to everyone unjustly and personally hurt, through either negative feelings towards their persons, or corruptions of the historical knowledge through the representation of interests. I do find it a general flaw of wikipedia article's that they tend to promote certain pov's not in the least the sociostratic "status quo"'s. However i also witness in some cases bias slowly dissolves. And that a somewhat relevant discussion can always be opened again with relatively new people. So i don't think the intrinsic bias of intellectual options of some kind or another is an unmendable one in wiki. That is btw. not on the defamation "clause" (in fact 'laws'), but it is relevant to compare (cases of) 'bias' instrumental. The historical relevance of defamation is related to 'bad intend' , wikipedia being easily and even openly editable should not fear to withstand such attempts on her concepts, as they logically present the very same bad intend, the limiting of expressions in an open source (instrumental for defamation). 77.251.179.188 13:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Responding users with convoluted and long comments

I think this goes in line with repeating the same arguments over and over again. Some tendentious editors that I have encountered tend to not care so much about brevity and clarity for the convenience of other editors to read and make them extremely long instead, probably hoping that it will throw some naive editors off. I think this can be added to the "Characteristics of problem editors." Can everyone edit the project article? I just wanted some opinions before I add this. миражinred (speak, my child...) 20:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Who uses this word?

We should aim to clarify, not obscure. "Tendentious" is not a word that most people commonly use, in my experience. Any reason not to call this simply "biased editing"? Sure seems like it'd be more clear. Friday (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, and would go further and say that this entire essay is vague, and at best redundant with WP:NPOV. Obviously if "everyone has bias," as it states, then everyone editing may be "tendentious" if that bias makes its way into articles, as it easily can. In a dispute, the accusation of the other side being "tendentious" is all too easy, and the accusation seems to be a violation of WP:AGF that is tolerated by the community. In my albeit limited experience, this essay is more often used to attack and remove editors with an opposing POV (who are in the minority) than to actually enforce WP:NPOV. Blackworm (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "tendentious" may not be the best word, but here on wikipedia it has come to mean what it's come to mean, so I think we're stuck with it, and I'm not sure that "biased editing" really does the trick either. I would disagree, however, that this article is vague; in my mind it's anything but vague. It clearly states that, hey, we all have our biases—and that's cool, man—but when these biases get in the way of NPOV editing to the point that we that start exhibiting many of the characteristics described therein, then that's a problem. And in that regard, I think the essay is very useful, more useful, in fact, than WP:NPOV, because it gives concrete examples of problem behavior. And don't think calling an editor is necessarily a violation of WP:AGF if they fit description laid out here, after all, "It's okay to call a spade a spade … but be sure to use discretion and politeness when you do." Yilloslime (t) 03:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The evaluation of an editor this essay calls on us to make is this: a pattern of edits displaying a bias is more likely to be an issue, and repeated biased edits to a single article or group of articles will be very unwelcome indeed. That is the root of all "problem behaviour" described here. I've seen cases where that statement is simply untrue -- where editors showing such tendencies are praised, barnstarred, and have multiple supporters in high places. However, in most areas I've edited, I've seen cases where perceived bias in favour of a minority viewpoint will be very unwelcome indeed. Accusations of violating WP:TE sometimes follow suit, and in the context of editwarring or large disputes, the first such accusation seems to be the only one considered.

The contrast between WP:TE and WP:NPOV is that the latter calls for neutrality in the article, the former for a non-"offensive" POV in the editor. Entire groups of editors band together in favour of certain viewpoints in Wikiprojects, messaging each other out to help in disputes, but since those viewpoints are "approved," or simply have enough of a majority to gain traction, members are not seen as violating WP:TE. If a viewpoint in itself is offensive to some, inevitably those offended will be editing related articles. Other lone editors seeing an unbalance in the representation of the "offensive" viewpoint, and consequently seeking out information and presenting cited material about the viewpoint (WP:NPOV), are often seen by the first group of editors to be tendentious. In case you can't tell, yes, I've been accused of being "tendentious." I now read "tendentious" as "appearing to me as espousing a viewpoint that is somewhat offensive." Blackworm (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Indenting

Please advise...How To Indent...Thank you--Buster7 (talk) 06:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm self-schooled...LOL...--Buster7 (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Editors often excel by Tendentious editing

This section is not the case:

Editors who engage in this behaviour generally fall into two categories: those who come to realise the problem their edits cause, recognise their own bias, and work productively with editors with opposing views to build a better encyclopedia – and, well, the rest. The rest often end up indefinitely blocked or, if they are otherwise productive editors with a blind spot on one particular area, they might be banned from certain articles or become subject to probation.

There are several examples of editors who have carte blanc control of certain articles and subjects because of tendentious editing. travb (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of examples

I do not see what is wrong with these examples. One that I added previously was perhaps over-the-top, but most recently I omitted that. I also do not see how WP:POINT applies here, since these examples are not disruptive to anything. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Fewer examples, not more; making a laundry list of pet peeves only invites the development of more forms. There are millions of forms tendentious editing could take (at least ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The specific examples given violate numerous behavioral guidelines and policies, or at least provide excuses to violate them. I think that justifies their removal. While in this context, WP:POINT hopefully makes more sense, it certainly didn't do anything to de-escalate the situation. --Ronz (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Condense examples

I have seen concerns about the list expressed before. Many of the examples given here are extremely soapboxy, and most were probably written with a specific editor in mind, raising WP:BATTLEGROUND and possibly WP:POINT issues. Worse, the list as it is invites more of the same. I attempted a rewrite, but was reverted. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I pretty much disagree. WP:SOAPBOX applies to "articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages." Essays are not on that list. W/r/t WP:BATTLEGROUND I don't see any evidence that any of the examples currently on the page are related to grudges or personal conflicts. Sure, recently it looks like there may have been some attempts to insert some material along those lines, but none of that material stayed in the essay for very long. And with the exception of two items I added last summer, the examples that are up there now have been there for at least 2 years.[1]. I've seen no evidence that these where added to make a WP:POINT or as part of a WP:BATTLE, and even they were, one would hope the hatchet would be buried by now. W/r/t my two additions, I can attest that they were added based on my own observations on a variety of articles and do not relate to a specific user or situation.

Finally, I'm of the general opinion that examples are good. They help people digest concepts, make connections, and truly understand what is being said. Wikipolicy would benefit from more concrete examples, not less, IMHO. And if we have to sometimes walk a fine line between illustrating a policy, guideline, or essay with concrete examples on one hand, and running up against WP:BATTLEGROUND and other policies/guidelines on the other, so be it.Yilloslime (t) 06:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Biased editing on a regular basis is not a sin

This article says in its lead: "A single edit is unlikely to be a problem, but a pattern of edits displaying a bias is more likely to be an issue, and repeated biased edits to a single article or group of articles will be very unwelcome indeed. This last behaviour is generally characterised as POV pushing and is a common cause of blocking."There are tonnes of people with a bias and they edit articles on a regular basis. Is this a problem? No. The article is misleading. So what? This website is made from people having different biases. Without that, you wouldnt have the website. Thats how it works. If I like candy too much, I'll go ahead and contribute on that. I have a bias towards candy. If I hate candy a lot, I might go in and edit then too. Thats how people of different views get together and create an article which covers all points of view. Someone who loves candy isnt going to care about how harmful it is to our teeth if eaten regularly. Thats the job of the guy who hates candy. No single editor is responsible for putting in a NPOV. This is impossible to achieve without involving others. If I'm putting in information that is RS, thats all we need to care about. If I resist the majority of editors and indulge in revert wars etc, only this is a problem. Otherwise having a bias and regularly editing articles with that bias is not a sin, as this article incorrectly points out. The 2nd paragraph clarifies this by saying "Problems arise when editors see their own bias as neutral, and especially when they assume that any resistance to their edits is founded in bias towards an opposing point of view.", but the lead itself is not correct. The lead should be sufficient. When you go over to the "Characteristics of problem editors", thats valid. This should all thus be reworded. Biased editing is not a sin. It happens in all the edits, is not avoidable and is not something to be discouraged. Only the characteristics of problem editors is the stuff that needs to be there. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. Just because some people edit with a bias, we shouldn't accept it. It should be discouraged, and it is. Of course we all have biases and opinions but wikipedia's prime directive, if you will, is to edit from a neutral point of view. Is that easy? No way, but we should try our best to avoid editing with a biased slant if possible. Just my 2 cents :) Cheers! --Tom 20:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)ps I LOVE candy so I'll avoid that article :) Cheers! --Tom 20:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok well, suppose I got cancer from eating too many strawberries (assume its possible) and now I hate strawberries. Now I go and edit the Strawberries article, putting in RS and relevant information about how strawberries can cause cancer if eaten in excess. I dont see anything wrong in that. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What if your RS were from anti-strawberry or anti-fruit websites? Websites that claim they are not anti-strawberry at all. Rather, the problem is that other websites are controlled by the pro-strawberry lobby. And what if your edits (although truthful about the cancer causing potential of strawberries) gave undue weight to that viewpoint? To me, it's about context. If your intent is to smear or stigmatize strawberries, rather than present potential health problems about strawberries in a responsible manner, with fairness of tone, then you are probably POV pushing. In my opinion, this kind of editing is far too common on the Wikipedia. It's a far greater threat to Wikipedia's credibility than the infantile vandalism that goes on. The difference is, there are thousands of "vandal fighters" and not enough people willing to take on POV pushers, especially when the POV pushing is popular. A perfect example is the War in Iraq and members of the Bush administration. It's an unpopular war, Bush is an unpopular president, and people don't seem to have much sympathy if criticism cited in the various articles about prominent neoconservatives is poorly sourced (e.g., from advocacy websites, or left wing "news magazines"). People, organizations, or wars that are this notable don't need POV sourcing in order to produce a controversy section, because there's enough in the mainstream news media. But it's not juicy enough for some editors, who prefer to parrot the allegations of the less responsible news sources. Regards, MoodyGroove 00:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Out of interest, is there any mechanism on Wikipedia for dealing with consistently tendentious editors? The type is recognisable. They have no interest in other topics or helping Wikipedia maintenance. Every single thing they add to Wikipedia relates to their anti-strawberry obsession. They create biographies of anti-strawberry campaigners and scientists. They add huge bibliographies of scientific papers about strawberries and cancer. If they can find papers relating to strawberries and other diseases, that'll go in too. They may break no guidelines, and every single edit is perfectly true and reliably sourced - just selected entirely to support a particular stance. Is this kind of editing pattern a matter for, say, WP:RFC? 86.145.94.23 (talk) 03:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I know this is an old old thread, but I noticed this example of "avoiding" the article about candy because you love it. Although I'm sure that was a joke, it brought a point to my mind, namely that I don't think "avoiding" articles where one has biases is a good approach -- rather one should try and reduce or remove those biases from oneself, because there is the potential for beneficial contributions to be made. Avoiding articles stamps out that potential. mike4ty4 (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Integration with the rest of the metapages, plus style

To me this essay seems like a worthwhile guideline, but I also think it needs to be integrated with the rest of them. There shouldn't be overlap between, say, the guideline on NPOV and this one, but mere links instead. To that end I already tried to sharpen the idea that tendentious editing attaches more to the editor than to the specific article. As such, we have the application of non-NPOV against two different axes: content (easily abused articles) and editors (easily abusive/tendentious editors). After that, we should consider which meta-articles need to be merged and accommodated on both of those axes, via the addition of the tendentious editing one.

Secondarily, the style of this article leaves much to be hoped for. The presentation is not as clear and organized as it should be, especially in a guideline. The article needs to distinguish itself with useful content that is at the same time both on-topic, and such that it is easiest found under this particular headline. And, perhaps, the systemic implications of the concept should be thought out: the topic after all suggests an author-related tag of tendentiousness, something that is very, *very* sensitive, and worthy of serious oversight. Decoy (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Promotion suggestion

Often cited, used in policy, should become a behavioral guideline or guideline for the specific application of Disruptive editing.--Ipatrol (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The page is currently too rambling. A putative policy/guideline should have a tight focus so that its meaning or topic is clear and will not be subject to creep. A ironic problem for this one is that tendentious editors will typically subvert such policies or guidelines to make them weapons with which to wage their interminable edit wars. How would we guard against the expansion or drift of the definition of tenditious editing when it is so vague? Colonel Warden (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose promoting this to a guideline for reasons discussed above, but what about giving it the status of "information page", like WP:COMMON? PSWG1920 (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support, I cite it all the time and see others doing so as well. Long overdue. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose Promotes an adversarial and confrontational model of editing that is entirely at odds with WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Incorporates that dreadful term "problem editor". Wikipedia is not a battle ground. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Good, but written as on opinion essay. Let it stay that way. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Its basically just an extension of the distruptive editing guidelines. JeremyWJ (talk) 07:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support There are enough examples within Wikipedia of this type of editing that I think it would make life easier if it was explained in a guideline. I do think the word "Tendentious" might be a bit overbearing to many, maybe a word or phrase that was used a little more often in everyday language. — Ched (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment. It seems to me that the main issue here is the Characteristics of problem editors section, which seems highly questionable per WP:BATTLE and WP:SOAPBOX, and by its very existence invites more of the same. If it were deleted or summarized without any specific examples, perhaps there would be a broader consensus to promote. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I think the examples are extremely useful; without them the page basically just says, "Don't be biased." I'd prefer to keep it as is (i.e. as an essay, but with the examples), than promote it without the examples.Yilloslime (t) 17:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if this remains an essay, it should still not be a WP:BATTLEGROUND or WP:SOAPBOX. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how either of those apply to this essay. Yilloslime (t) 21:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• oppose Although I cite it often, I think promoting this essay is more WP:BURO and WP:CREEP as per WP:NOMORE. Ikip (talk) 07:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

GREATWRONGS

The two examples given in "GREATWRONGS" seem a little limited to me in scope, and both cover the same "justice" theme. I saw some editors are proposing renaming the British Isles article to something else because they find the term offensive (background can be read here [2]) Is this not an attempt to "right a great wrong" (British colonisation of Ireland) by expunging the article name? (Full disclosure: I commented on the debate to this effect in the article talk page and am also involved in a semi-similar debate at British Empire). I'm not asking for input to the debate, rather, should we expand the examples to include something like this, or at the very least, something other than a criminal/legal matter? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 09:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Guideline Confusion

I'm confused as to where exactly this article stands. Looking at the WP:DISRUPT behavioural guideline, this article is cited as the very first sign of a disruptive editor. But this article in and of itself is not a behavioural guideline. How does that work, exactly? If this is listed as sample behaviour in an official guideline, to me it seems that that status would be conferred on this article as well. --Rob (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

advertize discussion properly

post it at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals) to get more input from community. i think there are other places to post it too, can't remember. otherwise remove the status tag. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

In a nutshell

Can someone write an appropriate and terse {{nutshell}} for this page? -- œ^™ 22:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent Reversion

I notice that RetroS1mone has recently reverted an edit of several points in the "characteristics of a tendentious editor" list that have been in place for nearly a month. At least in my mind, most of them are traits of a tendentious editor. What do other people think? (Would it be easier to list them in bullet form and then ask for concensus on each?) --Rob (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You are making case against me as tendentious editor [3]. The things you are using, they were put in by one IP editor les then one month back. I am suspecting some thing strange is happening. Guido and other editors on CFS articles, they threatened and discussed taking me off Wiki a long time back. When people have aproblem w/ one editor, like me pls have a public discussion, it is strange to edit Tendentious to make it more easy to "get" one editor. RetroS1mone talk 01:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

RetroS1mone and I are both currently involved in dispute resolution, which I was deliberately leaving unsaid so as not to bias any responses. The fact that she removed behaviours that she is likely to be accused of, however, seems telling. My dispute with her began around June 4 and was filed formally on June 10, but the edits to this page are almost a month old. My Sandbox page was created as a preparatory step should the dispute resolution process need to be escalated. There is currently no information about her or any other editor in that Sandbox, and per RfC/ANI guidelines, I will notify any involved individuals should I ever use that template. She has been invited to file an RfC or ANI action, as appropriate, if she felt that the editors were truly acting in cooperation against her, but has not as yet done so. For the time being, I am content to proceed with the existing dispute resolution and let it come to whatever conclusion it may come to. --Rob (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion on any dispute between Rob and RetroS1mone. I have no opinion on whether either or both editors are "tendentious editors". But the information removed in this edit was useful, accurate information, and should be restored. – Quadell ^(talk) 03:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there can be some or all that goes here, but putting in new things to this definition w/o discussion by one IP editor, do not we want consensus first? I removed "behaviours that she is likely to be accused of" bc they got put in May, by IP editor, days before large co-ordinate IP edit warring at CFS articles, then alot of conteroversial edits and insults to me, some from CFS editors that discussed they wanted to remove me from Wiki ealry this year. Then I notice, Rob who is preparing action against me also is editing Tendentious. And Quadell, ruled against me at a biography today, rules against me here. I give up. RetroS1mone talk 05:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, the Characteristics of problem editors section as it currently stands (i.e. w/o the additions by the IP) is basically identical to the version we had a back in August 2008 which was pretty stable. The only difference is that the current version is missing the section on talkpage post threading. See this dif. I support this current version, (i.e. without the IP's changes), and I'd also support re-inclusion of the section on talkpage threading (full disclosure: I wrote that section). I declare I have no knowledge of or interest in whatever dispute is going on between RetroS1mone & Rob or anyone else. Yilloslime ^T_C 05:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with RetroS1mone that the original additions by the IP address should have been discussed here first. However, they weren't, and in roughly a month, nobody saw fit to remove them or dispute them with the exception of one. That's why when they were backed out, I asked for consensus. It's fair all around in that nobody's single-handedly re-inserting them and we all have the chance to give our opinions, as we should have had the first time around.

On the issue of when the IP-editor inserted here vs. changes to the various CFS pages, there was a period of 2.5 weeks between the edit here (May 16) and the beginnings of significant activity (June 2) on any of the CFS pages I'm familiar with. Given that, it seems unlikely that any editors involved on the various CFS pages were involved in changing this article. --Rob (talk) 06:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, I asked Quadell for his opinion if my actions here had been the correct ones to take, or if there was anything else I should have done. I went to him for the sole reason that I had seen him on the biography article earlier and he would be at least vaguely familiar with myself and Retro, rather than just a random request out of nowhere. So yes, I did bring the issue to his attention, but I did not ask him to give an opinion on the article itself. He did that entirely of his own volition. --Rob (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like an anonymous editor has (yet again?) inserted these changes without discussing it. As it stands now, I see 3 for the additions, 1 against. Is there anybody who feels strongly that we need to revert these changes? --Rob (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I object to "You have been involved on a particular page for a long time, yet all you have ever done there is delete, revert, tag, and criticize." While this might occasionally be a sign of a tendentious editor, it is very frequently the sign of an editor attempting to promote compliance with Wikipedia's most fundamental policies in a busy article on a controversial subject. This 'test' is neither sensitive nor specific for tendentiousness and should be removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't say that's one of my favorites either. Maybe it's because I have a bunch of completely loony low-profile articles on my watchlist, and all I ever do is "delete, revert, tag, and criticize" each new single-purpose agenda account that promotes them. Like WhatamIdoing, I think there's way too much overlap between this description and the activity of an editor maintaining an article's compliance with content policies. MastCell ^Talk 20:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually... what's up with this one: "You challenge the reversion of your edits, demanding that others justify it"? Am I taking crazy pills? My understanding is that reverts should always be justified, or at least that one should always be willing to justify one's reverts. How is requesting (sorry, "demanding") justification for a revert evidence of tendentiousness? MastCell ^Talk 20:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree completely on both of the above, but at the same time, I think I can see the intended reasoning behind them.

• In the first one (delete, revert, etc.), it might represent an attempt to keep a POV page static and maintaining that POV, but it could be completely benign as well. I could possibly see changing it to "...against Wikipedia policy" or something to that effect, but I'd support full removal as well.

• The second one (reversion) could be seen as Wikilawyering if it's repeated, but I would hope that anybody who reverts would justify their reversion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. I think it could just be deleted outright...or perhaps replaced with the opposite phoenomenon where you revert others' edits without sufficient justification! --RobinHood70 (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) My two cents on these:

• You have been involved on a particular page for a long time, yet all you have ever done there is delete, revert, tag, and criticize. Not diagnostic: equally applicable to users protecting articles against tendentious editors.
• You often talk about single purpose accounts in article discussion. Not useful: this mostly targets users opposing tendentious accounts. Personally I dislike the current downer on this term: it's genuinely useful as an identifier of problem edit patterns.
• You constantly warn editors for "harassment" or "incivility" which occurs within mostly constructive comments. Redundant: covered by next point.
• You characterize every warning directed at you as "harassment". OK.
• You often tell those who disagree with you to "use common sense". This doesn't seem common enough a characteristic to mention. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Since nobody has specifically supported the "all you do is defend the article by deleting spam, BLP violations, original research, and unsourced garbage" item, I've deleted it. It sounds like quite a bit of these newer items need to be removed, or at least revised. I'd be happy to hear further views on which others should be prioritized for removal.

An important point, IMO, is that the items on this page not require good judgment and common sense to understand. If all editors had good judgement, common sense, decent social skills, etc., then this page wouldn't even exist. This page should be written so that the tendentious editor himself (or herself) can see that what s/he is doing is considered TE by others (even though s/he won't agree that it's a problem). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point about the page being written so that tendentious editors themselves can understand the problem. --RobinHood70 (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, shortly after all but one of the items were added [4], most of these promote behavior that violates policies or guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Making this into a real guideline.

Hi.

I also thought it might be a good idea for this to be a real guideline. To that end, I'm wondering how it might be modified so as to be more suitable for one. For example, one objection in the "poll" was this:

"Oppose The page is currently too rambling. A putative policy/guideline should have a tight focus so that its meaning or topic is clear and will not be subject to creep. A ironic problem for this one is that tendentious editors will typically subvert such policies or guidelines to make them weapons with which to wage their interminable edit wars. How would we guard against the expansion or drift of the definition of tenditious editing when it is so vague? Colonel Warden (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)"

So how would you propose to make it less rambling, for example, and to make the definition more crisp? mike4ty4 (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

See my suggestion in the thread directly above, and the edit which I made and got reverted. I believe that would go a long way toward making this page viable as a guideline. PSWG1920 (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose turning any version of this essay into a guideline while it contains a section like "Characteristics of problem editors". Guidelines should be positive prescriptions of how editors should behave on Wikipedia, not lists of negative characteristics and perjorative labellings. This essay does not even try to set out a positive benchmark for on-Wiki behaviour - it simply creates name-calling ammunition for Wiki wars. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

OpposeThis essay is not lacking merit, but I think we should avoid WP:CREEP and leave it as an essay. Right now, it gives helpful tips, as a good essay should, and if it were a guideline, it would be taken by many to be a required standard.

Weak oppose: It's good advice, but it's written like an essay. It's pretty imprecise, and somewhat humorous (the "how to tell if you're tendetious editing" part). I've seen people sometimes refer to it, but it doesn't really give us a workable standard to measure people's behavior. Might change if the essay were tightened up, but really, someone might want to write something new and leave this be, or add to WP:DE. Randomran (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• I liked this page. Its subject matter is not guideline matter though. Keep it as is. Is it added as a "see also" to pages like wp:3rr, etc.?

• Oppose making this anything but an essay WP:CREEP. --PBS (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Numbering Characteristics Section

What do people think about numbering the "Characteristics of Problematic Editors" section for easier reference? I was actually going to just do it myself (per WP:BOLD and the fact that it's not a "major change" by any means), but since I couldn't figure out how to get it to work properly (all the numbers in my preview came up as 1.) I thought I would get feedback on it here and also see if anyone could help. Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the list is either stable enough or organized enough to merit numbering. Additionally, comments like "You're violating WP:TE #15" are not likely to be helpful in difficult situations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The idea was really more for dispute resolution, when people are trying to determine if a user is being a TE, not for wild accusations. The same way the relevant part of WP:CIVIL is numbered which helps people in dispute resolution determine which characteristics they may or may not be violating. --Zoeydahling (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

TE is just an essay, so there's never any need to determine whether an editor technically fits 'the Wikipedia definition of tendentious editing'. CIVIL, by contrast, is a policy, and compliance is mandatory. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

br at top of first section (after lead)

The top of this sectio,n, after the pic captioned "axe to grind?...", has <br style="clear:left;">.

On Mozilla 3.5.6, Windows Vista at 1024×768 resolution, this causes one line's worth of extra vertical whitespace before the first para. I'm tempted to remove it, but presumably it is there for a purpose. Would {{clear}} ABOVE the section title be more appropriate?

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 06:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Another behaviour

I've encountered another behaviour I've found characteristic of tendentious editors, and was wondering about adding it. Not sure on the wording, but it goes something like this:

One who never accepts independent input

You find that any external input through a third opinion or request for comment is always biased against your sources, wording or point of view.

The purpose of independent input is to resolve disputes between editors by a neutral third party. That doesn't mean the neutral, third party will make everyone happy, will choose one side (or both sides), or in particular, will agree with you. If, no matter how many times a neutral third party intervenes, you never seem to get your way, that suggests that your goals are at odds with wikipedia's policies, guidelines, community and purpose.

Any thoughts or suggestions? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed examples to talk page/'You do not thread your posts on talk pages.'

You do not thread your posts on talk pages.

Seemingly an unrelated style issue, tendentious editors often do not indent their talk page comments. While threading discussions (by indenting your replies to others' posts) is not strictly required, it is standard practice and highly recommended since it makes discussions easier to follow. Failing to do so may be interpreted as inexperience with Wikipedia conventions at best, and as inconsiderateness or arrogance at worst.

As the paragraph states, this has absolutely nothing to do with tedious editing.

Only once you have justified your edits beyond a reasonable doubt does the burden of proof shift to others.

I don't think this is policy.

Your citations back some of the facts you are adding, but do not explicitly support your interpretation or the inferences you draw.

The policy on original research expressly forbids novel syntheses of other sources.

This is not necessarily a tedious editor, and has little to do with tedious editing. travb (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I just revert back to the prior revision. W/r/t to the examples removed by Inclusionist, they are meant to be "Characteristics of problem editors" as the section title says. Thus, while I agree that by itself talk page layout does has nothing to do with tedious editing, it is, none the less, a common characteristic of problem editors. Likewise, problem editors often have problems with WP:SYN/WP:NOR, thus that observation is also relevant. Finally, the introductory sentence I removed (Tendentious means having or showing a definite tendency, bias, or purpose) was, in my opinion, redundant given that the next sentence begins [wikt:tendentious|Tendentious]] editing is editing which is partisan, biased, skewed... At least, that's how I see it. Yilloslime (t) 04:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Inclusionist/travb's changes and rationale. I think the article is better when focused upon truly tendentious behaviors that are problematic. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Given that I'd like to see this essay eventually promoted to a guideline, I think these off topic "characteristics" and the "reasonable doubt"/"burden of proof" sentence, belong in a different essay altogether.

"Tendentious means having or showing a definite tendency, bias, or purpose. " is indeed redundant. --Ronz (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd be fine seeing the "reasonable doubt"/"burden of proof sentence" go too. I feel strongly that the NOR/SYN item under "Characteristics of problem editors" should stay, since in my experience, this what tendentious editors are most tendentious about. The post threading item I feel should stay, too, though not as strongly as I feel about the NOR item. In my experience, this practice (or anti-practice as it were) goes hand and hand with tendentious editing (the correlation is eerie), and is thus a useful marker for it, even though it is seemingly unrelated. Anyways, these items have been part of the list for a while, so I'd prefer to see a clear consensus for removal emerge from a boarder discussion than what we've seen so far before removing them. In other words, this a fairly well trafficked page that's been edited by lots of long time contributors. We ought to get the input of more than 3 editors before removing long standing content. Yilloslime (t) 23:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I like this essay and most of the things discussed above look pretty good to me. EXCEPT for the paragraph about indenting replies. That just jumps out as being really random, particularly with the self-conscious justification for including it. I would suggest that this is a case of finding patterns where there are none. To me, failing to indent text is a big indicator of a new editor, and while many new editors may appear tendentious because they've started editing for some specific reason, that doesn't mean they will continue in that vein once nudged in the right direction. Conversely, the problem long-term tendentious editors wouldn't give themselves away with such obvious laziness on talk pages.

Unless there's still a mighty drive to keep this para, I'll remove it. I think this will benefit the essay as a whole by ensuring greater focus on the better points. GDallimore (Talk) 16:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I seem to be the only editor actively opposed to removing this particular paragraph, so reluctantly I'll not revert your removal of this paragraph. I think we're making a mistake here, but consensus seems to be against me.... Yilloslime ^T_C 05:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see this paragraph restored. I was puzzled that I couldn't find it any longer. It's such an extraordinarily accurate pointer to tendentious editing. --Kleinzach 23:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

My experience has shown that it isn't particularly accurate. In fact, I have observed tendentious editors who insist on overly-indenting discussions; for example, you have 8 indentations and discussion is being shoved into the right edge of the talk page, an editor attempts to unindent/refresh the talk for readability by unindenting his next comment; and the TE takes care to make his next edit continue the indentation the way it was going before. I have also seen a person make an edit to change the way everyone else's comments are indented in a certain way that is to his liking. I think that a more generalized desire to oppose traditional formatting is a better sign than one specific example. -- Atama^chat 19:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that not threading your posts has nothing to do with being a tendentious editor (although I have no problem with this paragraph being included in a section regarding "problem" editing), my comment has more to do with the the phrasing. It seems like it could be quite confusing, especially if a person happens to read it separately from the rest of the article.

The heading, "One who inappropriately threads his posts on talk pages", seems to imply that it is threading that is inappropriate, and when you combine this with the first sentence in the section, "You do not thread your posts on talk pages" (something which, viewed independently and without taking the context of the other items in the list into consideration, actually sounds more like a command than a characteristic of a problem editor), the wording of this section might actually impede proper formatting in talk pages.

I've made a couple of minor semantic changes that I think clarify the issue, unless someone thinks I'm way off base here. -=[ Alexis (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC) ]=-

"One who fails to appropriately thread their posts on talk pages" - I agree with the editors above who say that this section should be removed. It has absolutely nothing to do with tenditious editing. It is not in any way an indicator of bad faith either, as seems to be being suggested above. James500 (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILIBUSTER

WP:FILIBUSTER needs to go to something more specific. I think it used to. The behavior in question is loud demand on the part of one editor (sometimes a handful of editors) for a specific outcome that does not actually have consensus and is usually based on some subjective preference or whim rather than need and reasoning, defended with such continual browbeating that others eventually leave the discussion, leaving a false "consensus" for the tendentious party to have their way. This is closely related to WP:OWN and WP:LAWYER, but often much more subtle. It's common when a certain type of editor has spent a lot of time on an article with little outside input, but (e.g. because of a DYK) others start arriving and editing the piece. Another common form of this, in policypages and template, is implementing something sub-optimal, then filibustering sensible attempts to fix it on the part of other editors who respond to the bad idea's negative results. Another type entirely is knee-jerk resistance to change in some procedure on the basis that "we've done it this way a long time, so we shouldn't change it", even when the evidence is clear that the net result of the change would be positive for the project. I think WP:CONSENSUS touched on this at one point, and even used the word filibuster, but people have been editing our core policies and guidelines a lot (perhaps over-much) in the last couple of years. I think the concept that "Wikipedia is not a filibuster" has gotten lost in that shuffle, and needs to be unlost, because the problem it refers to is growing rather than receding in frequency and severity. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 06:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

PS: Wikipedia:What is consensus?#Not unanimity did actually still mention filibustering, so I've changed WP:FILIBUSTER to point there. WP:TE would still benefit from mentioning the concept, and linking there, probably from the section on repeating the same argument but not being listened to. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 06:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Main page and Talk page distinctions

It seems clear to me that editing disputes conducted by Main page edits are undesirable, and one might wish to relate Edit warring to tendentious editing. However, on a Talk page the notion of tendentious editing appears to me to be on shaky ground.

To elaborate, a knowledgeable editor may have something to say on a topic that requires some notion of the nuance of the topic for its understanding. It can and does happen that preponderance of editors do not have the patience to familiarize themselves with the subject to the degree needed to follow the knowledgeable editor. As a result, an extended discussion ensues, as an attempt to educate the unversed takes place.

Is this attempt to educate the audience and pave the way to article improvement to be considered as tendentious editing? Whatever else might be said, it certainly is the case that impatience will surface and claims of beating a dead horse will arise. There is every likelihood of an AN/I complaint, and arbitrators who have no interest in the content but only in weeding out troublesome editors will take charge.

What is the position of this essay in such matters? The definition here: "editing with a sustained bias, or with a clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view" makes no distinction between Main page and Talk page editing. And, of course, "sustained bias" is readily confused with opposition to the view prevailing among the participants on a Talk page, as alluded to by POVbrigand above. Brews ohare (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Is tendentious editing on a Talk page a form of misconduct?

There are many ways to handle tendentious editing on a Main page, the most obvious being the 3 Revert Rule. On a talk page there are various conduct rules like Be civil that could lead to disciplinary action on AN/I. However, is it misconduct if an editor simply insists on discussion of a point which other editors have already considered settled?

It is my observation that in fact such insistence has been taken to be a form of misconduct in the past. An example is the article Speed of light, where discussion of how to present the introduction has become a sore point. Possibly various articles on Climate change fall into this category too: see Template:global warming. Is there any policy suggesting that tendentious editing on a Talk page is a matter that can be taken to AN/I? Brews ohare (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the specific characteristic of "One who repeats the same argument without convincing people" is relevant. As for a specific policy, try perhaps WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (a subsection of WP:Disruptive editing). ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Adjwilley, you have a point. The WP:Disruptive editing behavioral guideline might apply. I don't find this policy is at all clear about that. I've raised the question of its applicability on its Talk page. Perhaps you would add to that discussion? Brews ohare (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by a group of editors

It should be highlighted that tendentious editing can also be done by a group of editors who have build a consensus between them. Complaining about that will be regarded as being against said consensus and failure to get the point. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

POVbrigand: I've raised what might be seen as the inverse problem: the accusation by a group of editors who have built a consensus that a single editor is being tendentious. That topic is in a thread opened on the Talk page for WP:Disruptive editing. Perhaps you would add to that discussion? Brews ohare (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

argue vaguely

• 21:19, 14 August 2012 (Undid revision 507318834 by Machine Elf 1735 (talk) despite clear evidence that they have violated 3RR. some editors claim they didn't, even when it can be demonstrated they did)

It doesn't say "despite clear evidence", it says that you, the reader, have been blocked for violating 3RR more than once. I wouldn't assume the reader is guilty, but if they are, it's patronizing. In fact, it explicitly says that regardless of whether or not the reader is guilty they should not be precise... don't struggle, no one cares. Keeping the language is not an option: would you like to offer an alternative wording or shall I have another whack at it? Under the circumstances I will of course concede, that "even one revert can be disruptive".—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 23:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Can we please have some translations of this? (Yeah, I know translation is a new "chapter" in this article. But I have absolutely no idea how this is done. Please help me.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.194.166.86 (talk) 23:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Timing as a core objection to removing a statement or claim

I think that if one of your primary objections to removing a contentious statement is "it's been in there for a long time" that this is one of the hallmarks of a tendentious editor. I've noticed that some editors will cite this as though it is prima facie evidence that a claim is not contentious. this is crap, and I think it should be included in the essay. deferring to length-its-been-in-an-article as a metric of reliability or non-contentiousness is very possibly a reason some hoaxes are able to stick around for months or years at a time. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 04:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. In some cases, you're right, and in some cases people are just being a bit lazy (you know, "It's been there for months, so surely it's not a hoax, right?").

But in other cases, the fact that something has survived for years is itself a clear indication that the community really does want that text there. For example, WP:V used to feature the phrase WP:Verifiability, not truth. Every now and again someone would wander by and say that a cursory glance through the archives showed no enormous RFC on that talk page on the date that the phrase was inserted, so plainly the phrase had just been overlooked. For the last five years. On a major policy page. Which has more than 1,400 people watching the page.

So, yes, it's often a very weak argument, but sometimes there is real truth behind the claim that long-standing text very likely has consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

So first, I would make a distinction between an article and a policy. I think that the timing rationale might be better applied to policy, sure.

Second, by this same rationale, you have agreed to what appears to be the addition of a new bright-line rule to WP:BLP, specifically "two years at the outside". For posterity, here is the revision. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that this response comes up as often in articles, unless you're talking about the scope of the article (e.g., should Ketogenic diet give equal time to bodybuilding diets, or just be about the medical treatment?).

But something that's been in a policy for a week, with active discussions on the talk page, isn't exactly a case of "it's been there for a long time", is it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that things can stick around for weeks or months, years even, if noone's watching them. Even if someone is watching them. All i'm saying is that an appeal to "it's been there for weeks/months/years" by itself, is not a reason not to remove something, and I have heard that a number of times from editors i would consider tendentious. Because honestly, regardless of how long it's been there, if it's poorly sourced, or unreliable, it has no business being in WP in the first place. The timing argument only seems to come up with poorly sourced or unreliable material, in my (admittedly limited) experience. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Not truth

Currently the text reads, in the righting great wrongs section: "what matters is not truth but verifiability". Clearly truth matters and it is what we are about; this phrase has been deprecated in WP:V as a result. I changed it to "what matters is truth and verifiability", this was reverted but I'm no reason was given, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest changing it to match what WP:V says now: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it."  —SMALLJIM  08:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

No further comments, so I've made that change.  —SMALLJIM  11:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Shortcut

I noticed WP:AXE also redirects here. Should that be listed in the shortcuts? Not sure what the normal process is for that. Morphh ^(talk) 16:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Forum shopping as TE

Forum shopping, which is a sub-section of consensus policy "Consensus-building pitfalls and errors" ought to be mentioned. (I'll be suggesting an edit to that policy.) Input is requested. – S. Rich (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Article titles and WP:Verifiability

OnBeyondZebrax, regarding this edit, where you stated, "there isn't really a WP:V aspect to titles...titles are mainly a NPOV issue---content, though, does have to adhere to WP:V", that is not correct. Article titles are indeed about WP:Verifiability, as made clear at WP:Article titles. They are also about WP:NPOV, but title matters certainly are not always exclusively one or the other. Flyer22 (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Update: Fixed by OnBeyondZebrax. Flyer22 (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my error. I have looked at WP:Article titles, which indicates the importance of WP:V in article titles.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 01:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk page blanking

I've observed a number of editors who compulsively blank their talk page instead of leaving them be or archiving them. While that behavior by itself isn't problematic, it is usually indicative of a broader problem IMHO. Thoughts? Toddst1 (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it can be indicative of a broader problem, but not necessarily. Some long-term editors just prefer blanking to formal archiving for whatever reasons. - BilCat (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

This needs to be changed

You find that nobody will assume good faith, no matter how often you remind them.

Warning others to assume good faith is something which should be done with great care, if at all—to accuse them of failing to do so may be regarded as uncivil, and if you are perceived as failing to assume good faith yourself, then it could be seen as being a dick.

Using language such as "dick" is not appropriate for a page that is basically a Wikipedia guideline. I suggest the wording here be removed. JeremyWJ (talk) 07:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Erm Wikipedia is unrated, maybe you meant 'cunt' would be more appropriate? Unomi (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should not be used. Profanity is not fit for an encyclopedia. I will remove the language. ForgetfulDoryFish (talk) 08:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is not a requirement or even an unopposed policy in Wikipedia. However, it is important to remember that people generally do things for reasons. They usually think they are helping someone somehow. Profanity is fit for an encyclopedia in certain cases in my POV, but not here. Endercase (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Supplement page

NewsAndEventsGuy, regarding this, I don't disagree with your edit, but I wonder if we aren't setting a precedent by changing essay pages to supplement pages simply because they are mentioned in a section on a policy page (and not just in a "see also" kind of way). I mean, SmokeyJoe recently stated, "I think a requirement for a page to be a supplement to a policy is that the policy directly links to the supplement for further information." Is this why you changed the page to supplement? The supplement tag does note that it doesn't have any more weight than an essay, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

First, I think the very concept of the supplement tag is questionable. That said, there is supposed to be a higher degree of consensus for Template:Supplement than for Template:Guidance essay. SmokeyJoe has articulated one way he thinks we can show a high level of consensus. I happen to agree that's one way. Another way is through a talk page thread. Maybe there are other ways. For sure, there isn't any guideline or policy where the community at large has decided. So in these murky waters, this particular essay is rated "high impact" and has been an inline bold wikilink at the policy page ever since I created the WP:DISRUPTSIGNS shortcut in 2013. Probably longer. From where I sit, that's a strong showing of consensus that this essay merits the supplement tag, assuming we continue to have a supplement tag. Personally, I'd like to see these tags go away, and the important parts of the essays be merged with the real rule pages. But that's another thing altogether. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I remember clicking on this page days before your change to it, and I found myself surprised that it isn't a policy or guideline. Even though I'd seen that this page is an essay page times before, I felt that my mind was playing tricks on me because I know that WP:Disruptive editing covers tendentious editing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Correct, the policy covers the topic by name (see section with shortcut WP:DISRUPTSIGNS) but the policy page doesn't really elaborate, so this essay serves a very useful function. For one thing, the very word was new to me, so I expanded my vocabulary! My guess is that I have a lot of company in that regard. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk page banning

I've encountered a number of editors who seemingly reflexively tell other editors that they disagree with to "Stay off my talk page." The editors who do this, tend to have long lists of folks that have been "banned." Except in specific and clear cases of WP:WIKIHOUNDING, I think this behavior is highly problematic and an indication that the editor is having problems interacting with others. Should this behavior be included in this article? Toddst1 (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it should, as it discourages civil discourse and forces elevation in some cases. Endercase (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Toddst1 (talk) 06:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

"suppressing information", "censorship"

What should an editor do if a group of editors is actually actively engaged in these? Assuming good faith only goes so far if they will not engage in civil discourse. The outright banning of sources without a large policy discussion is clearly censorship yet it goes on here virtualy unopposed. Endercase (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Depending on the situation, WP:RSN or WP:ANI would be the venues to pursue. Toddst1 (talk) 06:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

BALASPS -> BALASP

The associated page has a shortcut box for WP:BALASPS, but that shortcut directs to WP:BALASP on the WP:NPOV page. That's wrong. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

This looks like an old error: the editor who first added this shortcut commented: add shortcut to WP:NPOV#Balancing aspects which is directly relevant.[5] Accordingly, I have replaced the shortcut with a "See also" pointing to the real WP:BALASP(S) section of our NPOV policy.[6] — JFG ^talk 06:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

"The editor on a mission to combat POV"

JFG, I understand why you added this (the section). And it is an okay addition. But there are numerous cases on Wikipedia where it's just one side pushing a POV and the other side wanting to protect the article from such POV-pushers; it doesn't make the other side part of the problem. For example, men's rights editors commonly target topics in which the weight of the literature is not with them. The side challenging their editing is not what I could call POV-pushing; it's rather that they are adhering to the WP:Neutral policy. In the case of the Pedophilia article and related topics, it's pedophilia and child sexual abuse POV-pushers (meaning those trying to portray the disorder and/or child sexual abuse in some type of positive light or not as harmful as has been noted) who are the problem. Not those protecting the article/topics from such editors. Further, one can want to protect the article from certain POV-pushers and from anyone else who POV-pushes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I totally agree with your caveats, and I don't think this section should be construed as excusing fringe-POV pushers; those will rightly be rebuffed by a plurality of level-headed editors. Rather, it addresses the case of people who feel invested in a "mission" to rid the encyclopedia of POVs that they simply happen to disagree with. Those may be strong and genuine disagreements, but they are still a matter of personal opinion. Such POV-warriors are bolstered by sources, but when confronted with a body of opposite-POV sources, they tend to accuse their fellow editors of cherry-picking or crass partisanship, while remaining blind to their own cherry-picking or crass partisanship. Bias goes both ways, and we should always remain conscious of where we are coming from, in order to leave our personal opinions out of the editing process.

The text I added was initially authored by Mandruss as a "micro-essay" which I found insightful enough to incorporate into WP:TEND. It is only meant as an example allowing editors to check they are not falling into a POV trap (wittingly or "not wittingly", to quote the eternal words of James Clapper). As this guideline exposes several such traps, it looked like the best place to insert it. Naturally, the wording could be tweaked, although it looks pretty solid as it stands, which is verbatim the Mandruss version. I don't think it should be watered-down here; there are other appropriate places to express the concerns you raised, notably WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, which make a good job of explaining such nuances. — JFG ^talk 06:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Everybody is biased—except those who don't care about anything, and they generally aren't editing controversial topic areas. I'm struck by the number of experienced editors who don't recognize/acknowledge their own bias, let alone have any awareness/understanding of how it affects their interpretation of policy, let alone do anything to try to moderate/counter that effect. I'm fairly certain they have the majority, and I see that as a serious problem. I think "How often do you edit against your own bias?" is a useful objective self-test, and easy to perform. If you can think of a better way to address this, I'm all ears.
For example, Flyer, pedophilia is not instrinsically "wrong" for our purposes, it's "wrong" only because the preponderance of reliable sources (especially science and academia) say it's unhealthy and harmful. It should not be a moral issue for us as editors, and our emotions need to be checked at the door, as difficult as that is for many of us (I'm a robot and have no emotions). Policy should be the end, not the means to the end. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

JFG, thanks for explaining your viewpoint. I often tell editors to not engage in advocacy, by pointing to WP:Advocacy. I do my best to follow the literature with WP:Due weight and to leave my biases off Wikipedia, unless my biases happen to align with the literature. But even then, I make it about following the sources, and I do try to see if the minority view should be mentioned in any way. I keep also WP:BIASEDSOURCES in mind. I just wanted to comment on the addition you added and wondered if it might be interpreted as meaning that guarding an article to especially protect it from certain POV-pushers is a bad thing; I'm stating that that's not necessarily the case. The page in question is a supplement page (originally an essay), not a guideline, by the way. If it were a guideline, I would have very likely reverted pending further discussion.

Mandruss, as you likely know, I work on pedophilia and child sexual abuse topics. A person who has pedophilia (the mental condition) can't change that condition. They can, however, decide not to engage in child sexual abuse. And child sexual abuse (I'm not speaking of complicated age of consent matters) is intrinsically wrong, including for Wikipedia's purposes. It's why our WP:Child protection policy exists. If an editor even discloses that they are a pedophile or expresses pro-child sexual abuse views, they will be blocked and/or banned. That's the way Wikipedia has been for years, and I've seen to it to have pro-pedophilia and pro-child sexual abuse editors taken off this site. So has Legitimus and Herostratus. Similarly, Beyond My Ken and Jytdog have repeatedly protected articles specifically from certain types of editors. BullRangifer has also done a fair job of dealing with POV-pushers. The bad thing is allowing disruptive editors any leeway unless they can actually show themselves to be productive here. Some of the aforementioned POV-pushers have called me a POV-pusher for stopping and getting rid of such editors. Regardless of their views on that, Wikipedia is with me, not with them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Drawn here by the ping. A very interesting discussion. I have written about this topic, tendentious editing, censorship, and about how NPOV requires us to deal with biased sources. It's all in my essay: NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content. You'll find some interesting thoughts there. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm fully aware that most Wikipedia principles are two-sided coins and double-edged swords; that's what makes the place a maddening house of mirrors. If the material in question can be clarified without watering it down, feel free to make a suggestion. If that's impossible, I was happy to leave it in my user space where it has lived quietly for the past two years.
I disagree with your approach to pedophile POV-pushers, but I don't tilt at windmills; as you say, Wikipedia is with you. It's an outlier case anyway as few issues are as clear-cut. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss, when it comes to pedophile POV-pushers, my issue is not with them simply identifying as pedophiles (although identifying as such is taken to mean that the person is here to push a POV, given how stigmatizing that identification is and that such editors usually want to edit pedophilia topics). There are pedophiles who say they don't condone child sexual abuse, such as those at Virtuous Pedophiles. So-called virtuous pedophiles have edited the Virtuous Pedophiles article. But the vast majority of pedophiles (and hebephiles) I have dealt with on Wikipedia have been problematic and needed blocking. And so they were indefinitely blocked. And egregious ones were banned. We have the WP:Child protection policy because of those editors. But do I think it's good for Wikipedia to house editors who publicly identify as pedophiles on Wikipedia or elsewhere? No. In the same way I don't think it's good for Wikipedia to house publicly-identified racists. With the exception of the Virtuous Pedophiles article, I have yet to see a pedophile on Wikipedia edit a pedophilia or child sexual abuse topic in a WP:Neutral way, unless, of course, they have and I just don't know that they are a pedophile. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Getting back to Flyer's first comments about this, I also think it's an "okay addition". If I have a quibble about it, it's that it uses the "conservative/liberal" oppositional bias axis, which is not the only NPOV-type of bias that aligns itself in a binary opposition. Further, some types of bias are one of three or a constellation of choices. In addition, this axis of bias smacks of American politics, whereas much of the world would interpret "liberal" quite differently. Like I said, it's a "quibble", but if a more globalized, possibly non-binary arena of bias could be found as an illustration, I'd probably be in favor of it. Mathglot (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I mean, right. I'm generally sympathetic to the point being made. That's all I really have to say, but I'll bloviate a bit anyway. So a couple things: re "it should not be a moral issue for us as editors", don't know about that. Saying something should not be a moral judgement is a moral judgement, so... you can never escape from the moral universe, not even by sitting behind a keyboard. "My job required me to suspend my moral judgement" has not played well in courts. The ACM Code of Ethics says "it is incumbent on all ACM members to contribute to society and human well-being, and avoid harm to others", while the NSPE's First Canon is "Hold paramount the... welfare of the public"; neither add "...unless your boss says different" and that would apply to volunteer work also. So since I don't want to resign my ACM membership I'm kind of constricted in what I can do here. I can't do anything that would cause harm, even if reliable sources tell me to.

Anyway the encyclopedia (like all proper encyclopedias) is an Age of Enlightenment entity, and so it's chock full of biases, specifically liberal bias, in the larger, classical sense. I mean the statement "information should be disseminated" is a statement that many people and most governments and churches would not agree with, historically. So it's not like that is somehow a neutral statement. So while we don't have an opinion on the liberal/conservative divide over what should be the tax rate, we do have an opinion on the liberal/conservative divide on whether what the Pope says is automatically true. We are skeptical but that is not the same as being amoral.Herostratus (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I added this addition to the section. I added it per JFG stating above that "I don't think this section should be construed as excusing fringe-POV pushers," and per what else was stated in this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

So regarding my aforementioned addition, I got a thank you via WP:Echo from NewsAndEventsGuy for my post noting that I had added the addition. And I got a revert from Guy Macon, which I reverted. Guy Macon stated, "While I personally think that this change was an improvement, changes to major policies need to be discussed on the talk page first." I replied, "This page is not a policy page. It's not a guideline page either. And I added this per the discussion on the talk page. The WP:Consensus on the talk page about what is meant by this section, which was added without discussion, is clear. Why don't you make an argument there, or ping all the people I already discussed this section with? Really, the section could be validly removed." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh, in a forehead slap sort of way. Guy, as you may already know, "supplement" pages of this sort are a variant of essay. See WP:SUPPLEMENT. Flyer, I think the section is useful, not because it prevents POV eds from engaging in this behavior, but because it could easily resolve frustration by neutral eds who encounter it, amnd may be having an emotional response before understanding just why they're pissed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

A wrong that needs to be righted

The "Righting Great Wrongs" section of this page should be deleted, or drastically rewritten, and its various shortcuts should be deleted too.

Why? Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. We're supposed to assume the best of other editors, and we're also supposed to Comment on content, not on the contributor. It is usually a violation of the spirit of those two policies when the shortcut WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is thrown at someone on a talk page, and it's a shortcut that's thrown around a lot. It encourages editors to shift their focus away from content ("this edit isn't well supported by the sources"), and to focus instead on contributors' motivations "you made that edit because you're trying to right great wrongs! I'm onto you, you crusader!" And no, I'm not just suggesting this because it's been used against me once or twice. :) I'm usually uncomfortable when I see it used against anyone. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 04:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Those of us who monitor a lot of topics know that WP:RGW is one of Wikipedia's great shortcuts which describes many problematic contributions perfectly. Occasionally someone who wants to use Wikipedia to tell the world about their point of view complains about WP:RGW but it is one of Wikipedia's essentials. Assume good faith does not mean that people should switch their brains off. Johnuniq (talk) 05:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

What Johnuniq stated. It is quite clear when an editor is editing Wikipedia in the way that WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS describes, and Wikipedia (in general) does not want that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Wanda about rewriting the section and renaming the shortcuts. The underlying lesson or point is valuable and should be kept. The language used to communicate it is confusing and unhelpful. There is other language we could use. We could talk about not editing with a personal agenda, or not editing to make a political point. The problem with "righting great wrongs" is that righting great wrongs is what Wikipedia does. It's the very raison d'etre of Wikipedia. The "great wrong" we are "righting" is that the world's knowledge is inaccessible. So it's foolish for us, a bunch of volunteers working on a website for a charitable and ultimately social-justice purpose (free knowledge for all) to then tell each other that we shouldn't "right great wrongs". It also leads to foolish arguments ad absurdium like "we do not care about justice". (Of course editors care about justice, they're still human beings, and probably more than most people since they're volunteering their time to secure free access to knowledge.) I've always thought this was one of the more terrible examples of hypocritical "Wikispeak", where we say the opposite of what's true and then pretend that that's true ("We're not here to right great wrongs!" Of course we are, this is Wikipedia.) Leviv ich 13:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

We do not indeed care about justice. ∯WBG^converse 14:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

For someone who says he doesn't care about justice, you sure do spend a lot of your time helping to ensure all humans have equal access to knowledge, aka information justice. You're not fooling me, WBG. I know you're a social justice warrior, I can see your timecard. Leviv ich 15:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

People edit Wikipedia for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with "justice". And you should probably quit with the personal attacks. Natureium (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

That was a compliment (and banter), not a personal attack. WBG donating his time to make knowledge more accessible is a good thing. Leviv ich 16:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It's hard to see something from you as banter when you've been leaving angry messages on Wikipedia. And "social justice warrior" doesn't seem like a compliment. Natureium (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I'm more of a Social Justice Paladin. Or maybe a Social Justice Bard. WanderingWanda (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

LOL, yeah, that's me, Mr. Angry on Wikipedia. The preceding sentence was sarcasm, as was "social justice warrior"; obviously WBG would not describe himself that way. I used that phrase because it referenced a comment that WBG recently made in which he referred to something as "leveraging social justice as a tool to win over Wikipedia's internal processes". This is in the context of WBG having said elsewhere multiple times that Wikipedia does not care about justice and, I think at least in some of those times, pointing to RIGHTGREATWRONGS. My original comment here, in turn, referenced this ("we do not care about justice"), which WBG–astute editor that he is–picked up on and replied to. I'm 99% sure WBG got the reference and the sarcasm and didn't take offense at my comments (WBG, apologies if you did), and I can understand why another editor might misinterpret that if they didn't know the backstory. By the way, regarding People edit Wikipedia for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with "justice". Sure they do, sometimes it's because they're getting paid or righting great wrongs. But if you're here to build a free and accurate encyclopedia, then you're a social justice warrior, or maybe paladin, bard, or chaotic druid, but either way, you're engaged in social justice, whether you admit it or call it that or not. You are righting a great wrong. We all are. Leviv ich 17:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a very useful shortcut that applies to a lot of disruptive editing on Wikipedia. Natureium (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Stonewalling/filibusting

In Wikipedia:Consensus#Pitfalls_and_errors filibusting is mentioned in link with tendentious editing, but there is no mention in here. Shouldn't we add something to that effect? --Signimu (talk) 00:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

"Even if you're sure some information is false, if it is verifiable you should not remove it."

I just reverted this edit by Kendrick7. Per WP:Due, WP:ONUS, and WP:BLP, that statement is demonstrably false. That is not at all how Wikipedia works. And this supplement page should not state this falsehood, enabling disruptive POV-pushers to argue nonsense. Kendrick7 apparently added it as a result of this matter involving Johnuniq. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Yikes, I should have noticed that. Thanks for removing. Johnuniq (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I obviously missed it as well, likely because of the followup edit by a different editor after it. The edit summary for the followup edit is not something that looks suspicious. I also have a big watchlist. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

How do any of those policies legitimize the removal of encylopedic information? I can change the wording if you'd like, but I do think vandals often act this way. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

No. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

As this page already says: "There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption." All I'm doing is extending what this page already says elsewhere in a perfectly common sense manner. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen and Johnuniq are right; the addition was not appropriate. No, being sourced does not guarantee inclusion until a consensus appears to remove it. It went way beyond what ArbCom said in 2006, as "pertinent" clearly means it has to be WP:Due. I also don't believe that WP:REMOVECITE redirect should have been created. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)