If you make four reverts in 24 hours, you break the 3RR. To quote [[WP:3RR]]: "In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally." However good your intentions, if you don't strictly abide by the rule, you must take the punishment. If you break the 3RR, you break policy. If we apply the rules one way for some people and another for others, chaos will ensue. If we apply policy objectively, then no-one can make accusations of favoritism. Smoddy On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:35:36 -0000, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:

Unless, of course, it's one of the many thousands of Wikipedia articles that are not watched by any other active editors, in which case it's just you against the other editor. I supposed you could take the issue to Wikipedia:RFC, where the conflict could be ignored just as most other article content conflicts are ignored. Jay.

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:17:47 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com> wrote: Tony, [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]] may only be a guideline, but it's inextricably linked to [[Wikipedia:No original research]], which is policy, because the only way you can show that an edit isn't original research is to produce a reputable source. Some of the editors writing in this thread seem to believe there are teams of editors willing to delete original research wherever they find it, so that no editor is ever left isolated dealing with a POV pusher who's inserting nonsense. That just isn't true, and while I agree with that 24 hours is not a long time for one error to exist on Wikipedia, we're not talking about one error, or one 24-hour period, but multiples of both. Maybe it would be a good idea to form a team of "no original research" checkers who have the right to violate 3RR, and on whom any editor could call for help in the case of a revert war triggered by an editor adding unreferenced claims. The job of this team would be to ask for a reference and then to determine whether the reference offered was a reputable one. If not, the team would have the right to keep reverting until the POV pusher got fed up. Slim

It's easy to make this kind of argument when citing trivial facts. However, most of the original research inserted in these articles is more on the order of "George Bush knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but he lied to the American public and invaded anyway, in order to finish the job his father started, and to restore his family honor". Jay.

The reason for differentiating original research from POV material is that original research may be removed entirely while to satisfy the Neutral Point Of View policy POV material must be included and attributed if there are reliable references which take that point of view or comment on it. It is never of question of cleverly "neutering" POV material, that would be a POV violation itself. I realize this viewpoint is at considerable divergance with the way some folks interpret NPOV, but if you go back and read the policy, it provides for inclusion in articles of all points of view which can be established by reliable references. Fred

JAY JG (jayjg(a)hotmail.com) [050119 03:52]: The problems you're raising are problem people, hence not rapidly susceptible to any sort of technical (e.g. revert like crazy) or policy solution. The problem is how to cure POV-pushing. - d.

The problem is not when people want to use a Holocaust Denial site to represent the views of Holocaust Deniers; the problem is when they want to use it to represent the "truth" about the Holocaust, or Jews, or Zionism, or Israel. And the latter occurs infinitely more often than the former. And while you or I might not use them as authorities on these subjects, many others view them as the *only* NPOV authorities on these subjects. Jay.

The Lyndon LaRouche supporters provide a good example of the way Wikipedia doesn't defend itself well against determined POV pushers. The arbcom ruled that original research emanating from the LaRouche movement may be used on articles "closely related" to LaRouche. A consequence of this is that the article [[Lyndon LaRouche]] now cites claims that LaRouche developed the Star Wars program, properly referenced to someone interviewed on LaRouche cable television. This is just one of scores of similar claims in the 17 articles on the LaRouche template, but you have to be knowledgeable to sort out which claims are LaRouche nonsense, because they're not always as obvious as the Star Wars one. The LaRouche editors have already been through mediation. The purpose of mediation is to find a middle way between two sides. But this is inappropriate when dealing with someone like LaRouche, whose views border on insanity. The post-mediation articles were a compromise between what reputable journalists and scholars believe (that his movement is a fascist cult, and that he is arguably unwell), and what LaRouche supporters believe (that he designed Star Wars, is the greatest economist of his day, that the British royal household wants to assassinate him, and so on.) It's like saying "some believe that 2 plus 2 = 4, while others say it's 5" in a mathematics article. They have also been through arbitration. The arbcom ruled that LaRouche publications count as "original research" but may be used as sources in articles "closely related" to LaRouche and his movement. As a result, the LaRouche editors have taken ownership of the 17 articles on the LaRouche template, and are constantly trying to bring other articles into the "closely related" fold. They regularly attack other editors who stand up to them, calling us "anti-LaRouche activists", which implies that we're out to get LaRouche, rather than out to protect Wikipedia. Most editors become disheartened and wander off. Some try to compromise, which is why nonsense like the Star Wars claim is allowed to sit there. To have Wikipedia act against these people, other editors are going to have to return to the arbcom, make the case again, do all the diffs, maybe be asked to do an RfC first (which the LaRouche editors would love because it would give them a public platform to re-post all their insults), watch their own reputations be trashed by the LaRouchites, so that the process degenerates into claim and counter-claim, and counter-counter claim, all of it on public pages cached by Google. Who wants to face that? What is needed in obvious cases like this is a "benevolent dictator", whether it's Jimbo Wales or the arbcom, to examine the editors' contributions then ban them, because these are not bona fide Wikipedians who happen to have a strong POV. They are fanatics acting to promote the views of a poltical cult, and they're here for no other reason. Yet here they remain, making a mockery of everything Wikipedia stands for. Slim

Bjorn, that you don't see the POV in [[Lyndon LaRouche]] demonstrates what others were arguing on this list earlier, which is that editors often need to have a degree of expertise to spot POV additions and omissions. (The stuff left out of this article is the worst of it.) When you're faced with determined POV pushers, but the POV requires knowledge to spot, it can be hard to find other editors who will help, because they look at the article and think it's okay. If the POV were obvious, it would be less of a problem because readers would spot it too. It's the less obvious kind that does the harm, because readers will believe it. The Star Wars section I was referring to in [[Lyndon LaRouche]] is below. It is cited, and so it's not Wikipedia that's saying this, it's the quoted source. In that way, it meets [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]]. That doesn't change the fact that it's a load of baloney, and we shouldn't be quoting people who talk nonsense. Slim "According to a speech made by LaRouche science advisor Paul Gallagher [http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/3110sdi_timeline.html], LaRouche and his representatives met with Reagan administration Energy Secretary [[Donald Hodel]], Interior Secretary [[James Watt]], Science Adviser Dr. [[George Keyworth]], and State Department official [[Richard Morris]] in early [[1981]]. Gallagher also claims that later that year Lyndon and Helga Zepp-LaRouche met with [[CIA]] Deputy Director [[Bobby Ray Inman]], and cites the following remarks, made in early [[1993]] at the National Press Club by former head of German Military Intelligence, Gen. Paul-Albert Scherer: "In the Spring of 1982 here in the Soviet Embassy there were very important secret talks that were held ... The question was: Did the United States and the Soviet Union wish jointly to develop an anti-ballistic missile defense that would have made nuclear war impossible? Then, in August, you had this very sharp Soviet rejection of the entire idea.... I have discussed this thoroughly with the developer, the originator of this idea, who is the scientific-technological strategic expert, Lyndon LaRouche. The [Soviet] rejection came in August, and at that point the American President Reagan decided to push this entire thing out into the public eye, so he made his speech of March 1983." (Press Conference at the National Press Club, Washington, DC., May 6, 1992; video of Scherer's remarks was broadcast on the "LaRouche Connection" cable TV program throughout the U.S.) [http://www.larouchepub.com/tv/tlc_programs_1991-1995.html] On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:04:25 +0100, BJörn Lindqvist <bjourne(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Well, calling it a "cult" is not NPOV. An NPOV to describe this would be to say "the members live collectively and are told to raise money for Lyndon LaRouche", and to say "Some exmembers accuse the organization of doing this". ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: slimvirgin(a)gmail.com <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 03:47:15 -0700 Subject: Re: Original Research versus Point of View, was Re: [WikiEN-l] The3RR policy sho To: BJörn Lindqvist <bjourne(a)gmail.com>om>, "English Wikipedia ." <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org> Bjorn, here are another two pages as examples: [[Schiller Institute} and [[LaRouche Youth Movement]], both part of the LaRouche movement. The first is regarded by researchers who know it as a dangerous, far-right organization, with ties to far-right movements in Germany where the Schiller Institute is based. Its founder, LaRouche's wife, has made explicit Holocaust denial statements. But there is nothing about this in the article. After a protracted edit war, I was allowed to say that its "critics" regard it as a cult, and insert a paragraph on [[Jeremiah Duggan]], a young man who died after attending one of their "cadre schools." The institute has nothing to do with Friedrich Schiller, the founder is not the world's leading expert on Schiller, as the article says (or any kind of expert). They are a dodgy political organization, not a musical one, yet look how much play the music gets. The [[LaRouche Youth Movement]], started after LaRouche got out of jail, now has young members all over the world thanks to the Internet. It is unquestionably a cult, with members encouraged to live collectively, spend all their time raising money for the movement, and receiving almost none of it for their upkeep. Ex-members have given interviews about how they were forced to undergo "ego-stripping" as part of their indoctrination. Again, there is nothing about this in the article. I was only allowed my one paragraph about the death of Jeremiah Duggan. Finally, look at [[Template:LaRouche Talk]]. These are the Talk archives the LaRouche editors have caused in just a few months, as various editors try to get something close to the truth into these articles, but instead get worn down by the endless talk, the calls for mediation, the calls for arbitration, and the insults. So they give up, as I am about to do. Slim _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

I'm sorry but your claim here simply isn't borne out by the text of the article in question. The only mention of Star Wars is in a paragraph that that starts: "Separating fact from fiction in LaRouche's biography is made difficult by the barrages of conflicting accounts generated by the LaRouche movement and its critics" and goes on to say that LaRouche "claims to have pioneered such ideas as the International Development Bank, the Strategic Defense Initiative or "Star Wars," and the so-called Eurasian Land-Bridge" Nowhere does the article make the claim that LaRouche's claim is a fact. I've looked at those seventeen articles. Which of them do you think are not closely related to the LaRouche affair?

JAY JG wrote I'm not going to dispute that. On the other hand, these are the people to whom an explanation of the nature of POV writing, in WP terms, will be most helpful. his Trouble is, simply producing a source which agrees - for example some conspiracy theorist - and citing that, then may just sanitise the contribution, without improving the article. Getting the poster further along the learning curve of Wikipedianhood, rather than just making the point, is also very relevant. So we could perhaps agree that 'winning' rhetoric is not always the most desirable way of handling things. Charles

Bryan Derksen (bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca) [050118 16:52]: The ArbCom's reputation has rapidly shifted from "they'll get to it some month" to "we are concerned about their speed", so I think we'll get there ;-) When bringing a possible ArbCom case, it helps to have touched all bases. That means a genuine attempt to fix things first, a coherent RFC, examples ofr every assertion in your case and putting it in the format of the template. This reduces the Pain In The Arse factor and helps us get on the case quickly. We're not currently archiving rejections, but possibly we should - some of the recent ones are good examples of how not to do it. - d.

While you have a good point about edit wars, ArbCom is an extremely slow process even now, when it has sped up considerably. Considering that it would first require an attempt at resolution (e.g. RfC, mediation), then would have to be accepted by ArbCom, evidence gathered and presented, voted on, then closed, it's hard to imagine this process could take less than a month. By the way, I note with some dismay that though most of the new ArbCom members are working hard cleaning up the backlog, some appear to be AWOL. I'm not sure why this is the case, since they all volunteered for, and won, a hard fought election. Jay.

A month of unsupported original research and POV nonsense present in an article that we are trying to promote as a reliable alternative to paper encyclopedias. A month in which this editor no doubt goes on to insert similar junk into other articles. Multiplied by dozens of editors and thousands of articles. And a month is a low-end estimate of the time taken. I would hope most of us would regard this as A Bad Thing. I don't think the primary purpose of Wikipedia is to be a reformatory where we gently train and cajole POV warriors into becoming fine upstanding NPOV encyclopedia editors; rather, I think its primary purpose is to create a great encyclopedia. Jay.

If only that were true. Right. And we're talking about solutions for that. Not so. Others don't want to get involved, because they have enough to do as it is, and they aren't particularly well informed on the subject. That's not the same thing. And please try to remember this is not about me in particular; again, let's not make strawman arguments or personalize this. Tony, you seem to be missing the point here. It's not about me, it's about how to deal with a number of systemic issues on Wikipedia. And I wish you'd stop bringing up the "let go of the 3RR" strawman argument; I'm all for the 3RR, and was one of the first people to vote in favour of it becoming an enforcable policy. In fact, I'd like stricter enforcement. Jay.

To join and be part of a community, you have to abide by its norms. Those who fail to do so generally face exclusion from the community of one form or another. And I find Wikipedia extremely reluctant to use the tools it has to enfore communal norms, to its detriment. Some of the detriment is seen in the highly variable quality of the content. Other is seen in the many good editors willing to abide by those norms, but not put up with those who do not, and who end up leaving. Jay.

We had one. He basically left in frustration over POV warriors and Wikipedia's failure to deal with them. There's one more, but he isn't very active in this area right now. Jay.

True, "hard cases make bad law." I think swift but light justice helps. The way things work now, a rogue editor runs rampant over Wikipedia for a couple of months, till ArbCom can finally deal with it. By that point their "rap sheet" is so long that the only reasonable remedy is a lengthy ban of many months. If we were able to hand out one or two day "cooling off" bans very soon after the behaviour started, I believe it would make the rogue editors start taking Wikipedia policies seriously enough that they might actually move their disputes and concerns to the Talk: pages, rather than the articles. I understand that temporary injunctions by ArbCom were supposed to help with this, but, ironically, in more cases than not the final rulings are brought down before any temporary injunctions get the necessary votes. Jay.

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 04:40:37 +1100, David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote: Yes personal abuse is seriously subective and (like all these policies) has no effect on anons from AOL

David Gerard (fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au) [050120 05:00]: It would help if I included it, wouldnn't it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks - d.

Daniel Mayer (maveric149(a)yahoo.com) [050120 05:05]: I recall Mr-Natural-Health deleting any questioning of his edits or edit summaries as a "personal attack". "On Wikipedia, you are in fact required to suffer fools a little bit, of not gladly." Sounds like quickpolls ... That's a *very* good idea. What do we do to change ArbCom powers in this manner? - d.

Daniel Mayer wrote: What's the typical time-delay on getting the four votes for a temporary injunction?

Jay JG with over-assertive or Yes, the reluctance is clear. The reasons for the reluctance are clear, to most people. who The variable quality will always be there, as far as anyone can see. The fact that some valued editors will leave is something WP will always have to live with. Basically, there is nothing like a consensus on any of the following: (a) WP is failing; (b) A harder line on banning would be an unqualified plus; (c) POV pushing can be solved by enforcement. Not one of the many ArbCom candidates in the recent electio, IIRC, was _clearly_ for a more authoritarian policy, where there _was_ a consensus for swifter action. So I still believe the 'good editors exodus', about which we often here, is panicky. We should really be worried if their replacements were not being recruited. The thread is called 'The 3RR policy should not always be blindly followed'. More of the same alarmist rhetoric, as far as I'm concerned. Charles

slimvirgin(a)gmail.com wrote: This strikes me as unnecessary. At any given time of the day or night there are more than 130 people in #wikipedia. Just go there and ask around for help, it's easy to find people to help. --Jimbo

<slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote So point this out on the talk page. I don't want to sound unsympathetic, but _document first_ where there is a burning issue. Invoking some sort of 'higher vigilantism' is a long way behind trying to meet unreasonable behaviour with reasoning. Charles

Rich Holton (rich_holton(a)yahoo.com) [050120 01:15]: For a comparison, see the articles in [[Category:Scientology]] or the article on [[L. Ron Hubbard]]. NPOV is tricky, but we try our best, with references by the ton. (Even then it sometimes isn't enough - see the expressions of incredulity on [[Talk:Xenu]] or [[Talk:Mission Earth (novel)]]. What does one do when this shit really is unbelievable?) - d.