User:Sj/Archive/Advocacy noticeboard

New board

I've created this board because we currently have no dedicated area where people can discuss accounts whose edits are in persistent violation of NPOV, but who may otherwise be violating no behavioral policies, and can therefore be difficult to deal with.

My thinking is that we could use it on an experimental basis, and re-evaluate its effectiveness after, say, six months. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I am concerned there are just way too many noticeboards to keep track of. Not sure, maybe I would have suggested highlighting Content Noticeboard as a venue. I do hope I am wrong and this proves useful, but I have my doubts. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I do see your point, but I've been seeing complaints for years from users that there's no clear way to deal with persistent POV pushers, and no real enforcement of the NPOV policy. Bear in mind that this is not about content as such, but about behaviour primarily, though clearly it bleeds into content. The question for the board would be: has this user crossed over into advocacy? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Like TRA, I worry about Pandora, but I'm always up for an experiment. However, I like my experiments clearly labeled. The template for "trial policy" is not satisfying - this isn't a trial policy, we aren't proposing a change to policy, we are experimenting with a trial process to investigate allegations of persistent abuse of NPOV. --SPhilbrick T 23:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I see the template has been changed. Better.--SPhilbrick T 02:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be even better if it added This board is not to be used but only discussed on the talk page. I certainly have about six people I could bring here right now and assemble evidence quickly since I keep an "admin" section on every article for a listing of almost every complaint I (or others annoyed at people of interest) ever made and the archiving link. So for some of us getting that stuff together is real easy. Other people tend to just throw around a lot of accusations, but if they are big time administrators with lots of friends or scream bigotry loudly and frequently, or whatever non-evidentiary process they use that works for them, and their undocumented accusations have equal weight to well documented ones. Do we really need ANOTHER place where that non-sense goes on. Centralizing these things where more eyes can see - like WP:RFC/Users is much better. (And I think in four years I've only gone to comment on someone else once there.) Usually Wikiquette or ANI is enough to straighten out most people for a month or two anyway. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

How do you define 'persistent NPOV violation' if the user isn't violating policy?

I really don't think this is workable. All it will do is lead to endless disputes about the POV of this or that editor. As always, disputes are best dealt with by looking at the content, not the contributor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said, we can look at it after six months and see whether it's helping. My experience of these various boards (BLP, RN, NPOV) is that the users who maintain them develop a good understanding of the applicable policies and what the community considers best practice—often a better understanding than editors who patrol multiple boards. I think that would be helpful here in determining the point at which a user's lack of neutrality (something we all suffer from) has become a problem. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I've thought about setting this up for a long time, but it was a recent discussion on COIN that triggered it. It was typical of lots of discussions, where issues with a user fall through the cracks: no clear behavioral policy violations, no clear COI, yet multiple users from different standpoints seeing a persistent neutrality problem. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

SlimV, I am hoping that every one is as good as you hope. I assume if you took you this long to create it I dont need to spend time discussing the pandora's box syndrome here. This could be a way to address WP:CPUSH but We could also be dragging good editors through mud because of legitmate Differing POVs The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not good with template or I would do it myself. Can we get a User page notice to this thing like we use at ANI? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That users must be notified? Yes, good idea. I'll try to wrestle with it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

(And doesn't that inspire us all with confidence. SlimVirgin thinks about this "for a long time", but doesn't seem to notice that it is generally a good idea to inform people that they are being 'tried'.) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Example of how it would work

So how do you see this working? What sort of situation would lead to what action and resolution?--Cube lurker (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I see it as working like a mini-user RfC. An account is persistently and aggressively editing a contentious area from one perspective only, but is violating no behavioral policies. The user may not realize how problematic the edits are; and complaints about them may have focused on specific articles, rather than an overall pattern. So when problems at one article are dealt with, the user moves on to cause the same problems elsewhere. I see this page as nipping it in the bud, with a community consensus about whether the user's edits fall within an acceptable range, and if not—if they have crossed over into advocacy—what advice can be given to them.

Admins could use the discussions to monitor whether admin action is needed. Anyone wanting to proceed to RfC or ArbCom could use it as evidence of a prior attempt at dispute resolution. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

RFC/U work so damn well because its such a pain to create one. Thus we dont get too many frivolous RFC/U. Will I end up here because I disagree with Postmodernist anthropology? These are the type of Frivolous dispute I fear and that a tag team will ruthlessly game it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, and it's a valid concern. I'm happy to add words to the instructions, making it clear that there has to be a persistent pattern, and that frivolous complaints intended to "win" content disputes will be removed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Why dont we have week (or possibly longer) for a discussion on out lining procedure for the this board And then Give it Three moth trail run. I see some kinks that we can hopefully discuss and get some ground rules for reporting and notifying as well as the type of sanctions this board can impose. I see a good opportunity for this to be a viable If we can make sure the trial goes right and is not just a shit storm The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the three-month trial. I don't think we need to have a week (formally) to outline procedure. We can do it now as an ongoing thing; my guess is people won't start to post unless the parameters are clear, and I think the praxis will help to iron out any remaining issues. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well welcome to a trial by fire. You're our first contestant The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Focus on content, not contributors

Generally good advice is to focus on content, not contributors; this board does the opposite, without reference to anything objectively measurable as wrongdoing. Whereas other DR venues may easily descend into POV-based mudslinging, this board seems to consist of a mudbath; everyone coming here is going to get dirty. Rd232 ^talk 22:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This seems like potentially viable option if we do it right The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Rd, why do you see the necessity of a mud bath here, as opposed to any other forum where behavioral issues are discussed? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

But this isn't about 'behavioural issues', is it? It is about attempting to define 'neutrality', and then hauling people over the coals for not being 'neutral enough'. As such, it has the aroma of McCarthyism, or worse. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It's all about behaviour. It's about trying to correct users who have arrived at Wikipedia as advocates for a particular position, rather than to edit neutrally, where the advocacy doesn't quite fit into the concept of COI, but is nevertheless problematic over a long period of time, or over a range of articles. It's not about causing problems for regular users who aren't perfect. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

"...advocacy doesn't quite fit into the concept of COI, but is nevertheless problematic...". Problematic to whom? The more I look at this, the worse it appears. Basically it seems to be aimed at identifying 'problematic' users who are actually working within policy, for no other reason than to 'correct' their opinions, or to force them off Wikipedia. This looks to me to be exactly the same attitude that has run into difficulties at the Wikipedia:Activist draft essay: an inversion of WP:AGF that says you can somehow 'detect' a malevolent type of contributor (though how is never really defined, except in terms so vague it could include everyone), and then treat them differently - assume malice until proven otherwise. Frankly, if this is the way that Wikipedia is going to operate, I don't think it will have much of a long-term future. It stinks.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with Andy. As I see it, when editors become involved in a dispute over the neutrality of any content, they can bring it here to get an uninvolved, third party opinion. Each editor(s) would need to present their side, with the sources cited, and the observers here can give an opinion on what may be best way to present the information in line with the NPOV policy. I don't see where that focuses on the editor. Cla68 (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

We already have methods for resolving content disputes. This noticeboard seems to be explicitly aimed at opinion not content - about the contributor, not the contribution. 00:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a possible intermediate step before a user RFC. If a user is consistently violating NPOV then there are few ways of correcting that behavior. Rd232 is correct that it is generally good advice to focus on the edits rather than the editors. This is for the occasions when focusing on the editor is necessary. Will Beback talk 00:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Since everyone has a POV, this seems like a process for doing down people with the "wrong" point of view. 212.183.140.51 (talk) 09:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. As I am involved in a number of contentious pages I often see both sides throwing COI, advocacy, PPOV pushing and Appoligism avery so often (I see one at least once a month). Seem to me wwe may be creating just another forum to shop. Whilst there does seem to be an issue with POV pushing this may not be the ansawer.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes contributors are the problem. No amount of polite and rational discussion will work against some people. Every rule has its exceptions. There's no need to comment on the editor too much; what we really want to do is discuss their editing. This board would just be a series of preliminary RFC/U's, sort of the way WP:3O is like a preliminary mediation. Jehochman ^Talk 05:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Sometimes there are editors who rarely do anything constructive or make any constructive edits here, yet they are involved in all kinds of articles, discussions, attempts at policy changes, etc.. I've met a few. Their only activities involve reverting and getting reverted, complaining, obstruction, stonewalling, endless circular arguments, baiting, and generally creating controversy, and sometimes without directly violating any rules like NPA, but often fail to AGF (which is NEVER sanctioned!). Sometimes they are just a huge "timesink" and need to be weeded out because they are just in the way and keeping normally productive editors from doing constructive things.

Does that adequately describe the function of this new board? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I know some folks like that for sure! Why waste your time? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

[1] William M. Connolley (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Idon't think it does describe the new board because its focus is more narrow then that. Its only about the ill defined concept of 'advocacy' not wider user misbehaviour. Most of those abuses would still slip past this board.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Alternatives

Please see Wikipedia:AN#Ways_forward, where I suggested eg Wikipedia:Requests for comment/dispute resolution for a wider discussion. Rd232 ^talk 22:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It is also at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#New_user_neutrality_board. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

And RFC sytem might be better, but why not just extend ANI to include (if it does not already) advocacy, if advocacy is actualy reached the stage of problom editing.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

This board should be MfD'd

Later correction to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion aka WP:MFD

User:SlimVirgin proposed such a board in 2008 or 2009 through a community process and it was roundly rejected by the community. [Later insert: It was a more narrowly focused (Israel-Palestine issues) but allegedly NPOV-related proposal Wikipedia:Neutrality_enforcement in spring 2009.] Under what wiki process did she start this one?

Now she starts one out of a Conflict of Interest discussion - where it is mentioned that she never answered questions about her own WP:COIs when that board was being proposed. I guess I'll have to look through all my contributions of that period to find out exactly where that discussion is, assuming it hasn't been AfD. Or she do the courtesy of directing us to it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Its a proposal/trial. Nothing is set in stone with this community can ultimately reject this or continue it. please step down from a battle feild mentality as I actually am quite sympathetic to your case based on what I have seen The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Carol, please don't be disruptive. I've moved your post here below, but I can't understand it, much less see the connection. I've never had any relationship with CAMERA, and no one has suggested I have. On the contrary, I was involved in having one of the CAMERA accounts blocked. And how that's connected to this, I don't see. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't label me disruptive. Obviously I am going to be annoyed since you first brought this up during a WP:COIN discussion of me which was clearly retaliatory for me making a Wikiquette complaint against the person who brought it. This person is trying to drive me off editing, I believe, because in our several content disputes which were brought to the wider community, my recommendations were more widely accepted. And in the current content dispute the same clearly would happen., IMHO. So he is resorting to personal attacks over and over again. If you had originated this in an RfC or a more neutral forum it would not be so highly suspect, and not just by me. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

(moved from board)

Slim Virgin was mentioned in CAMERA's email about Wikipedia editors who had done a great job for Israel. See this wikipedia article section for context. Slim Virgin made a proposal for this kind of Noticeboard a couple years ago that was rejected by the community. At that time I twice asked her about the CAMERA email in the context of her own POV but she did not reply. She did not reply when I mentioned this on the COI noticeboard as a problem with her creating this board. Perhaps she will do us the favor of explaining what her relation to CAMERA was or is and also give us the link to the discussion of her first proposal that failed so we can try to understand her POV and her reasons for creating this board. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

For all her failings, Slim is not responsible for emails she is mentioned in. I'll also point out that the only statement about her is that, at some time, she was one of "the two most important and infuential editors in wikipedia" (sic²). Please desist from using this red herring now and in the future. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I just started following this discussion and noticed this. I have concerns about this noticeboard idea, but mentioning those emails seems quite a bit below the belt. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. It's been moved. Do we get a response? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't understand your post. As for proposing this board before, I have no memory of that. I recall proposing a policy about enforcing neutrality, but that's not what this is. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, this board obviously is a variation on "enforcing neutrality" and people can judge it on its merits, using many of the same arguments.
The other question, could you link more specifically to what "trial policy" this was created from under Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know what that means. If you want to AfD it, you're welcome of course, but I hope you'll give it some time to settle down first to see whether it's useful. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This is already an excellent example of how useful this board can be. CMdc has concerns about SV, and raises them on the board, but then we immeadiately notice that the report fails "2. Provide diffs showing problematic edits, or post examples, and explain why the problem is a persistent one". So the problem can be dismissed (from this board) until CMdc can satisfy that criterion William M. Connolley (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It was removed by the accused (not a good sighn that), it was removed within 5 seconds of being posted (at least give a user timke to find difs), withour any explanation as to why (it was not closed or marked as resolved just removed), nor where any comments made by other users adressing the alledged issue. There is a direct accusation made and there is a diff. This is excalty the sort of action that casues me concearn both the tit for tat nature of the accusation and its summery dismisal.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It was however correctly removed. I agree it would have been better not removed by the accused (are we allowed to use words like that? Shirley "person being reported". Anyway). That (minor) problem is easily solved by adding another rule to the noticeboard: "please don't remove yourself if you've been reported to this board invalidly. Instead, add a section to the talk page explaining which of the criteria for reporting it fails" William M. Connolley (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said on WP:ANI The board has this tag, but does not link to the specific policy under which it was created so we can learn what that policy is. A search of the word “trial” was not helpful. Please direct us to the appropriate spot here and in the template. (I won't AfD it - at least immediately - because of the personal aspect mentioned above. However, I will be tempted to use it. Please specify how long ,long term is :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC) {{Trial policy}}

I've replaced that tag. It was thoroughly misleading. Fences&Windows 01:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think there are enough people expressing reservations here that someone could MfD it. Because of the personal aspect, I myself would wait at least til next week to do it. But others don't have those constraints. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Er, the existence of this board is kind of a problem

This isn't an ordinary proposed policy that just affects articles. Anyone who gets brought up here is in legal (well, "legal") limbo because decisions here have no force but might have force in the future. I think consensus for the establishment and guidelines of this board needs to be achieved before any of the work begins. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point. As it stands at the moment, the "legal" process seems to be based on finding someone guilty (of 'insufficient neutrality'), then holding a 'trial', and then making up rules to 'convict' them. A novel approach entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It's the same concept as COIN, or user RfC, but less convoluted than the latter and focused only on advocacy. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You've not addressed Roscelese's point: that this 'noticeboard' is proposing to implement a policy that doesn't yet exist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a link to the policy that allows it to be created at all. Please bring up your concerns at WP:ANI if you have not already. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I've now done this. As far as I can see, unless and until policy has been changed, this 'noticeboard' has no more validity than a kangeroo court. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Or a kangaroo court. My suggestion is that people simply refuse to participate in any proceedings brought to this board. Given that it was established outside normal Wikipedia process any participation only lends it undeserved legitimacy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

My concern about this board is that it threatens to become another Amateur Night at the Apollo: a drama venue. Drama-mongers from the far corners of Wikiland will come here to provide entertainment to the assembled hordes. It is vague enough in its concept to be utterly useless as an effective dispute resolution mechanism, but will definitely waste the time of all concerned. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

POV pushing on WP is a problem, no doubt, but I'm not sure if this is the best way to address it. Cracking down on tendentiousness or filibustering would be entirely welcome; the only current threat to POV warriors is a ban via edit warring, puppetry or rudeness. I like pro-active moves to address community concerns but I'm worried an open-ended venue for accusations of NPOV pushing would quickly turn into a Committee of Public Safety. Sol (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we all know advocacy when we see it. There are grey areas, but hopefully the focus of the board will be the obvious examples, the ones that are currently difficult to deal with unless the user violates behavioral policies. At the moment we always have to come at it sideways, by reporting e.g. 3RR violations or incivility. With this board, we can directly target the problem, and perhaps develop a core of editors whose understanding of how to spot advocacy sharpens as the board is used. That's what's happened as a result of the BLP and RS boards; the editors who respond there regularly have developed a good sense of what best practice allows in those areas. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That's what worries me. I can't think of a rule to govern this board more than a vague Potter Stewart "I know it when I see it" approach and this board invites us to push our own POVs by reporting people with a different perspective. I actually like having activists on board (well behaved ones) as they have an in-depth knowledge of the subject and hopefully we can burn off any POV material that slips in. If we focused on combating the tactics adopted by the extremely tendentious POV pushers (long term filibustering, coordinated sockpuppetry, failure to accept consensus, IDIDNTHEARTHAT, etc.) we might be able to achieve the same effect without creating another tier on the bureaucratic layer cake. I'm not sure if it's possible as the sheer volume of diff reading required. I like this idea but I'm worried that it could too easily become a tool encouraging the behavior that necessitated its creation (and its policy justifications seem murky). Sol (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

In theory I can see value in having a noticeboard designed to weed out single activists or groups of activists who slither past the policies. (A fair assessment of this board's intent? If not please correct.) My concern is with the reality almost certainly failing to meet these expectations because of the subjective nature of such assessments. There are more or less objective criteria to determine if a person is violating BLP and RS, but as you know from the Activist essay discussion, there is considerable disagreement as to how clearcut activism actually is, how to identify it, and whether there even is such a thing. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I would add that we all think we know advocacy when we see it. But (for example) a user Carolmooredc has been accuseof saying that the Jews control the media, I cannot find this accusation (but it is a very complex bebate occuring over multiple talk pages and notice boards). So is the person making this accusation (assuming that its not true) doing so becasue tehy are an advocate? Why else make the accusation? What evidacen do we use for advocacy, some one says saomething I don't agree with? There is an argument for teh idea that if it can be demonstrated that some one is employed or has connection to an advocacy group that that refelcts a COI, but I think that is (more or less) allready coverd. But individual advocay, that realy is a Pandoras box.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

This appears to be a kind of Tendentious Editing noticeboard. The essay at WP:TEND is exactly that, an essay—it is not policy. The larger policies involved in this proposed noticeboard are WP:NPOV (which already has a noticeboard at WP:NPOVN) and WP:DISRUPT. The latter is addressed by a number of methods outlined at WP:DDE. In the past, the various methods of dealing with editors who are not neutral have worked well enough. I think the system is already flexible enough to handle the notional problem. Binksternet (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

As a long time reader, not very experienced editor, I have to say that there is already waaaay too much clutter in the "back rooms" of Wikipedia. (Ever try to submit an AFD without Twinkle or whatever?) Editors that have a neutrality problem are either ignoring the rules, or are ignorant of them. Not much middle ground there. Sending them a message that they are being "discussed" on this board is not going to accomplish anything except providing a platform for the POV pushers to further their "cause", or driving away well intentioned editors who simply don't understand the problem . Very few people even realize that they have a POV conflict, much less can write in a truly NPOV fashion. The system of edit/revert, stop, discuss, achieve consensus works pretty good when adhered to. Sure it has its faults, and sometimes Admins need to step in with a page protection or (too often in my opinion) a block. Obvious promotional or activist accounts are identified on the numerous other boards we have, and are usually indeffed after discussion. In short, we already have a dispute resolution process, and we already have too many instances of "This isn't the right place to discuss your problem. Take it here, or here, or here instead." The last thing we need is another damn board to add to the Alphabet Soup. ^DAVID_ABLE 04:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Rd232 ^talk 14:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I see that we have WP:NPOVN and are now discussing the possibility of WP:NPOVNU. I see that the first is listed under "content" while this one is listed under "users". If I understand correctly, the distinction would be that while both noticeboards deal with failure to meet the policy of NPOV, one noticeboard would focus on the content of articles (or collections) of articles, while this one would focus more of the actions of one or more users.

While I accept that one can construct extreme examples of each, in which the approach to the gathering of evidence and the proposed remedies would differ, I suspect that almost all NPOV concerns involve some mixture of content questions and user actions. Absent some definitive, objective way of identifying that Article X has an NPOV content issue, while Article Y is being edited by user A, B and C who aren't conforming to the NPOV policy, we may find ourselves wrangling over venue. Additionally, unless there is some compelling reason to think that some editors would be interested in participating in WP:NPOVN discussion but not WP:NPOVNU, and other editors would reach the opposite conclusion, I'm struggling to come up with a good reason for creating a separate venue.

Here's a proposed experiment: identify an issue that belongs at WP:NPOVNU. Raise it at WP:NPOVN, and when completed, identify why raising it at WP:NPOVNU would have produced a more satisfactory outcome. Would the types of diffs produced as evidence be different? Would proposed remedies be different?--SPhilbrick T 17:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOVN is intended for the discussion of how to improve the neutrality of particular articles. NPOVNU is intended for the discussion of users who consistently cause neutrality problems, usually across a range of articles, just as COIN is for users causing COI problems. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Our POV's are irrelevant

I find the idea behind this board problematic. I realise the wording talks about showing advocacy in an editor; in itself I don't have a huge issue with that. Some editors are advocates, and that can be a huge problem, one we need to address. But the main issue is the link to "Neutral Point of View". The board encourages us to ask the question "What is the POV of this editor", when the real question is "Is this editor disrupting the editorial process". Asking the first question is unfair and irrelevant; we should not care one jot what the beliefs and opinions of an editor are - the only thing we care about is whether their opinions are disproportionately affecting a discussion (either from their actions or their language). The neutrality of an editor is generally irrelevant - people who are not neutral on a topic should be filtered out by those who are (whilst taking on board any legitimate comments made). The issues arise when they switch from expressing a non-neutral stance into pushing it, and at that point we are not interested in what that stance is, just whether they are pushing it. Which is why an RFC/U is vastly more appropriate, because there is no need to link it to the specifics of their neutrality (or lack thereof), just to their actions. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think your first concern here is going to be mixed up with the practical consideration. If a user has a POV, as in a personal opinion, that's fine and no one intends to begrudge them that. The issue is only, and has always been, when a user edits with a POV--in other words, trying to game the system to persistently reinforce an outcome which matches their bias. It's not necessary to have a 'neutrality oath' or confession for those who might cross lines; the point is simply that a repeated mission to push for one perspective rather than considering all perspectives, especially if paired with tendentious editing, can be a huge though subtle problem. This is a place to discuss that. It might lead in labeling editors 'POV' but that will only be a consideration if the editor proceeds to disrupt articles with tactics and drama. It's an optimistic idea that this board could fix anything, but if it goes down in flames, so be it. The key is to keep this from being a McCarthy trial, by focusing on disruptive conduct not the POV itself. Ocaasi (talk) 10:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

But surley this is about just that trying POV not edits? It was created on the back of an inability to prove disruptive editing.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The creator has said multiple times that the reason this was created was to provide a middle ground option between ineffective singular personal communications with a disruptive editor about their behavior and the full fledged drahmuz of an Arb com case. In my interpretation of the intent, this would be a place where any case for disruptive editing based on POV pushing could be made and for which there is not currently any really option that deals well with that type of issue. (I am not personally convinced that this would turn out to be an effective forum for that, but I havent been convinced that it couldnt be either.) Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Advocacy board

As this is proposed as a trial process, the point of it is to get the idea right through discussion and use. Following on from Errant's point above, we could rename it Wikipedia:Advocacy noticeboard. That would separate it from the NPOV policy, which some people feel is tricky because of the subjective element, and would emphasize that we're talking about accounts who seem to be on Wikipedia for the purposes of advocacy, rather than regular editors who may occasionally edit from one perspective. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes! Giving the noticeboard a good name will help people understand what topics are appropriate for discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 21:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed concise, I think it will clarify what the board is for The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Then what? So you identify editors who appear (especially to POV opponents) to be "advocates" or SPAs. And? Advocacy isn't, AFAIK, actually against policy, as long as it doesn't involve meatpuppetry/canvassing/etc. You're not going to persuade such editors to change their views, and you don't have a basis for sanctioning them (if you did, the issue would have been addressed elsewhere). So all this board can achieve is a lot of argument about people trying to label others as advocates, and those others either rejecting the label or saying "yah boo sucks, so what?". This board is the worst idea I've heard in a while, and if you'd bothered to properly propose it at WP:VPR, you would have been roundly rebuffed and that would have been an end of it. Carry on discussing it if you will, but it seems inevitable that this will soon be marked {{failed}}, if not actually MFDd. Rd232 ^talk 21:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Worse yet, the whole deal could re-enforce the notion that as long as you stick to "the rules" and possibly game them, you can get away with anything ("someone dragged me to this board there, they said there was nothing they could do, so I m right") Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Rd, using Wikipedia for the purposes of advocacy is indeed a policy violation, per WP:SOAPBOX. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, maybe you should read the policy you're citing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for... In other words, like NPOV, WP:SOAPBOX applies to content, not contributors. Rd232 ^talk 01:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

So an editor who, say, emphasizes one point of view on articles related to animal rights would be in violation of policy? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

that's exactly where it gets "hairy" — question how exactly and in what context it takes place.... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Two more reasons advocacy per se may not be a problem:

Some editors have a lot of info/interest in certain areas and not another. By forcing them to do a lot of research in an area they know little about, especially on articles where there are sufficient editors of various viewpoints, you are basically telling them - don't bother editing wikipedia.
Some articles have 4 -6 editors with some strong POV on one side (sometimes the same editors working in packs) and only a couple on the other. One of those might be a person who goes around correcting strong POVs in related articles. (Be overly capitalist in libertarianism or overly Marxist in peace movement articles or whatever.) An editor who goes around trying to balance POVs like that is more likely to be brought here by "the pack" who would have a field day with this board. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Proposed name change sounds good to me. Cla68 (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I've moved it to Wikipedia:Advocacy/Noticeboard. We may want to move it again, say to Wikipedia:Advocacy noticeboard, without the slash (currently a redirect). With the slash it directs back to Wikipedia:Advocacy, which is an essay. Or maybe that's okay, I don't know. But for now that's the working title; shortcut WP:ADVN. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, four for and four against is called a draw, not consensus. But I doubt it will matter for long. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You need to learn Newspeak. There are low-cost Internet courses and DVDs available. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Things go by strength of argument, not by counting noses. Jehochman ^Talk 05:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem with advocacy in a nutshell

Suppose David Duke decided to edit articles about African-Americans in a way he says makes them more "NPOV" even though his edits consistently move the article toward being racist, reinforcing standard racist tropes. As long as he used carefully selected WP:RS, and didn't unambiguously violate WP:PUSH, Wikipedia would be utterly helpless to stop him. As long as he stayed courteous, you couldn't get him for WP:CIVIL. He'd just WP:CPUSH away at it, until he made it appear as if the objective facts show that there's actually a reason to believe that African-Americans are intellectually inferior, crime-prone, etc.

It's one of Wikipedia's central flaws: it's utterly helpless against WP:CPUSH.

One of the entries that brought that up is pretty much the same case: someone who's gone on record saying "mostly Jews" "own and/or control" the press (a statement she has never repudiated, despite countless opportunities to set the record straight) and is disappointed - in a carefully calibrated way - that the article on the topic doesn't yet allow that kind of statement to be winked away as harmless and innocent.

All advocacy is not morally similar. That's why you're not able to agree that advocacy is good or bad - because, case by case, it can be either one. Advocacy of PC versus Mac is tolerable. Advocacy of "Jews control the press" is not.

And there has to be a place where WP:CPUSH advocacy of the kind that triggered this whole discussion can be addressed. Spaceclerk (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

All of which illustrates precisely what is wrong with this noticeboard. It will be used as yet another place to drag up the same old arguments about the same people. Incidentally I consider the comparison of a Wikipedia editor with David Duke to be a breach of WP:NPA, if not worse. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's a violation of WP:BLP and probably his name needs to be removed from view. Cla68 (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Another helpful reminder of exactly how unreal the Wikipedia world is. Can't insult a Klansman, now can we? That would be baaaad. But is being a Klansman baaad? Oh, oh, WP can't say that, that would be wrong. Spaceclerk (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Which sums upo why this board will ot work. So you A reports B for saying that David Duke is bad, User C reports user A for saying he is not bad. Who's POV is right? This is about establishing an 'official' POV on wikipedia. Its not about netraility.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:CPUSH/WP:PUSH is an essay; it cannot be "violated". The basic answer is that, enormously hard work as it may be, content disagreements must be resolved with reference to verified information from reliable sources. We may not like it, but if the reliable sources say an ethnic group is X or controls Y, then that's what the article has to reflect, whatever our personal opinion. It's like the justice system: you have rules and procedures and most of the time you get the answer society wants; but you can't get a zero error rate either for the innocent being convicted or the guilty going free. That's life. You can try and improve the rules and procedures, you can try to educate people; but what you don't do is give up and endorse vigilantism or unchecked state power. In sum, the only way to address the problem of advocacy is by (a) focussing on the content rules of WP:V, WP:RS; (b) content rules of NPOV (especially WP:WEIGHT), (c) ensuring that pages and topics are not left to individual advocates or a group of advocates to gain unchecked ownership. Anyway, this is all a bit moot; this isn't a page on "how to fix advocacy" (you can't, its feasibility is intrinsic to Wikipedia), it's about this proposed noticeboard, which is an awful ineffective if not actually counter-productive idea. Rd232 ^talk 01:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? WP:CPUSH provides details and explanations of how WP:NPOV is supposed to work. "Civil" POV pushing is a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:GAME and WP:NOT. Absolutely that sort of behavior can be sanctioned, and is sanctioned all the time. Jehochman ^Talk 05:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV and NOT are about content, not contributors. CIVIL -> WP:WQA; WP:GAME -> RFC/U or WP:AE. CPUSH notes They often make a series of silly and time wasting requests for comment, mediation or arbitration again to try to wear down the serious editors. This board is just another venue for cpushers to use against their opponents. Proving WP:GAMEing (the only really relevant behavioural issue) cannot be done properly on a noticeboard like this, it needs RFC/U really. Rd232 ^talk 06:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

In my experience RFC/U is busywork that people do in order to get a case sent to arbitration. That's where complex matters get sorted. RFC/U often deteriorates into the usual suspects squabbling along the usual fault lines. Jehochman ^Talk 06:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Well if RFC/U, which attempts to be properly structured and serious, can't handle it, why would (yet another) noticeboard do better? Try and improve RFC/U (I did, a while back, I think it helped a little). Rd232 ^talk 06:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I've already had a go at improving RFC/U. The templates that are transcluded all over the place to help publicize them were partially my doing. The problem with RFC/U is that it takes a huge investment of time to put one together. I think editors need a lightweight process, like WP:3O where they can quickly point out a situation and ask for feedback from truly uninvolved editors. That first step might then lead to RFC/U or request for arbitration. Options are good. We have so much going on here that one sized doesn't fit all. Jehochman ^Talk 06:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Options are good. Forum shopping is bad. Forum creation in order to facilitate forum shopping, which seems dangerously close to an accurate description of this situation, is just horrendous. Rd232 ^talk 13:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

This does seem to be in repsonse to the faliure of (anotehr) notice board complaint about one user. Perhpas we need a new notice board about creating notice boards.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ha, I beat you to that suggestion at ANI yesterday :) - Wikipedia:Creation and maintenance of noticeboards/noticeboard. Rd232 ^talk 13:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

We wouldn't have quite the problem with these "civil POV pushers" we now have, & the mechanism Rd232 describes would work to some degree if we established editors had each others' backs. But I don't see that happening because few of us know each other to any significant degree: the active Wikipedians I have met in person might total a few dozen, most of whom are offline at any given moment, & I suspect that is the case for the vast majority of Wikipedians. So established editors continue to experience increasing disaffection with how things are with Wikipedia, losing "Wiki-friends" & community respect, until they quit -- or do something stupid which leads to their departure. -- llywrch (talk) 06:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

nobody's disputing that there's a problem; it's whether this board helps or hinders. I do think an RFC on dispute resolution generally may be helpful, like those RFCs we had on BLPs last year. maybe I'll kick it off if I get a minute - seems better than arguing here, as if this bad idea was the only feasible response to the problem. Rd232 ^talk 06:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

See proposal below. And as Rd232 said, this is a false thesis, since if David Duke had such sources, he'd be right to do what he was doing and the articles should change. However, this thread shows the problem with the noticeboard as proposed, since editors would judge David Duke as non-NPOV based on their preconceptions. Advocacy of anything is good necessary on Wikipedia so long as reliable sources are used in accordance with WEIGHT. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 06:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to represent all relevant and notable viewppoints on a subject. Not to protect a POV. If a user is breaching RS, OR, Synth ect then we can deal with them. If tehy are oiperating within polict and you just don't like it that is not a reason to report them to a board.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I can think of many times when there has been a question about whether a person was operating within policy, and using sources properly. It's the question which could be asked here. You're thinking of it in terms of policing. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That is becasue its almost being discused i that way. Ther is (for example) almost an attitude here (and in related discusions) that someone beging brought here is guilty and that this is just a prelinary step (if they don't mend thier ways) to ANI and a block or ban. That is what worries me, this seems to be supporetd based upon a belife that if it come to fruition then we wilol report those we obviously know are gulity, and thyat communirty must agree with us.Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

There also seems to be an assumption that only experts in POV pushing will show up here. Asside from the issue of who deterines what an expert is (and it could be argued that many of the experts will be POV pushers themselves) the fact that it just will not be ture. Notice boards are full of non experts.Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Trial noticeboard and changed focus

I propose this change: It's true this board as proposed focuses on users, and judges them on a general view of what is neutral. But this can turn into a POV fest far too easily. What if people here are specifically instructed to not have preconceptions of what is neutral and to simply evaluate whether the editor is using sources properly? This is something which is much easier to do than evaluate whether an editor is not "adhering to NPOV." An editor can be advocating a view and going against what other editors think ought to be NPOV, but using sources properly... in which case the editor has something to teach us.

In addition to this change, regular "judges" at this board should be subject to judgment by this board (whether they adhere to its principles), so that the board self-polices.

So: how about using the board for a month (not three), then deleting it unless there is a clear consensus to keep it, in which case we extend its existence for 3 months, and then decide? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 06:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I thiink we could gove it a 3 month trial.Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

What should this board actually do?

No-one's answered that yet...

Block?
Ban?
Impose edit-restrictions?
Say "oo-oo, bad boy/girl, promise y'won't do that again"?
Sing Koombayah? Do the rain-dance?

What? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Noticeboards are most useful for obtaining feedback from uninvolved editors. "Hi, I have a concern about possible advocacy by User:Test. Here are the circumstances, what do you think?" Think of this board as an informal, light-weight second step if talk page communication fails to resolve concerns. If this board can't resolve a problem, then the matter could be escalated to WP:RFC/U or WP:RFAR. WP:ANI is good for solving acute problems. It is not good for chronic behavioral problems because the threads get archived really quickly. Advocacy is something that might take several days to investigate properly. Jehochman ^Talk 07:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand that. I was asking about the actual "authority" here. If I report User:Test here, will Test have to respond? What if Test just says fuckit, nothing will happen to me anyways, they can't block me, they can't ban me, why should I bother? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

No blocking, like WQA. Only advice, and possibly escalation. Editors who don't respond risk a quick trip to RFC/U or ArbCom. Both require prior attempts at dispute resolution, which this board would provide. RFC requires two editors to sign. This board could help generate that momentum. Jehochman ^Talk 12:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

So (and as an example the case that has les to this) a User is reported to ANI. its rejected (for jhat ever reason) they are then reported to COI they have none (within policy) so we invent a new board they can be reported to. Sorry this is just beging created becasue user A bleives user B has a COI but can't prove it. More then half the people posting here will I suspect end up on here at least once.Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

In a perfect world this board would be a place where agenda-driven editors would receive constructive feedback on how to work better within Wikipedia policy. In the real world it may fulfill that role in some cases, but in other cases it will be yet another venue where constructive editors can be dragged through the mud. Given that frivolous complaints almost never have consequences for those who make them, I'm not at all convinced that this board will on balance be helpful rather than harmful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Advocacy vs. Activism

As I mentioned at this diff in the RfC the poorly conceived WP:Activist article assumes anyone active outside of wikipedia is going to bring their strong POV in and be disruptive with it, instead of trying to work within the rules. However, someone with a strong opinion who has never been "active" in any kind of online or real life activist group can decide that their only "activism" is going to be editing wikipedia "for the cause," including after getting email, web site or other encouragement from activist or organizational outreach. (And someone whose only organizational experience is in business or sports, for example, can be a highly effective "team player" once they become a Wikipedia "activist," and willing to violate policy "for the team.") So behavior remains the gold standard, not what some people claim others' POV is from their pattern of edits, which may be a reaction to imbalance in a number of related articles. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no such thing as a NPOV editor. If we did not have view points we would not be here. The key is can you operate within policy whilst still supporting your POV (which I would argue is not always obvious, a person may have a view on politics with out having a political view). We have boards for activities that breach wikipedias policies, and if someone breaches those policies they are dealt with there. Is some one does not breach policy then there is no problem that I can see.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

let him who is without sin

Let me ask a question. How many of you who suport this page belive that you are not advocates yourselves? How many of you bleive that if you were reported to this page you would be found not gulity? Remeber this will be a two way street.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

These are two completely different questions. 1. yes 2. depends :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Tu quoque is a logical fallacy. Jehochman ^Talk 15:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, 'advocacy' is normal social behaviour. To suggest otherwise is nonsensical. Secondly, following on from that, there is nothing to be 'guilty' about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh really. Take a look at this page Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases and notice how many times advocacy is mentioned as a prohibited activity. Then read through the cases and see how many editors have been banned for engaging in advocacy, importing real world battles into Wikipedia and gaming the system. You'll see that the odds are really bad for people who want to use Wikipedia for that purpose. Jehochman ^Talk 15:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying that your stand point is invalid because you are guilty of it. I am asking will you also fall foul of this and, as such is it such a good idea. At teh end of the day an notcie board is thre to proetect wikipedia from damage, not to salve egos or protect sacred cows. If this will in fact make it imposible to edit becaseu we are all advocates of some kind (you are advocating this page) what function will this serve. Remeber this will ot only apply to Jewish pages, or American politics pages or user CarolMooreDC. It will apply to us all and all pages. The fringe theory page talks about specific examples of advocacy, its not a general guideline. But all this shows is we have a system in place for dealing with advocacy, so why do we need a new layer? I Im also cannot find any evidance that any of the bans are for advocacy, they appear to be bans for pushing fringe theories.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I hear you. If this board is created a group of editors could gang up on somebody else and try to get the banned. Somebody who didn't like my editing could report me. That's why I'd like the board to function like WP:WQA. Editors should receive feedback and counseled how to improve. I believe that if they then failed to do so, more serious forms of dispute resolution could be used, such as WP:RFC or WP:RFAR. It takes a long time to put together an RFC, and that process inflicts a lot of stress on the subject user. We ought to have a preliminary step, such as this noticeboard, where editors can gather community feedback before investing that time and inflicting that stress on somebody.

Another safeguard we should have is to ask commenting editors to disclose whether they are involved or uninvolved in the underlying conflict. A reform I proposed at WP:AE, which has worked, was to create separate sections in each thread for the involved and uninvolved editors. That makes it much easier for observers to ignore bickering. Jehochman ^Talk 16:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It just seems to be another tier to thrash out the arguments. If (using the CarolMooreDC case as an example) all that would have happeend is antoher nocitce board debate in which some users say "naughty" some users say "not naughty" and other users say "take it elsewhere". So it will, still end up going to RFC, it will just take longer and make the situation more heated. Besides why is this issue so bad it needs its own board?Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

This problem is very bad. I have a bit of experience with complex disputes. See User:Jehochman/Arbitration. I've seen this same pattern play out over and over again. It would be nice if we did something to nip the problem early, rather than allowing it to grow and grow and grow until resolution becomes very complex, costly and painful. To treat the cancer of advocacy editing, we need early detection and treatment. RFC and RFAR are very stressful processes and should reserved for only the worst, most advanced cases. Jehochman ^Talk 17:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Jehochman (and SpaceClerk and BrewCrewer, all three familiar to the Wikiquette Alert board) advocates that the ONLY description of "Jewish control of media" which should be allowed to be in the lead of the article is canard, the favorite one of the advocacy group Anti-Defamation League. The fact that both an article Talk Page debate and a WP:NPOV discussion rejected that word in the lead as being too obscure and/or not the most common description used by WP:RS and/or harsh doesnt' matter to him. He advocates that descriptions like "myth" and "conspiracy theory" used by academics and journalists with a more neutral point of view be relegated to the bottom of the article.

When I and another editor both express a problem with this his response is - get Carol banned from wikipedia using some stupid 7.5 year old off wikipedia article and the "evidence" that I think myth and conspiracy theory belong in the lead of the article, which means I'm a raving antisemite. (With that kind of "evidence," whose to worry? So who is the real advocate here? CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Aren't we getting a little too focused on your particular situation? I don't think that it's constructive, and I don't think it's helpful in deciding whether or not this board is a good idea. What you are raising are "hot button" issues that make a lot of people, myself included, uncomfortable. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

No, because SlimVirgin came up with this idea in the middle of a WP:COIN brought against me for the reasons I catalogue above. This did not go through some proper process, but was the offshoot of a highly partisan/advocacy action, a COI after a similar WP:ANI failed. And in both cases it was generally agreed to be a POV dispute issue not a COI one. So my personal situation is not only a motivation for creating this board (as SlimVirgin herself infers at the COI) but an excellent example of how it can be misused. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I realize that, and I agree with you at some level. I am not in favor of this board. I'm just suggesting that going into a lot of details on the previous conflict is not desirable here, and not in your interests or anyone's. However, you are correct in pointing out that its origins were as you state. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I'll drop the subject if there's no further response, but I'm advocating that the focus be changed to whether the user is using his sources properly. Otherwise, this is just another way to drag people through the mud. As it stands, this is not a good idea, but I think focusing on sources would have the same effect without having the board process destroy our environment. This thread shows how this board wouldn't work. Now if we were discussing use of sources and WEIGHT, it might be different. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I was not involved in that dispute with you Carol, and even now I'm not sure of the details of it, so please stop going on about how the board was created because of you. I am telling you that it wasn't, and unless you can read my mind you're not in a position to tell me I'm wrong about that. I saw the report at COIN, thought "here we go again, editors having to search for behavioral or COI issues in an attempt to deal with advocacy," and decided to create a process I'd been thinking about for some time.

Focus on whether it would work, not on what triggered its creation yesterday rather than next month. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That's the crux — what would be evidence of "it works"? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

My professional advice is that we set up a beta test, run some threads through the board, and then do a customer satisfaction survey and see whether people felt that the board delivered value. It is pointless to debate something like this extensively. Far better to just run a test, gather feedback, and make a decision informed by facts, rather than opinions. Jehochman ^Talk 21:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Before you run a test you'd need an actual workable concept of how it should work. I still haven't seen that.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

And with whom? User:Test? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

"My professional advice is that we set up a beta test, run some threads through the board, and then do a customer satisfaction survey and see whether people felt that the board delivered value". What profession is that, Jehochman? If you are going to be an expert, we'll need to see evidence of this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Software and technology development. We run into this all the time. People will argue until the cows come home about what the customers want or what will work best. In fact, it is much better to just build something, show it to people, gather feedback, revise, rinse and repeat until the product is perfected. The long discussions about what will work and what won't work are largely a waste of time. Jehochman ^Talk 21:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

If I go went to my boss and said I'd like to try out a new procedure He'd ask how does it work. If I told him, no idea, I just want to see what happens, I don't think we'd be rolling through a live trial.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You should come work for me instead! In all seriousness, we should hash out how the trial will work. Yeah, there are millions of possibilities, but only a few are likely to work. There is quite a bit of art in designing the initial test configuration. Jehochman ^Talk 21:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

So working in "software and technology development" entitles you to claim professional expertise in conflict resolution, does it? And no, we aren't "customers", kindly take your misplaced market-speak elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, how do you want to test it? User:Test? You might as well test death chairs that way. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

"User:Test is obviously a radical follower of Linguistic prescription. Does he believe in the Oxford comma? (a relic of old English colonialism!) Does he think "team" is a single or plural noun? What about the contraction for doctor? Does he use the democratic American "Dr." or the imperialist Albion comma-ed "Dr,"? Either way, he's on a self-avowed crusade to trample on equally valid punctuation systems!"

Something like that? ;) Sol (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

(od) Perhaps I am concerned that User:Test has a strong POV in editing articles on George Gnarf and Gnarfism, and is specifically not interested in achieving an NPOV. Might outside admins and editors examine the edits involved, and determine whether I am correct. Specifically not using diffs which can certainly be chosen about almost any editor at some point, and without making claims as to what the POV is. Discussion as to the level of POV-pushing might ensue here, and determination as to whether the editing has become disruptive as a result. Any other suggestions? Collect (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You could find most editors guilty of POV that way. For this board to work, you would have to also examine other editors who come in contact with the editor in question. Are they really POV pushing, just because all their edits shunt the article in a particular direction? Or are they correcting the POV pushing of others? Are they introducing balance? This is a board which would have to be experts in the articles it talks about. Certainly it could catch flamboyant POV pushers/advocates. But those are obvious to anyone. What you would focus on is the marginal cases, and in that case you need to be experts in order to know what is really advocacy. For example, is User:North Shoreman an advocate at Southern Poverty Law Center because he argues one side of the case all the time? He's surely an advocate, and I think it could be proven. Does that mean he's done anything wrong? I doubt it. Would he be reported here? I believe he would. You have to have a better idea of what is going to happen before exposing editors to this kind of treatment. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Header template

With no prejudice to how this page proceeds, does this, as it stands now, just a proposal in discussion, belong in the noticeboard navigation template. My opinion is that It shouldn't be there at least until there's an active trial begining.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point. No, it shouldn't be there. There are far too many unanswered questions about what the scope would be, even if this 'trial' ever starts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

How will it work

OK we seem to have no idea how this will functio so lets try and thrash this out.Slatersteven (talk)

Informal

Is this to be an informal discusion board with no actual powers or authority?Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. However, individual administrators still have the power to issue sanctions should they feel the need. The can do that with or without a noticeboard discussion already. This board would not convey any additional power or authority. Jehochman ^Talk 18:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Proof

If sanctions are going to be allowed what evidadacne (beyond consensus) will be admisable.Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:CREEP we can be silent. The relevant policies like WP:BLOCK and WP:NPOV already cover this. Administrators are empowered to control disruption and prevent policies violations in all parts of Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 22:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

But as there is no policy that covers advocacy we are left with disruptive editing only as enforcable here, is there not already notice boards for that?Slatersteven (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I tried to start a disruptive editing noticeboard years ago, and it was MfD'ed. No, we only have ANI, which is very fast moving and many editors there have no specific experience in dealing with POV pushing. The purpose here is to troubleshoot if possible, not to sanction. ANI is mainly for getting a block placed. Jehochman ^Talk 05:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Butthis will be just anotehr notice boards where the self saem 'lack of expertisse' will eviadnce itself. You seem to be susgesting that admins lack experiance of POV pushing, is that the case? if so then would not it be better to rasie that issue and try an i9mporve admiinship rather then create a new board werhe exaclty the saem issue will be evidant, its goging to be edtie by the sem users.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Friverlous

What critiera will be used to determine if a case is to be allowed here, and who will have the rioght to remove a case?Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It is best not to remove a case. Any uninvolved editor sufficiently clueful can comment on a thread, give advice, post a proposed determination, or decide to shut down a thread by placing it in an archive or collapsed box. The board should operate by a consensus of the uninvolved editors. Jehochman ^Talk 18:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Will there therfore be a criteria of competance to be allowed to post here?Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Does any noticeboard have such a requiremnet? Has WP collapsed as a result? Collect (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be the implication that only 'Sufficantly cluefull' users will comment on a thread, as its the case that it has (as far as I can see) never happened on any notice board it will not happen here. So the assertion can only work thru some kind of enforcement. Aslo (if we assume that the that will not be a requirment just a hope) then any uninvolved edd will be able to shut down a thread.Slatersteven (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:CLUE applies to all areas of Wikipedia. There is nothing special about this page. This page is not WP:AE, no special powers, and it's not a community discussion forum, like WP:AN or WP:ANI. Therefore, it cannot establish a community sanction. Such matters need to be taken to one of those two boards. Jehochman ^Talk 22:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

But all edds can edit any page they wish, and (unless clealry disprutive) thier posts have to stand (and by inferance they will be able to close threads). What you seem to be implying is mnot the case. Are you saying that in fact any edd will be able to edit this page and close threads or not?Slatersteven (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It will function the same way as the other boards, Steven. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

So the answer is yes all edss will be able to edit.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Should frivalous accusations be actioable

Given the nature of this page there will eneviatbly be alot of cases where there is no advocacy from one just , just a POV a group of users do not like. Should we have some kind of statment that says that brining frivalous cases here is a breach of AGF? If so should any action be taken?Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Criteria for 'membership'

Is there going to actualy be any enforceable restrictions (beyond involvment) as to who can edit here?Slatersteven (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

??? I would hope not. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Discipline and Punish

Regardless of its intent, as a structure designed to enforce governance, the reality of any such board will be to discipline and punish, almost certainly by attacks against reputation, smear, and slander, being officialised and recognised with a stern father figure in the aether waggling her finger at the victim. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Undisclosed

Like most of wikipedia's disciplinary structures this will primarily be used by an in group to discipline out group members, however, the fact that the level of disclosure will be significantly removed from the locus of editing of non-in group editors, means that its function will be largely hidden. Editors not part of the in group will find themselves thrust suddenly into a kangaroo court which will be insufficiently documented, and where documented, suffer from tentacle documentation, with at least five links out of seven pointing at essays, but these essays socially enforced as if policy. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Political tool to mediate via battleground between competing established editor sects

With the primary use of such a board being made by in group editors, and out group editors lacking social knowledge necessary to even present the appearance of meaningful participation; the only time this board will be of interest is as a battleground between cliques of established editors going each other's throats. What ought to make this more amusing, is of course, they'll be going each other over purely culturally enforced norms, as this board transitions from a method of discipline through slander, to part of the hagiography of false dispute resolution one is require to go through before one can get their mate to hit another established editor with a big stick. As part of this process editors with a lack of self-control who are being persecuted will of course engage in uncivil behaviour, allowing the long road to brutalisation to be shortened. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Karaoke central for the Drama Llama

Given that:

this is disciplinary
its method of discipline is to cast out from the group by smear
it is obtuse
it will function most when used in battleground

We may as well admit that this isn't the care bear circle, and this is a method for brutalising other editors through consistent Civil Personal Attacks. If we cannot be good, then at least we ought to be honest, and structure the "lo[o]se community rules" around actually representing the fact that this is a gossip circle designed to destroy the reputations of those people who cross outside of an in group's unstated moral rules. I'm buying my season's ticket for the Drama Llama now. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Since participation in this custard-pie-fight is going to be voluntary

...I presume nobody will object when I inform anyone brought before it that they are well advised to ignore the entire thing, given its dubious genesis and general air of utter contempt for basic Wikipedia policy: Hang 'em, find 'em guilty, have a trial, then make up a law they've broke... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

If this thing survives there needs to be a statement in the header clarifying that it is not policy; that as a consequence participation is entirely voluntary; and that there is no implicit or explicit requirement for editors to answer charges brought up on this board. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I presume that they can still be shot in absentia. What's the point in having a star chamber unless it can flog people?--Scott Mac 02:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least if one doesn't participate, one cannot be subsequently blamed for one's own flocking... no? After all, there seems to be something like "let's see if we can bait you into talking yourself into your own hole"... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No need for these assumptions of bad faith. If editors have a disagreement, it is good to provide a place where they can solicit a third opinion. Jehochman ^Talk 05:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the stated concerns. To get to the bottom line: if an editor declines to participate here it must not be held against them in any way. Do you agree, or disagree? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-participation shouldn't be held against them. But if they don't participate, there's a risk the other parties will just escalate to the next step, such as WP:RFC or WP:RFAR, which could be a lot more painful than an informally mediated resolution on this board. Jehochman ^Talk 06:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

To paraphrase: "Non-participation shouldn't be held against them", but it will be... And once more, with the presumption of guilt... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

What counts as advocacy

Is a user pushing for inclusion of material against wider consensus on the gounds that wikiepdia mhas to have it Advocacy or not? What are we actualy talking about?Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Good question. Any answers? What you're suggesting sounds to me like ordinary tendentious editing. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Consensus which is against WP policy is clearly not what is meant, I trust. The issue devolves into whether the person or group asking for inclusion is seeking to "push" the article towards or away from the NPOV goal of the project, and whether inclusion of the material violates, for example, WP:BLP or the like. Collect (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That would seem to set a pretty high bar for defining unacceptable behavior. If an editor is editing against consensus, why not just deal with that? ScottyBerg (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Again - what do you mean by "editing against consensus"? When NPOV is concerned, "consensus" can not abrogate the propriety of NPOV edits, or edits seeking to get closer to NPOV. Collect (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Slatersteven didn't say anything about NPOV. His hypothetical involved editing against consensus. That could mean any number of policies. I think his example is clear, as well as commonplace. The question is whether this advocacy board would deal with such a situation: a person pushing for material contrary to wider consensus. What elements would be needed to make the cut here? ScottyBerg (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

And I answered his specific question - giving examples where "consensus" does not rule on WP. Would you back a "consensus" which violated WP policies? Collect (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, no you did not answer his specific question. He asked "Advocacy or not"? Which is it? ScottyBerg (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Monty Python Argument Department sketch? I most certainly did answer - with the caveat that the answer does not apply when the "consensus" is invalid under WP policy. And I iterate: "advocacy" does not include positions in support of WP policy when the "consensus" violates WP policy. For example, no "consensus" can allow a contentious unsourced claim to remain in a BLP. No "consensus" can allow copyright violations in an article. Etc. Collect (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what advocacy is not but begs the question of what advocacy is. We already have mechanisms for dealing with editing contrary to policy, whether that is for or against consensus. Look at the subject header: "What counts as advocacy?" If this can't be clearly answered, that says a lot about how flawed this noticeboard is. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

(od) And stating what is not "advocacy" seems relevant. The question as posed could only elicit my response, and the rest of this channels Cleese. Collect (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it channels a non-response to the original question, which is your right. Maybe someone else can address this dangerous and mysterious question, "what counts as advocacy?" ScottyBerg (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Collect, you're a smart guy: Will you step back from the fray for a moment and try to re-read your last comment as if someone else had made it? ( That's asking a lot. It takes hard work to get even a glimpse outside one's own subjectivity. ) So if you can do that, would this post make the recipient more likely to take the speaker's ideas seriously? How would it affect the recipient's willingness to cooperate with the speaker in future interactions? I'm not asking that you post any reply here, but merely suggesting that spending a few minutes to take these questions seriously could generate a substantial payoff in your interactions with other editors. I'll have nothing more to say about this. – OhioStandard (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Reread the prior comments. I think the problem is not with my iterated clear answers but with an answer the person sought to elicit - such as "Advocacy noticeboards are a clear impossibility" or the like. An answer I decline to give. Collect (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No, if you reread the prior comments you can see what was requested: which was "what counts as advocacy" for the purposes of this noticeboard. That' also the title of this section. Really couldn't be clearer. Evidently there is no answer, or there would have been one since this question was raised 26 hours ago. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I am of course talking about situation where(for example) a user goes against consensus be where ther is no clear rule to state which side is right or wrong (or where there is no consesnsus as to the implenentation of that rule)?Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

What is advocacy

Becasue of confusion and general 'advocacy' (just to illustrate what this page could end up being). What would consitute advocacy?Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Test case

Should we have a test case, I may have one.Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, given the controversial nature of this noticeboard, I could only see such a case having any validity if it concerned the alleged 'advocacy' of someone who had argued in favour of its creation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you elaberate as I fail to see why envolvemtn in this discusion makes some one a better candidate for a test case.Slatersteven (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It is simply that the noticeboard is so controversial that it would be grossly unfair to 'test' it on someone who didn't support its creation. Why should anyone uninvolved be required to have their reputation trashed to see if this charade actually works? AndyTheGrump (talk)

Seems to be that is exaclty the popjn t, is any of this fair. So I will ask those who support the pages creation is it fair to test this on someone (remeber I do beleive there may be an issue to investigate, this is not a random accusation)?Slatersteven (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

If you don't think it is fair yourself, you cannot possibly be justified in bringing a test case - I'd argue that it was harassment of the individual, in order to prove a point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not say I do not bleive the case I would bring is not fair, I do not belive that this page would be fair. As I have said I belive (based upon what has been said here) that the case would indead fit the criteria and that the user is engagning in advocacy of exactly the kind this page is supposed to address. So if this page were to become active this would be axcatly the kind of case I would bring here. Indead one of the reason I am susgesting it is I beleive that genuine adviacacy editing is occuring, and I would like to see how this page would function in this case.Slatersteven (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It would have to be made absolutely clear before the particulars of the case was brought to public attention, that this is a test case, and that (a) participation is entirely voluntary, and (b) should the the person concerned not wish to participate, this will not be used against them, and nor shall their non-assent be made public. Any other procedure would be a breach of ethics in a 'test' - I'll still reserve the right to advise anyone that consents to be 'tested' that they might well be acting against their own best interests to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You have raised a very interesting point. As this page will have no actual powers, nor does it represent a policy issue, why would any one actualy guilty of an offence take part? Becasue it might be mentioned at another place that they have refused? Not sure that is going this is goiong to work at all.Slatersteven (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"nor shall their non-assent be made public" — you wanna start emailing around to find a guinea-pig, or you wanna start a case and then have it oversighted? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. You can't ethically 'test' someone without their consent, and asking for their consent in public is also a breach of ethics. There is no mechanism in place to ask for consent on-Wikipedia that is anonymous, and no requirement that Wikipedia users allow e-mail acccess. Basically, you can't even ask anyone who hasn't given at least implied consent, which is why I suggested that only those who approved of the noticeboard could be considered (though even that is a little dubious ethically). AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Start a case from scratch as it would be a real report, not a fake one. At the end of the day any case that is not real would not be a real test.Slatersteven (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I think it's premature to have a test case. This noticeboard is already jumping the gun, and a test case would compound that error. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and present your case, Slatersteven and lets see how it goes. Cla68 (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

If any attempt is made to run a test case without fulfilling the necessary conditions I set out to above to avoid a breach of ethics, I will of course raise the issue at AN/I. There is no mandate whatsoever for 'testing out' this proposed noticeboard on persons who are unaware of the context. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That, of course, will result in test case #2, and this comment by yours truly will be test case #3, I s'pose... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I've an editor who keeps calling me an anti-Israeli anti-Semite, should I see if he's interested? Sol (talk) 04:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Name calling is WQA territory. For this to work, I suspect it would basically have to say "involved admins and editors should not try 'making a case' on this page. This page should be for people completely outside any issues to examine." Or something akin thereto. Collect (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That wont do a thing. We would get the same pile on of involved editors at this noticeboard as we do on every other noticeboard, except it would be much, much worse here. This noticeboard is a recipe for every POV pusher on wikipedia to file even more reports on his/her POV opponents. Just another venue to waste hours of time in needless drama. If someone actually steps over the line and violates policies we already have noticeboards to deal with those people. Please remember that WP:Advocacy is about as far from a policy as you can get.Griswaldo (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that Andy's asserted "ethical conditions" are necessary or appropriate. Specifically, since so many people think that refusing to participate would be a rational reaction, there really can be no shame in a public refusal. Additionally, the framing suggests that the options are "participate here, or nothing", when in reality the options are probably much more like "participate here, or at an RFC/U, or at ANI".

I, too, have been mulling a possible case. In this instance, the editor is very likely unaware of this page's existence, and is probably unknown to everyone (or almost everyone) who has commented on the proposal, so I think it might be less biased than some of the other alternatives. (In this instance, the advocacy is undeniable: for example, the editor uses internet discussion groups, selected for their clear POV, to solicit feedback on his efforts on Wikipedia.) But I have such mixed feelings about this noticeboard and concerns about its effect on collegiality that I'm honestly not sure that it should even be attempted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the alternative is often very likely to be "participate here, or nothing" simply because the grounds used to define 'advocacy' are so vague that the issue couldn't be raised at RFC/U or AN/I in any case, simply because contraventions of policy can be dealt with elsewhere, and this noticeboard seems to be set up to 'try' people for 'advocacy' without defining what it is, or showing where it actually contravenes existing policy in any case: it is actually trying to set up a new 'policy' under the guise of enforcing an existing one. Until 'advocacy' is properly defined for the purposes of this noticeboard, and until it is shown that this definition of 'advocacy' actually only covers violations of existing policy, it cannot possibly be ethical to 'try' anyone, regardless of 'consent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That may be true in some cases, but is unlikely to be true in the case I'm thinking of. The choices appear to be here or RFC/U. The cost of "nothing" is burning out a couple of highly regarded editors, which is unacceptable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I wouldn't worry about Andy's threat to take it to ANI if you post a test case here. Nothing will happen at ANI because you haven't done anything wrong. From what you describe of the situation, however, I'm not sure that it is the appropriate kind of case for this board. Cla68 (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I am very interested to know just what would be an appropriate case for this board. So far I haven't seen that question addressed. As best as I can tell, it seems to vaguely mean a person or persons who would fall afoul of one or two essays (WP:ADVOCACY, WP:ACTIVIST). ScottyBerg (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV. I've seen at least two articles in which editors continuously editorialized on the topic on the article talk page, then openly tried to edit the article to support their openly expressed POV. One of the examples I'm talking about is currently ongoing in an article which is notorious for long-term POV problems. Cla68 (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV/N ; WP:WQA ; WP:RFC/U ? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Yeah, I was about to say, what about bringing these users before RFC/U? ScottyBerg (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you test an historical case? A user who was banned, and whose RL identity is not known? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that most editors are waiting to see if this board survives the proposed deletion before bringing any cases. Cla68 (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

But are there any support for any different but similar ideas? I think SV has brought up a genuine problem, it's just that this solution is too personal. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Who would ever know when one editor decides to take the unilateral step to promote their idea without attempting to discuss the matter with anyone else on the project first. This type of thing isn't something that is done boldly. If there had been some discussion about this first the problems might have been aired in advance and it might never have been created or something better might have been created. Again, we'll never know. Some people just think they have all the answers on their own.Griswaldo (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think there is much else one can do that isn't already covered by other noticeboards. Currently you have an NPOV/N for NPOV issues in the articles. That focuses on content, not contributor, as it should. If there are editors with problematic behavior causing those NPOV issues, there is always RFC/U. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Tendentious editors

A number of editors fundamentally disagree with WP policies on neutrality and there is currently no way to discipline them. Their efforts consume countless hours of neutral editors' time, as can be seen by lengthy talk page and noticeboard discussions. When they do get blocked or banned it is only because they had egregiously violated clear rules on sockpuppetry, edit-warring and personal attacks. But those procedures consume even more editors' time.

One thing I have noticed about tendentious editors (TEs) is that they will apply different standards and arguments based on their opinions on different topics. Academic consensus to describe a topic one way is merely an opinion, while a Google-mined passing to another topic is a "reliable source". The fact that a Google search may appear to support a topic is good enough, but a body of literature about another topic is "synthesis. TEs will also present reams of sources that they obviously have not read to support their arguments which on further inspection turn out not to. All of this is time-consuming.

It should be possible to discipline editors who apply inconsistent standards depending on their POV.

TFD (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that you're absolutely right. However, this proposed board deals with "activism," and is not aimed at resolving the problem you mention. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Surely we already have places to deal with this sort of thing? All this is another claim that its too much hard work to actually work within existing procedures can we have somewhere to slag other users off. It reminds me of the Red Drawf episode where Rimmer decided to have a round robin and just uses to vent his spleen. I agree that there are edds who apply different standards to different articles, but we have procedures in place to deal with that and if it does not work for you maybe its because there is no case to answer?Slatersteven (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Name one. TFD (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I bleive that ANI is used to disipliine Tendentious editors wheere thier actions breach policy. Wheren their actions do not breach policy what is the point of having somewhere to shout at them? If rules are not enforced with enogh vermancy having another board for nothing to be done on is not the answer.Slatersteven (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

ANI only disciplines editors who breach procedural policies, not basic policies such as neutrality, NOR, and RS. TFD (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen any action taken on ANI in response to a complaint about a violation of NPOV by an established editor. Cla68 (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Would that becasue it is not actualy actionable? besdies do we not also have a NPOV notive board werhe users who push a POV can be reported?Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's correct. I'm looking at AN/I right now and at the top of the page, just archived, is an immense case involving an editor who, after long discussion, was topic banned for POV editing. True he's a new editor, not established, but I don't think that's at all unusual. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

New editors get banned on ANI all the time for POV-pushing, but it rarely, if ever happens to an established editor via ANI. Cla68 (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

So this all boils down to established Edds are being allowed to behave in a way that new ends would not. You know I seem to have said this is a problom many time. But the issue is not lack of venues but lack of enforcement. Mainly as a result of cababl of Eddsw protecting each other. So perhaps what we need is greater willingness to lose experianced Edds and less of a tendancy to say "I kinow hes a problom but She makes such good eddits sometimes".Slatersteven (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. But also people have to use the existing venues. Do you know how many pending RfC/Us there are currently? Zero. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Identifying tendentious editing, advocacy and the like is such a subjective thing, and prone to meatballing, the only really effective way of dealing with it is via ArbCom. --Martin (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom only deals with violations of procedural policy. TFD (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom deals with editor conduct. --Martin (talk) 07:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

(out) Indeed they do. But they only do so based on violation of procedural policy. The EEML for example were blocked for example because they violated WP:CANVASS and WP:SOCK, not because they violated WP:NPOV. (In fact the e-mails which are available at Wikileaks have a discuss by an administrator about this exact topic.) The example of an editor above being blocked by ANI was primarily for WP:3RR and WP:SOAPBOX. TFD (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Re EEML (whatever that is) did the transgressor/transgressors violate NPOV? If so, was that raised at the arbitration? Was there a proceeding at the NPOV/N? ScottyBerg (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom handles many cases. Cherry picking EEML is a bad example. Look for cases were NPOV is cited as a principle, like in the Climate change case[2]. That was a classic case of advocacy handled adequately by the ArbCom. --Martin (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

In the Climate Change case there were topic bans meted out, but for battlefield conduct and not for violations of NPOV or for advocacy. By the way, we need to be careful about the CC case, as topic-banned editors are active on this talk page and are may feel constrained from discussing that case. So in fairness to them that may not be a good case to cite here. (I didn't "cherry pick" EEML; another editor mentioned it. I don't even know what it is.) ScottyBerg (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, well how about this case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II? --Martin (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a good example of arbcom dealing with NPOV issues. That underscores my belief that we already have good mechanisms for dealing with such things. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, WP:NPOV is not cited in the World War II's finding of fact. Instead, editing against consensus, personal attacks, and abuse of reliable sources are cited. Cla68 (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure? A FoF states "Communicat has edited disruptively by repeatedly and stridently insisting that a particular historical point of view, supported by the works of a particular author, be included in the articles" Sounds like a NPOV violation to me. --Martin (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The key words being "edited disruptively", breaching WP:DISRUPT, not NPOV. For the nth time: editors are not articles, and NPOV applies to what readers should see in an article. Rd232 ^talk 23:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:DISRUPT isn't a policy to be breached, but a guideline that assists in defining behaviours that are considered disruptive, such as tendentious editing and breaching NPOV. If an editor's behaviour rises to the level of being reported to this proposed board, then surely that editor is deemed to be disruptive from the viewpoint of the complainant, otherwise why would the complainant bother? How can a tendentious editor not be disruptive? If he is not seen to be disruptive, then is he being tendentious in the first place? If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Or have I missed something? --Martin (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thats the point this is to complain about users who have in fact breached no policy. Who are not in fact editing in a way that is against wikipedias guidlines. But are just saying thiings some one else does not like.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

And the ArbCom findings about blocs of editors are not noted? Collect (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

}And then there is the situation when a person actually becomes as much or more of an activist for wikipedia principles than for whatever the topic of an article is. You wander in to an article, you see some absurd policy-violating edits (usually BLP or POV oriented) and think you'll do a few easy corrections and all of a sudden you find yourself against a gang of screamers making accusations against you. Most editors will flee, even many admins are intimidated. More stubborn editors will engage them for months and even manage to correct some or many of the violations, after many trips to the appropriate noticeboards. It would be great to have a Biased Obnoxious Gang of Editors Noticeboard," but I'm not optimistic it would be used appropriately. Of course, if one can do RfC/User on a group at a time, then that problem would be solved. But ~~that page~~ [RfC/User] (which I'm only now starting to understand the usefulness of) only seems to apply to individual editors. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

There is the germ of a good point here. Should we in fact have a Cabal notice board?Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Good comment by CarolMooreDC. The "more stubborn editor" will be sanctioned because he appears as acting against WP:Consensus, even if his "opponents" are SPAs. He will be sanctioned even faster if he reports the problem at the suggested "improper coordination noticeboard". As about RfC requests, yes, this is a mechanism for punishing an individual editor who acts against a group, rather than vice versa. The only thing a "stubborn editor" can do is to follow WP:FORGIVE and do not care about the content. Biophys (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the problems with people with a history of actual activism (especially against something govt is doing) is they may be more stubborn against powerful groups than people in the real world who may be more used to caving in to "the boss." Another reason to smash them down :-) or is it :-( (And, yes, isn't it annoying when two of the three or four editors who are a part of "the gang" are WP:Single purpose account.) In fact now we are really getting the nut of the biggest problem I've had with wikipedia since becoming a more NPOV editor the last couple years. (See this Talk WP:Activist section for context.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

One should consider two types of contributors: (a) aggressive SPAs who contribute little but disruption (those should be blocked without mercy) and (b) real content contributors who may have a trouble (dividing people to "activists" and allegedly "neutral contributors" is wrong). Good content contributors should be banned only for serious offenses, such as harassment, outing, placing intentionally false information, or legal threats, but they almost never do such offenses. You tell: "people with a history of actual activism (especially against something govt is doing) may be more stubborn...". True. They also know what they are writing about from their real life experience, and most important, they have motivation to contribute, which can be used for the good of the project. Biophys (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The WP:SPAs I've had problems with basically edit only one or two articles, with a tiny smattering of other articles, are often fairly recent editors and can be rather hostile. Someone who edits in just one or two areas of interest, whether they have 10 or 100 related articles, is not necessarily an SPA, but can be a "niche" editor. Then one must let behavior be the guide. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I talked about something like this. The lesson: let such participants do whatever they want. Stay away from them. WP:FORGIVE. Reporting them will get you banned.Biophys (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

One sided and response time

An issue with Noticeboard complaints is they are often one sided, and in the issues of POV and editor may not be given a fair chance to illustrate NPOV or correct their perceived POV issues, before action is taken here. My point is, a fair hearing requires specific charges (diffs) and time for the accused to prepare a response. The procedures here must allow sufficient time for a response and/or probation to change before restrictive action. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Something like this might fit the bill perhaps? Rd232 ^talk 19:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I suppose many issues here may ultimately be best resolved in the RFC/U process. Makes it seem like this a screening or pre-hearing to gather outside views from anti-advocacy advocates. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps what's needed are changes to the RFC/U process to make it less cumbersome to bring cases. I'm not advocating such a change, necessarily, but perhaps that would get to the meat of the issue more than musing on advocacy. If this proposal fails, I think that the energies of editors would be well spent considering whether something needs to be done about the existing dispute resolution methods to make them more efficient.

I understand the frustration people feel. I know that this isn't strictly speaking DR, but some time back I came to SPI with an open-and-shut case. It just sort of languished there for weeks, a block or two was issued, but most of the socks were not acted upon. True, the issue defused during that time, but it's that kind of thing that gets people discouraged. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/dispute resolution. Rd232 ^talk 00:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, good. Then let's drive a stake through this one and migrate there. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I would see some merit to this request ... I've seen abuses in noticeboards like Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard, where there are good intentions, however, really just a lions den of folks pushing their fringe theories into articles and resulting in hurting themselves or other folks. Like any tool, noticeboards can be abused. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Failed previous proposal

In reading the MfD, I became aware of a previous failed proposal very similar to this one, Wikipedia:Neutrality enforcement. Perhaps it's been mentioned in the thicket of verbiage above, but I wanted to highlight it and suggest that the time has come to mark this proposal "failed" as well. There is no consensus here, and the MfD consensus is against this board. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It's in the deletion request now, if it wasn't before. And I brought it up from day one. Hey. I just copied this talk page in case it is deleted rather than noted as a "Failed Proposal" which hopefuly it will be. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)