Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing

April fools Arbcom case

Back in September I had added content about this year's Arbcom case to the Rules for Fools subsection; it was removed today in this diff. In my view it is very important this stay here, in that subsection. Things going to Arbcom is a big deal; and per the facts in that case there was disruptive editing in several ways. Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Once I made an April's Fools Day edit, in which I (of course) turned out to be the fool, since I stupidly thought I was being original. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• I was the user who removed that line. Things going to ArbCom is certainly a big deal, but there are many ArbCom cases about a wide variety of policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, but it's rare that a policy or guideline will directly mention an ArbCom case. It also risks distracting users from the (in my view) more important part of the guideline: that the jokes need to be tagged and kept out of articles, and all policies and guidelines—including WP:BLP and WP:NPA—still apply. The case is already mentioned at WP:FOOLS, which deliberately provides a fuller description of how April Fools' Day should be conducted. Mz7 (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC about refactoring

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#RfC: Should the guideline discourage interleaving? #2.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Talking about disruption, the RfC is not about "refactoring". It is about whether it is ok to split someone's comment into fragments and then reply to each fragment. Johnuniq (talk) 10:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The Sun revolves around the Earth?

First, I'm sorry for my bad English. Now at the page: This exemption does not apply to settled disputes; for example, insertion of claims that the Sun revolves around the Earth would not be appropriate today, even though this issue was active controversy in the time of Galileo. I think this is a very bad example, because it is not an objective truth, but just a matter of choosing a more or less convenient frame of reference. I suggest to replace: the Sun revolves around the Earth → the Earth is flat; in the time of Galileo → until the late middle ages. Wisgest (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. Wisgest (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I've undone this,, as it's an urban legend; see myth of the flat Earth. I've also added a link to the article about the geocentric model, which clearly shows that it's been superceded by the heliocentric model (the Earth revolves around the Sun). Graham87 07:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

vandalism

Octofan changed "Not to be confused with Wikipedia:Vandalism." to "Not to be confused with the vandalism."

I think it should be reverted, because the change doesn't reflect how something like that would normally be worded. Benjamin (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2017

Kiermcintosh (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. You haven't requested any changes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Editing "despite an opposing consensus"

Number 5 in disruptive editing signs is "Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors." Well, if the editor in question disagrees with the article content in question (or other content), then there is not a consensus on this article (or other content). It seems that the advocate of a minority position must cede to the majority. However, what if the majority, for discussion's sake, is advocating a position that is contrary to WP policies or guidelines? Is the lone dissenter a "disruptive editor"? OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 17:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

In that case, they should seek a third opinion. Benjamin (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Good point. Like a neutral third party.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 17:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Paraphrasing WP:CONSENSUS: "[Consensus]-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." In your hypothetical, what admin or broader group of editors is going to say a group of editors advocating a position that is contrary to WP policies or guidelines has consensus? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be deference to article-level editorial consensus on issues, even if the matter at hand can be interpreted as contrary to policy. For example, in an article about a pop music artist, a group of editors who are highly involved with the article may decide that there will be no mention of an unfavourable tour. Since the article about Foo (a pop artist) is an encyclopedia article, not a fan page, if The New York Times says "2015 Foo Tour a Debacle", then this is pertinent to let the readers know about this. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 18:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

"may decide that there will be no mention of an unfavourable tour" - what policies or guidelines are they basing this on? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2018

Under WP:DDE,

Notify the editor you find disruptive, on their user talkpage.

should be changed to one of the following:

• Notify the disruptive editor on their user talkpage.
• Notify the tendentious editor on their user talkpage.
• Notify the editor on their user talkpage.

to get rid of the ungrammatical comma. The comma is only there because the sentence is confusingly constructed. 67.14.236.50 (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC) edited 14:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Or just, “the editor”. There is no ambiguity. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: The reason for the wording is that "disruptive editor" is a statement of fact, while "editor you find disruptive" highlights that it's an opinion (can be wrong). I agree that grammar can be improved so I'll leave this ER up. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 14:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, my suggestion would be to simply remove the comma. Stickee (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Partly done: Removed comma – by AdA&D at 16:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Not within 24 hours

Really. That is nonsense. We need that removed. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: How's this? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Better. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

may or might

Totally changes the meaning. Do we mean to not call it disruptive unless it recurs in > 24 hours/a brief period, or do we mean it might be if it occurs in < 24 hours/ a brief period. Also, disruption occurs despite repeated warnings/pleas to stop. Is that in there? I'm going back to sleep.19:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Picture of woman

Shouldn't the picture of a foolish woman ("I can't hear you"), which is the only picture in the article, be either removed or replaced by a photo of a foolish man? Only about 1/6 of wiki-editors are women, and the problem of systemic bias has been widely discussed on- and off-wiki. Thanks.NightHeron (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Given what's going on at ANI right now, a picture of you would be most appropriate of all. If you'd supply one that would improve the page greatly. EEng 13:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I deleted this photo of (per our article) "Madame de Meuron (22 August, 1882 – 22 May, 1980), was an aristocrat and well-known eccentric personality in the city of Bern, Switzerland." It was returned with the edit summary: "Amusing to see someone not getting the point in editing a section on not getting the point. I assure you that thousands of others DO get the point." I can assure you that I am not at all amused and I (along with perhaps many other women) believe this really does need some explanation about what "the point" exactly is. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not a "foolish woman", it's a person using an ear-trumpet i.e. someone who has trouble hearing things. If you can find an image of a man with an ear-trumpet, feel free to add it for balance. EEng 19:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I think User:EEng#s is the one who's not hearing well. A reader who came to the page would likely get the impression that the authors of the article think that women editors are the most likely disrupters. User:EEng#s might also need an ear trumpet to hear the clamor of complaints about sexism on Wikipedia. There's a list of references at the beginning of the article on systemic bias in the April issue of Signpost.NightHeron (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Offensive, perhaps, to skinny people?

-EEng

I see: an image of a woman with attribute X implies that most persons with attribute X are women. I'm known for not suffering fools gladly but I confess that my powers of invective are unable to do justice to the stupidity of such logic. Perhaps henceforth we should use genderless stick figures wherever possible. EEng 04:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

but ... that stick character is obviously not male - (missing tiny dick-stick. :) ... Vsmith (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to find a stick figure with a fig leaf. EEng 13:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm usually the first one to enjoy a little talk page humor but it is not funny to use the photo from one of our bio articles to demonstrate disruptive. And a picture of a woman with a hearing disability at that. We should not be mocking people, either male or female and certainly not people with disabilities. Gandydancer (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

You might be more comfortable editing Victimpedia. EEng 17:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)