Wikipedia talk:POV railroad/Archive 1

Archive 1

Input

Input and discussion to improve this essay is welcomed. Thanks,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Keithbob. I spent some time reading, trimming, editing, etc. and started reading the See Also for Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. I wasn't sure how this essay differed from that one, because at a quick glance, they both seemed to be covering a very similar topic. CorporateM (Talk) 17:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Corporate, thanks for the edits. This article differs from Civil POV pushing in that it is conducted by bullies who focus on eliminating their opponents by creating a false narrative of misbehavior and gaming the dispute resolution process. While I agree that my original draft was too wordy I think you distillation has maybe taken things out that clarified that difference. I may add a few things back in. We'll see. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Awww - that clears things up a lot. I'll take another look this weekend. CorporateM (Talk) 16:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Key sentence

This sentence:

• The process of POV railroading includes: (1) isolating the opponent, (2) intimidating and confusing the opponent, (3) frustrating and inciting the opponent, and (4) creating a narrative that the opponent is violating policy, regardless of actual behavior.

Is the crux of the entire essay and I've put it back in the lead. I've also formatted the first part of the essay "Tactics" so that it illustrates these key points.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Input 2

I personally think this version was much better than the current one. The current version is way too wordy, watered down, mealy mouthed, boring (honestly I got too bored to read it, but maybe that's just me), and sounds no different than what happens on Wikipedia every single day. There's no need in my mind to add all those numbered items, much less twice. Also, the points are better made with punch and succinctness, as they were before. Softlavender (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Instead of "traits" what about something like "the typical POV railroad story goes something like this" then tell a narrative. This seems more along the lines of how the original was and it might work well if it's explicitly in that format. CorporateM (Talk) 13:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point Softlavender, maybe Corporate's suggestion is a good way to make it more succinct but still maintain the sense that this is a behavioral pattern rather than a grouping of isolated events. I've been tweaking it for the past two days. I'll leave it now and let you two work on it for a while. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I would personally just revert it to the version I linked above. For the reasons I listed. Softlavender (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks SL, to preserve other changes such as wiki links etc. I've just edited to change the format. I think its OK now but am open to further feedback and edits.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Feedback on your essay

Hi Keithbob, I saw your note on Liz's talk page, so I stopped by to leave some comments. (1) I like the essay organized into 5 subsections better than the current format, which could be seen to be a random list. The points group very nicely into subtopics that can be expanded later with illustrations. (2) I would consider the addition of branding someone as a COI under the false narratives section. (3) I would consider adding something about baiting editors into escalating disputes which lead to AN/I traps under the baiting subsection. This is about luring people into AN/I traps rather than how they operate once they get them into AN/I.

I left a link to three real-life examples on Liz's talk page. The first two are now banned from Wikipedia for using sockpuppets. What they did to BruceGrubb was the main reason I retired from Wikipedia for 6 months - it physically sickened me. Ignocrates (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ignocrates. I also have reservations about the current list format as it may not clearly convey that POV Railroading is a progressive and coordinated pattern of behavior, not a collection of random battleground "tactics". This essay was inspired by 1) my personal experience on WP 2) an essay called WP:9STEPS (written unfortunately in a sarcastic tone) and 3) This post by editor Ludwigs2 [1]. These items outline the procedures some editors use to eliminate editors who disagree with them and retain control or ownership on an article or topic area. The WP:BULLY essay does not adequately cover even the general phenomena of bullying on WP no less the specific pattern of escalating abuse that I am trying to document here. Your feedback and any further input or edits are greatly appreciated. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is User: Ret.Prof's version of the phenomena I am calling POV Railroading [2] As you can see from of these writings by various people there is a common theme amongst them. So this appears to be a problematic behavioral pattern on WP that is prevalent enough that its worth documenting and addressing in this essay.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Burden of proof

Maybe we should add this also:

The policy of verifiability is turned upside down, per WP:BURDEN. The sourced content of POV railroaders is assumed correct while the opponents contributions and sources are deleted and assumed to be incorrect. The opponent is then informed that the burden of proof is on them to prove the value of their content and sourcing.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is an example where an entire paragraph of reliably sourced content was blanked, using the argument that all of the sources are deficient unless proven otherwise in advance on the talk page. Of course, the "threshold" of proof will always be insurmountable. Ignocrates (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Another example is turning the policy of verifiability upside down per WP:PRESERVE. Here the POV railroader blanks a section of reliably-sourced content that has stood in an article for years. Another editor realizes what has been done and attempts to restore it. The railroader treats the content they deleted as if it had just been added as new content and uses the WP:BURDEN argument above to exclude it. Ignocrates (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ignocrates, these are excellent examples that I have seen in my own experience on WP. In light of this do you have any draft type suggestions for new text in the article?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

My point on WP:BURDEN is that the policy is misused by POV railroaders and bullies. WP:BURDEN says:

• The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material.

So WP:BURDEN applies to unsourced material. Once a reliable source is provided there is no longer a burden for inclusion. If the source is disputed that is a separate issue for the talk page or WP:RSN. So using WP:BURDEN as an excuse to remove sourced content, that a POV railroader does not like, is a misuse of policy.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC) OK I've added a point to illustrate this behavior.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Policy bomb, tag spamming

Under the "policy bomb" section, you might want to include the use of non-specific allegations that all of the victim's edits violate OR/SYNTH and all of their sources violate RS/FRINGE. This is repeated endlessly wherever the victim edits to establish a false narrative. Another effective bully tool is tag-spamming. Rather than use reversions, which can be challenged later as diffs, the bully places disputed tags everywhere the victim edits and demands they be discussed on the talk page. Of course, the "threshold" for satisfying the bully's demands to remove the tags is insurmountable. Ignocrates (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I understand what you meant when you said:

This is repeated endlessly wherever the victim edits to establish a false narrative.

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The point of RS/FRINGE is to bring it up so frequently on article talk pages (specific sources may or may not be named) that the contributing editor no longer receives the benefit of the doubt per AGF. All sources added by the contributing editor will be considered unreliable or fringe until proven otherwise on noticeboards (and even then the findings of the noticeboards may be ignored). The point of OR/SYNTH is to establish the narrative that, even if the sources are legitimate to use (never acknowledged), the editor is inserting her/his own POV as OR or creating POV by combining sources to say something they don't actually say. Again, this is repeated so often on article talk pages, without providing specific examples, that the editor no longer receives the benefit of the doubt per AGF. Wiki-hounding is also an important component of establishing these false narratives, as it requires trolling the victim editor's edit logs and following them around Wikipedia. Ignocrates (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

A dead giveaway for this type of activity is when an editor is accused of violating SYNTH even though the content they just added is supported by a single reliable source. A variation on this tactic is to tell the contributing editor that a single reliable source is insufficient per UNDUE, and then after they add a second reliable source revert to the SYNTH argument. Ignocrates (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Yea a lot of game the system to prevent content the 'owner' of the article doesn't approve of. I get that now and yes I've seen it before. Not sure though how to include it in this essay without getting too bogged down in detail. Thanks again for you comments and assistance.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. These tactics are hard to demonstrate on a single article. That's what makes this type of civil POV-pushing so pernicious. It's really more a form of stalking than WP:OWN. Again, Ret.Prof provides a useful case study in how this is done. Ignocrates (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this very helpful essay.

Dear Keithbob; Congratulations on producing this excellent essay, which describes a subtle set of bullying tactics that we can all now recognize, should we ever be unfortunate enough to fall prey to it. I particularly liked the balance between (1) the detailed analysis and description of the issue and (2) the equally complete advice on preventative and remedial actions available to us all. You (and the other editors who helped you) have put in a lot of thought into this essay and have made a most valuable contribution to our community. Thank you for a job well done. (As I was reading it and learning from it, I came across three small typos that I corrected in passing.) With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee. (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for coming by and reading it. I hope it is useful to you and others in making WP a more stress free, just and collaborative place to work-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC).

I'm going to give you some terrible writing advice. ;-) But when you repeatedly use "they", it makes the reader either think you are considering them part of this "they" group or think that other editors are the problematic "they". It's not helpful to demonize a nebulous group of fellow Editors who actually might be reading your essay!

So the awful writing advice is this: Use the passive voice. Talk about poor behaviors that are done and leave out who is doing the action. This makes the sentences less active but it also avoids the risks of setting this up as an "us vs. them" problem. Consider the behavior, what acts are done as the problem, not the people. Individuals can change, they can be educated, they can begin to care about how their actions affect others. But "they" can't change because "they" are the problem...the only way a problem like "them" can be solved is for "them" to leave or be kicked out.

So, that's my comment. I'll let this settle and come back and say something on the specific remarks you make in the essay. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Good point, I've made some adjustments.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I think it's really an improvement. No one wants to be identified as a "bully" but anyone, including myself, can look at a list of behaviors that hurt other people and think, "Oh, man, I remember doing that once."

So, the focus can be a) acts that bully other people, b) consequences of those acts (what it does to the other person and to the bully) and c) how to change and act differently. I don't think you go into "B" and maybe that is too psychological. There is some great work on how being an oppressor actually destroys the oppressor's humanity along harming the victim. But WP are brief, to the point and have to keep the reader's attention so they might tune out at that kind of psychological abstraction.

I think it's so important for the reader to come away with the understanding that bullying is not just done by "bad people", that even well-meaning people can bully in one way or another but it's often minimized or written off as "I was just joking" (or being sarcastic). But the goal isn't to make people feel guilty, it's to make them aware so, hopefully, their behavior towards others, especially those of less status or power, improves. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Liz, for your (as usual) insightful comments. I agree with them and that's why (unlike many other essays that describe problematic behavior) I created a section on how to prevent or remedy the problem and tried to address parties on either side of the equation. As for the affect bullying has on the victim, I think that's a valuable aspect and should be included but maybe not in this essay which has a specific focus. While I commend the editor who created WP:BULLY I think that essay is incomplete and somewhat misdirected. For that reason I'm thinking of creating another essay just on the subject of bullying in general and in that essay I'd likely include some of what you are getting at. Thanks again for your insights and collaboration! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This sentence got removed

[[3]] although I agree with this trimming edit, I feel that a sentence removed

Often times the blocking administrator is unaware that he/she is being manipulated into giving a block or ban. Or the adminstrator has become desensitized and subscribes to the belief that this is the way Wikipedia should handle inexperienced editors who take issue with veteran editors.

may belong to another essay rather than be deleted... Any suggestions of where this thoughtful point could go? DontClickMeName _talk^{contributions} 22:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:BULLY?? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Motive?

The essay currently says that what distinguishes railroading behavior is that "the true motive is that the victim's POV is unwelcome". That may be true, but we need to be very careful not to impute motives. What we want to focus on is behavior(s). StAnselm (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

No, as you well know, motive is the key. It's not just railroading, it's POV railroading; railroading due to POV.

The reason it focuses on getting rid of the editor is because nothing else will get rid of their POV. If it was a matter of behavior, then the focus would be on improving behavior. MilesMoney (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I have some agreement with both of you. I think this might bear further discussion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not entirely unfamiliar with POV railroading. [comment redacted]

We can't read anyone's mind, but people leak their motives through their words. If they show a diff of a "disruptive" edit and the only thing disruptive about it is that it shifts the POV balance back towards neutrality, this is a big hint. If discussion is polarized but the commonality linking everyone who's in favor of removing an editor is that their POV is opposed, that's a hint. If the goal is to get rid of the editor as opposed to prevent the bad behavior, that's a huge hint.

We don't need a crystal ball to infer motive. MilesMoney (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Motive may well be the key - but we can never jump to conclusions about other people's motives. As for the focus on removing an editor, I imagine that most of the occurrences are article-centred - that is, removing an editor from a particular dispute in order to preserve the preferred version of an article. Hence the term "railroading" - it means running over the editor. This isn't usually editor-centred - the editor is merely viewed as an obstruction to the development of the article. StAnselm (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

As you know, it may start with one article, but it branches out quickly. Soon it's one topic, then it's a bunch of related topics. It's not enough to chase them away from an article, or even have them article-banned from it: you have to get rid of the editor. MilesMoney (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with StAnselm that we need to be careful with the tone of the essay. At the same time the essay is about a subtle abuse of WP process and guidelines. Its real, I've seen it close up and its been reported and linked to by others in the threads above. So while we need an even tone, so we don't want to alienate or demonize, we don't want to water the language down so much that the essay becomes meaningless either. This is a real abuse of process and, when it occurs and it's being discussed at arbitration, ANI or AE, editors should be able to refer to this essay and get their point across in one sentence as they would with WP:BULLY or WP:HARASSMENT or other essays. Citing an essay doesn't make it true but instead it express a specific process that others can click and read about if they want to. Whether that editor is actually being railroaded or not is up to the people participating in that forum to decide. It may be a false alarm or it may be calling a spade a spade.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to offer a hypothetical example.

Imagine that I'm a Muslim and I edit articles which overlook the Muslim view. I don't remove other views, I just add, "And under Islam, he's considered..." or "Islam also treats this city as holy". That sort of thing. Now, this offends some editors over time, so one day an ANI report is filed on me, ostensibly to complain about my behavior on a particular article.

A lynch mob forms. Everyone who's been offended by my attempt to give Islam equal time piles on with diffs of alleged bad behavior, gleefully out of context to make them look much worse than they are. Before I can even reply, there's a proposal to topic ban me from all religious articles, broadly construed.

Naturally, the lynch mob casts Support votes, but pretty much nobody else does. They suggest that maybe this is an overreaction, that I should have been more civil but I was baited, that I sometimes reverted too much but at least discussed it afterwards.

If you look at the lynch mob, you find that they have nothing in common other than their opposition to Islam. There are Christians, Jews, atheists, others. They disagree with each other on many issues. The only thing they agree on is that, because of my POV, I am the enemy and must be silenced.

...

Shared motive is what gives away the fact that this is a lynch mob, not just a bunch of editors with concerns about my behavior. They're not unhappy with me because I'm uncivil or edit war. They're unhappy because I act to further a POV they oppose.

If we back away from commenting on motive, we remove the biggest clue that POV railroading is going on. Without the POV motive, it isn't even POV railroading anymore, just railroading. MilesMoney (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

One of the issues with this scenario is that phrase right at the end: "I act to further a POV they oppose." Well that is a behavior that should be discouraged anyway. The solution to POV editing is not more POV editing on the opposite side. Every editor needs to strive for NPOV edits. And so we have a problem in this essay - presumably the bullies are engaging in POV editing, but is there an underlying assumption that the victim is doing so as well? Maybe we need a note saying that railroading can occur against both good and bad, neutral and POVish editors - and it's inappropriate regardless. StAnselm (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

In this scenario, I act to give Islam equal time. The POV they oppose is that Islam should be mentioned where it's relevant. There's absolutely nothing wrong with acting to further this POV. In fact, WP:NPOV requires it; the Islam-bashers are in violation.

Making NPOV edits means making edits which push the articles towards neutrality, but the way to do that is to counter existing POV and add opposing POV. If an article on Jerusalem fails to mention Islam, that's an error to correct.

In short, you don't seem to understand NPOV. MilesMoney (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

We certainly have very different understandings of WP:NPOV. StAnselm (talk) 11:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we should assume the bully and/or the victim is a POV pusher. In some cases railroading may be done by accident or may be done for general trolling and harassment purposes. However, POV pushing is definitely a prominent part of railroading. CorporateM (Talk) 03:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

When an editor's behavior is the problem, it's not railroading. That's because behavior is something that can change. Editors can be encouraged to discuss changes, to be more civil and so on. However, the POV of editors is not something we can change. In the example above, nobody could encourage me to believe that Islam is crap that doesn't deserve to be mentioned.

It's precisely because of the victim's POV that railroading is necessary. MilesMoney (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Railroading is a more general term, like bullying, there are all kinds of it (potentially). But the purpose of this essay is to identify and bring attention to a distinct form of railroading or bullying that is motivated by a desire to maintain ownership of an article or topic area by marginalizing and attacking an editor with a different POV. I see this most often when new editors come to an article or topic with a fresh perspective and want to add things to the article that are unpopular with the existing editor(s). They are then run off by established editors who don't want to be bothered with educating, explaining or discussing their position, and associated policies, on the talk page and instead tag team and edit war, bait, goad and frustrate the newbie until the newbie makes mistakes and is blocked, topic banned or just quits out of frustration. In many cases the newer editors (less than 1,000 edits) are not even savvy enough to know about this essay or that allegations against them require diffs or have any idea how to defend themselves at ANI etc. So my goal is to raise awareness about this problem so that it can be prevented and/or resolved in a way that retains productive, newbie editors (or established ones that find themselves ganged up on).-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the issue of an editor's motives is a complicated and sensitive one and there is no silver bullet. We block spammy COI editors, where we would have coached them if they had purer motives. However, accusations about motives often degrade what would otherwise be a good content discussion and tends to lead to railroading(ish) type tactics, such as false COI accusations, personal attacks and false narratives. I think this discussion is beyond the scope of this document and worse-still, it is a problem where it is useless to attempt to find "the answer" because none exists. It is discouraged in most cases, but subject to common sense. It would be best, if this string continues, to focus on the precise text, rather than the broader philosophical issue. CorporateM (Talk) 17:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

All of the new discussion from the Notes/Comments section forward has been very enlightening. As several parties have mentioned, motive is the key. Behaviors are tactics used to implement goals that are motive-driven. Similar behaviors may result from different reasons, just as the key difference between trolling and other forms of disruption is the motive of malice. As this essay becomes more widely known, don't be surprised if POV-railroad practitioners attempt to undermine it. Ignocrates (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

One thing I would throw out there as a possibility is something like "behaviors that are indicative of...<motive>" We should not actually speculate about the motives, because all we can see are behaviors. CorporateM (Talk) 01:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The POV railroader's best defense is that anyone calling them out on their behavior is violating AGF because they are being misunderstood. POV railroading, like fraud, is difficult to prove because it all comes down to intent. That's what makes this form of civil POV-pushing so corrosive to the editing environment. Ignocrates (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments/thoughts

1. I think it would be great if the Railroading behaviors section was in paragraph form with policy shortcuts to specific behaviors like the layout of NPOV. Although this may be confusing, because some things like false narratives need a new shortcut, while others like baiting already have a page.
2. One behavior that should be added is when an editor is placed under a microscope and their errors are inflated and over-dramatized and their comments over-analyzed.
3. The Prevention section should have something about blocks?

CorporateM (Talk) 07:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Notes/comments

I am not sure (could go either way) if the two bullets - "forming a lynch mob" and "'gang up' on the opposing editor" - are different enough from each other to avoid redundancy.

I think we should be careful about how to word "when there is genuine disruption" because any POV railroader will proclaim that there is a genuine disruption and it is sometimes disruptive editors that need to be coached rather than railroaded. As before, I don't have an answer, just thinking out loud. CorporateM (Talk) 01:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I've made some changes based on what you said. As for lynch/gang, the difference is that you can gang up on an editor anywhere, such as by tag-teaming a revert war against them to trick them into crossing the 3RR line. A lynch mob is a very special form of ganging up that occurs when an ANI report becomes a means to finally get rid of an opponent. This is done by reinforcing the narrative by slinging dirt at them. I can provide examples of each, if it helps. MilesMoney (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

But contrariwise, as this essay becomes known, any genuinely disruptive editor will claim that he or she is being railroaded. Maybe the essay needs to concentrate on how to spot the difference. StAnselm (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC) [comment redacted]

The difference is actually very simple. When you POV railroad, you're trying to shut someone up because you don't like their POV. No matter what your excuses, it's about intimidation. When there's genuine disruption, the focus is on getting that editor to edit in a non-disruptive way. In other words, the railroad is about getting rid of people, not bad behavior. MilesMoney (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you are all making reasonable points. I do wonder though if we aren't just teaching those who employ these methods how to evade detection? I hope I'm wrong about that. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC) [WP:BAN 03:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)]

It's a reasonable concern, but the truth is that they already know these methods, and that these methods are most effective when they're covert. Talking about them openly, and especially attaching a memorable term, are a good defense. MilesMoney (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Good points from all of you (I'm the creator of the essay BTW) and I appreciate the detailed attention its getting from all of you. My thoughts are:

1) Miles has very astutely outlined the uniqueness of the 'lynch mob' which is specific type of ganging up for a specific purpose.

2) As for editors with genuine bad behavior claiming they are being POV railoaded.. yes of course any guideline or essay can be misused or misapplied. That's why there are community forums like AN, ANI, AE etc so that members of the community can assess and comment and that is why we have WP:BOOMERANG because the misrepresentation can be on either side of any dispute. That's a given. This essay assumes the mispresentation is being made by the accusers. That they are abusing process. We already have guidelines that represent the accuser's right to refer an editor for a block or sanction. This essay is about the abuse of process and its up to the community to decide when process is being abused and when its not. Citing an essay does not get you off the hook if you are genuinely misbehaving and valid diffs are provided.

3) No we're are not teaching anything. These methods are already known and are being used. They have been publicized since 2009 in this essay WP:How to Ban a POV You Dislike, in 9 Easy Steps which is written in a comical tone, as if say the practice is a joke, which it's not.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Would it be helpful to link to Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, either as a "see also" link or in the body of the essay? Looking at the list there, there seems to be considerable overlap in that (a) editors that seem to be railroad victims may simply be tendentious, (b) editors that seem to be tendentious may simply be railroad victims, (c) victimized editors may become tendentious, and (d) tendentious editors may become victimized. StAnselm (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Other Notes/Comments

A few comments:

1. Do folks think the POV railroading behaviors should be numbered? This would make it easier for a third-party observer in a dispute to say "This is POVRAILROAD, specifically behaviors #3, 5, and 8"
2. I was also thinking the Prevention and resolution section should also include something about sanctions against editors that persistently POV Railroad.
3. What about something like "Citing WP:POV RAILROAD may, in some cases, itself be railroading. In most cases it is best to let third-party observers in an editorial dispute call it out."

CorporateM (Talk) 02:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Tag teaming

Should tag teaming be included on the list of behaviors? StAnselm (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I just added it to See Also. It may also be good in the list of behaviors, if there is not too much overlap with the others. CorporateM (Talk) 03:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Copy editing for syntax and grammar

I copyedited this essay for grammar and syntax which seems to have become muddled with the changes made. I hope I didn't remove anything substantial if so please readd; it wasn't deliberate. Meaning hasn't been changed in my opinion. just clarified, and in a few cases expanded.(Littleolive oil (talk) 07:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC))

Dear friends; I added my own efforts in support of Littleolive oil's recent improvements. There were only a few minor issues outstanding (typos, rogue spaces, punctuation, etc.) and I therefore tried also to polish the prose a bit more, in passing. I also aimed to achieve consistency in the use of pronouns, as there was mixed usage of 'that', 'them' and 'him/her'. If anyone disagrees with any of my changes, then please feel free to revert as appropriate; my intent was simply to add value to this useful essay. Thank you.

With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee. (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

A final update, just to confirm that I have now replaced all occurrences of coupled singular pronouns ('he/she', etc.) with the second use of the plural form ('they', etc.).

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee. (talk) 11:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this really a thing?

Yes, of course it is, but I'm concerned about the way that this essay is being referenced. I noticed it has been extensively cited just recent at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Response to the POV Railroad. Without going on the particulars of that case, and whether railroading has occurred, an editor has expressed the opinion that this particular railroad has the express purpose of removing fringe views. In any case, the problem with this essay is that it will almost exclusively be used as a weapon - "people are railroading me". Is there anything that can be added to this essay to discourage this, or should the essay simply be deleted as unhelpful to the project? StAnselm (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Not really. The case you refer to will have to go to arbitration. They are smart enough to see through "people are railroading me" when it is not true. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is a fairly recent essay, and it hasn't been used much. In the only other use that I'm familiar with, the editor who appealed to this essay and claimed that he was being railroaded got indefinitely banned, so presumably the community saw through him as well. StAnselm (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Could be my fate as well. Anyway, back to the "Inquisition" or as it is now called Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment this also is the first time for me to see this essay. Can't help thinking it looks like something better in User space. User:StAnselm when was the previous time you mention that it was cited at ANI? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Obviously you have never walked in my shoes. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive823#User:MilesMoney : edits in various articles (categories, sources). This essay was cited a couple of times in that discussion, and although the discussion did not yield a consensus, a subsequent ANI discussion led to MilesMoney being banned. StAnselm (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It was used in light of a new phrase for POV editing, conservative cloud, it stems from this observation: "Personally I think the lot of them need to back off from these topics. Every time I go to look at this material, it's the same cloud of conservative defenders." Miles Money employed the phrase from there, I'm sure someone has or will coin a phrase to equally castigate their opponents as the culture wars continue. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN 03:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)]

The statement probably still needs work, but: "In some cases accusing an editor of being a POV railroader may in itself be POV railroading if the accusation is made in bad faith" CorporateM (Talk) 03:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Misuse or misrepresentation of an essay (or guideline for that matter) is not the fault of the essay. Many are the times I've seen people on both sides of a debate accusing the other side of violating WP:NPOV. It's inevitable that any essay or guideline will be wrongly applied from time to time. That's the fault of the editor, not the essay. I also think most people in discussions at ANI or AN or ArbCom are smart enough to know the difference between an approporiate reference to an essay and a misguided one.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi CorporateM. POV railroading someone is not a single event. Like a railroad which creates a potential journey and an end point, piece of track by piece of track, POV railroading is a journey of sometimes seemingly innocuous pieces linked together over time whose end point and journey's end is the destruction of an editor.(Littleolive oil (talk) 05:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC))

I note that someone has struck the comments by User:Sportfan5000 who has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Thank you for this clean up, whoever is responsible.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

"Civility", or "Incivility"?

Dear Keithbob,

I hope you are keeping well?

I haven't looked at your essay for several months but did so again tonight and wanted to offer the following comment for your consideration.

The titles of sections "1. False narratives", "2. Pile-ons" and "4. Policy mis-use" all correctly name some of the *negative* behaviours exhibited by individuals engaging in POV railroading.

The heading of section "3. Civility", however, conveys the idea of a *positive* behaviour, and I was wondering whether you might consider that, for consistency with the titles of the other three sections, it might perhaps be appropriate to rename it to something like "3. Lack of civility" or "3. Incivility"?

Thank you once again for the time and effort you've invested into developing this essay; it serves a very useful purpose. Good luck with your continued efforts to improve it.

With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee. (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The force of this essay seems to be getting weaker every time I look at it. That is very disappointing. Ignocrates (talk) 04:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's ironic, a POV railroad will work to change the narrative to a false, and usually weaker reality almost every time. The Civil War, for instance, will be mischaracterized as a polite misunderstanding. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN 03:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)]

Yes, Pdebee, that sounds like a good change. I also echo Ignocrates concern that the essay's original language, which described in detail a bully behavior process, has been watered down as if to imply that this kind of bullying either doesn't exist or that it is semi-acceptable.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)