Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing

These are editors who are superficially polite while exhibiting some or all of the following behaviors:

• They often edit primarily or entirely on one topic or theme.

• They attempt to water down language, whitewash, unreasonably exclude information, push views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV, or give undue weighttofringe theories such as pseudoscience, crankery, conspiracy theories, historical revisionism, etc.
• They frivolously request citations for obvious or well known information.
• They argue endlessly about the neutral point of view policy and particularly try to undermine the undue weight clause. They try to add information that is (at best) peripherally relevant on the grounds that "it is verifiable, so it should be in".
• When they are unable to refute discussion on the talk page against their point of view, they will say the discussion is original research.

• They revert war over such edits.
• They may use sockpuppets, or recruit meat puppets.

• They repeatedly use the talk page for soapboxing, and/or to re-raise the same issues that have already been discussed numerous times.
• They hang around forever, wearing down more serious editors and become an expert in an odd kind of way on their niche POV. They outlast their competitors because they're more invested in their point of view.
• They often make a series of frivolous and time-wasting requests for comment, mediation or arbitration, again in an attempt to wear down other editors.
• They will often misrepresent others or other discussions in an attempt to incriminate or belittle others' opinions.
• They will attempt to label others or otherwise discredit their opinion based on that person's associations rather than the core of their argument. See ad hominem.
• They will use inconsistent logic across discussions, applying an argument or standard in one situation but using a contradictory one in the next discussion if it suits them.
• They may participate in articles for deletion discussions, keeping articles that support their beliefs and deleting articles that do not, even if the articles otherwise have similar notability.

• They argue for the inclusion of material of dubious reliability; for example, using commentary from partisan think tanks rather than from the scientific literature.
• They argue that reliable sources are biased while their own preferred sources are neutral.
• They ignore their burden to demonstrate verifiability, insisting attempts be made to find reliable sources for dubious claims before removing them from an article.
• When pressed for reliable sources, in lieu of honoring the request they:
  • use a source to verify claims outside its author's expertise. For example, a foreword to an electrician's handbook is used to verify a statement of historical fact;
  • engage in cherrypicking; and
  • cite non-English language sources most people can't read, or obscure books that most people can't find.

Topics affected by this problem include:

• Civility is not limited to superficial politeness but includes the overall behavior of the user. Superficially polite behaviors still may be uncivil. Some examples are politely phrased baiting, frivolous or vexatious use of process, ill-considered but politely phrased accusations, unrelenting pestering, and abuse of talk pages as a platform to expound upon personal opinions unrelated to specific content issues.
• Just as WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR cannot be applied in isolation, WP:CIVIL should not be interpreted or enforced without reference to other guidelines and policies. Civility is important, but it does not trump other core behavioral and content policies.
• Using Wikipedia as a vehicle for advocacy, or to advance a specific agenda, damages the encyclopedia and disrupts the process of collaborative editing. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. Even when such behavior is superficially civil it is just as harmful to the project, if not more so, than incivility.
• The requirement to assume good faith is not an excuse for uncooperative behavior. There is a limit to how long good faith can be extended to editors who are continually shown to be acting in a manner that is detrimental to the growth and improvement of the encyclopedia. Nor is AGF defined as doublespeak for urging all editors to agree with a particular viewpoint and accept any changes that are advocated.
• Civility does not mean that editors cannot disagree. Academe is well known for spirited debates and disagreements and these often point the way to progress. The key principle is "stay on topic"; that is, arguments should be on the merits and not personalities. Editors should bear in mind that a disagreement with their point is not an attack on their honor.

• This is a type of behavior that is very easy to do; all it takes is a willingness to spend the time creating the necessary walls of text until the other editor(s) become frustrated, give up in disgust and go away. It is incredibly tedious to prove and almost as tedious to assess because by its very nature it requires many multiple diffs. You simply cannot prove it with 3 or 4; editors assessing the situation would have to then take the complaining editor’s word for it that this was being repeated over the course of a long wall of text. Because of this, complaints of sealioning/civil POV pushing about an editor who has been found to be exhibiting this behavior before should be taken seriously, and such complaints should not be closed until someone has been willing to investigate.
• Accounts which use Wikipedia for the sole or primary purpose of advocating a specific agenda at the expense of core policies and consensus-based editing should be warned, restricted, or ultimately blocked by any uninvolved administrator. Care should be taken to distinguish new accounts from those with an established pattern of disruptive single-purpose advocacy. Likewise, this remedy is not meant to apply to editors who work within a narrow range of topics but adhere to Wikipedia's core policies.
• Where consensus cannot be attained through normal wiki processes, the Arbitration Committee could designate "lead" editors who have considerable expertise on that article or topic. Lead editors would be empowered to direct discussion, determine consensus and designate discussions as closed. However, the Arbitration Committee has done this only very rarely, and there is considerable opposition to it doing it at all: the committee is expected to deal with behavior, not content.
• If an editor insists on continuing to bring up an issue which has been discussed and decided, especially if they have no new information that can add to the issue, they should be pointed to the previous discussion, warned, restricted and ultimately blocked by any uninvolved administrator. An "involved administrator" (for the purposes of allowing uninvolved administrators to impose sanctions on problem users) is one who has a current, direct, personal conflict with a problem user on the specific issue at hand. Previous interactions on other articles or topics does not make one involved; previously editing the same article (but a different matter) does not make one involved. Broad definitions of "involved" that exclude administrators who have any prior experience with the article or editors in question are counterproductive. They result in overemphasis on superficial civility at the expense of more complex and long-term behavior. See WP:UNINVOLVED.

• WP:Don't bludgeon the process (essay that verges on guideline-level acceptance)
• WP:Gaming the system (guideline)
• Gish gallop
• WP:Tendentious editing (ditto)
• WP:Wikilawyering (ditto)
• CIVIL POV Pushing Strategies (user essay)
• POV pushing (user essay)
• Sealioning (article, on the general concept)

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience (2006)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion (2008)

• Sea lioning, from the original Wondermark comic