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. --SPhilbrickT 23:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I see the template has been changed. Better.--SPhilbrickT 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)

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)

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)

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. 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)

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)

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) Template: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)

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?--SPhilbrickT 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)

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)

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)