Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Do we really need Sanger's quote?

I really do not think so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I know this is very late in the game, but I think removing that quotation really gutted the spirit of this guideline. Sanger may be persona non grata in Wikipedia, but that sentence was a flawless diamond in his parting jewels.

Show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who, if permitted, would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here.

Larry Sanger on Wikipedia:Etiquette

I think it should be restored. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The quote is to the point. I think its restoration is appropriate. the_undertow ^talk 21:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I don't want to start an edit war, I'll restore this quotation box to its former place in a few days unless someone provides a reasoned objection. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's done for now. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the restoral. --Elonka 10:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure the quote is appropriate for this guideline. The other week I removed the reference to Crank (person) because one editor, in protesting his block, pointed out that even though he himself was blocked for calling people bad names, this guideline itself called people bad names by labeling them as cranks. I think that the labels "trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists" are just as bad and could constitute a personal attack if this guideline is cited in an action against an editor. I think that leaving the quote out would deny recognition to people who are looking for attention. Wikipedia:Etiquette could, and probably should, be listed in the "See also" section. Ashanda (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a line in the Disruptive editing guideline, whether about Cranks or Trolls, is the kind of recognition that Trolls Disruptive editors are looking for. I've tried to cope with enough Disruptive editors who answer every short comment with a two screen essay. If we wanted to deny them recognition, an effective policy would be a community boycott, where we agree to ignore everything they say on a talk page.

Perhaps we should consider a simple boycott, in which editors would voluntarily agree to refuse to deal with a disruptive editor, as a community response short of a ban. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think "shunning" is the word used when such a thing is done to people. An interesting idea, but how different would this be from a ban? Ashanda (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it yet again. --Ronz (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

What is this bullshit? Wikipedia is perfectly happy to adopt anarchist principles, and yet to disparage its anarchist contributors, who have written many Good and Featured articles? This is "disruptive editing"? What a fucking joke. Skomorokh 02:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the quote is good, I am with Elonka and McLusky, Slrubenstein | Talk 02:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Skomorokh, his quote can be interpreted as insulting to wiki-anarchists and create poisonous atmosphere. -- Vision Thing -- 18:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocking consensus

The problem is that Wikipedia has no mechanism to prevent stonewalling and obstruction, whereas most systems have features to address that issue. I think this problem is endemic. Entrenched parties, particularly POV warriors, are widely recognized as damaging to the wiki. Outside of other "violations" the behaviour is commonly seen as unsanctionable, despite the common acceptance of the harm it causes. Basically, Wikipedia utterly lacks a mechanism to force people to seek consensus or bow out. On the contrary, much of this negative behaviour is encouraged as unobjectionable "good faith", "defending" Wikipedia, and myriad related excuses. Stonewalling and obstructionism with the intent of blocking any consensus or progress contrary to an entrenched position should be clearly enforceable as disruptive editing and a form of edit warring. This serious issue has infected not only a broad swath of article space (notably many nationalistic and religious articles), but also plagues policy and process discussions as the climate of tolerance has encouraged such counter-consensus behavior. Consensus is a fundamental part of the wiki process (if not the fundamental part). Allowing people to act in a way counter to reaching consensus breaks the wiki process at its root. Thoughts? Vassyana (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If users fail to reach compromise on their own, there are numerous avenues for dispute resolution. Failure to reach unanimity is not disruptive editing, it's just part of life. Editors who act out on their disagreement in other disruptive ways, such as edit warring or personal attacks, may of course end up sanctioned, but I feel that must always be for specific disruptive behavior beyond the content dispute. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not a "content dispute" issue, but rather a behavioral one, if someone is refusing to engage in the wiki process (including consensus seeking). This conflation of the two distinct issues is exactly part of the problem. Vassyana (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen this before. A small group of users is in a disagreement and discussing toward a compromise. However, one user in the group refuses to accept any compromise that does not include everything that he has been fighting for. Or they refuse to discuss or participate in dispute resolution. However, barring any other policy violations in the process (sockpuppetry, incivility, canvassing, POV pushing, edit warring, trolling, etc.), I'm not sure if it is blockably disruptive. It really has a tendency to look like "blocking for disagreeing with the majority" and in most cases seems like it would be quite subjective (how much are you allowed to disagree with the compromise attempt before it is disruptive?) - it is certainly possible that they are trying to derail the compromise because it does not include them at all and they have a valid opinion that should be included. Unless combined with other things, I'm not sure how disruptive this really is. Mr.Z-man 22:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There are better criteria than "disagreeing with the majority". POV warriors are characterized by other traits. One of them is that they behave unethical. As a mediator, I have seen enough examples of users who are outright lying about their edits, or the edits of their opponents. A typical case is a user who deletes a well sourced statement with the summary "revert vandalism". If we kept track of such instances then we would pretty soon be able to tell the POV warriors from honest editors by more appropriate standards. — Sebastian 21:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I may have felt an urge to do things like that too... perhaps such edits are during heated discussions on the spur of the moment? --Kim Bruning 18:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a subtle concept of editing tempo (or perhaps you could even argue it's a kind of wiki-"flow", which isn't well documented at all. You know times when articles get 10s or 100s of constructive edits in a short period of time and everyone gets along? And then there's always that one person who just stonewalls, and ends up chasing everyone else away. It's certainly disruptive in a sense, but you're right that there can be legitemate reasons. I wonder if we can figure out ways to maintain tempo better? --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, WP:BRD is the main anti-stonewalling tool, that I know of. I'm not particularly happy with ever using it at all... but there you go --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that BRD is a noble effort to address the problem, but unfortunately, in my personal experience, BRD is used by some editors, ironically enough, to facilitate stonewalling, preventing article development and editors from contributing. Step 3 assumes that an agreement will be reached, but often times the editor reverting and requesting discussion has no interest in agreement or consensus and will not work towards agreement. I have been involved in this situation a number of times, leading me to see the inherent weakness of BRD and to view it, sadly enough, as a tool to game the system. —Viriditas | Talk 23:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The core of BRD is to find out who to talk to. If you are skilled enough, you can then use that information to fix a broken situation, restore respect for consensus, and then proceed to achieve your aims within the consensus system. Do these people succeed at those aims? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Hmm, perhaps there's a more general design that could be made... :-)

Have you looked at how it was used on Wikipedia:Footnotes and Wikipedia:Spoiler? —Viriditas | Talk 15:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't spot how/where BRD was applied there, can you show me? --Kim Bruning 18:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but this involves a very long edit history in both cases. I wanted to know if you were familiar with what could have been perceived as stonewalling in both cases. I'm not an advocate of the bold edits being proposed by the editors in question, but the reverts and discussion did attempt to find a reasonable consensus but could not break through the deadlocks, as some editors were unwilling to compromise. BRD was used to attract interested editors in both discussions. The spoiler discussion is still ongoing after what seems like forever and a day, and has spawned Son of Spoiler, {{current fiction}} as a "resonable change that integrates" the ideas of both sides, although that consensus is tenuous at best. The footnote discussion actually began on WP:CITE[1] and was successful, but due to overlapping guidelines had to be taken to the footnotes page. The BRD attracted enough editors in the cite sources/footnotes discussion to achieve a plausible new consensus but is still being blocked. It's very hard to identify who is stonewalling in both cases as one could place that blame on either party depending on your POV. —Viriditas | Talk 22:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The most effective method I've seen to prevent stonewalling is to have the article fully protected at WP:RFPP, and then strictly follow WP:DR, WP:TALK, and WP:CON. WP:DE provides further guidelines that are often helpful. --Ronz (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, that is the most pessimal method possible. You add the force of page protection to a (bad faith) stonewallers actions, and everyone who was actually interested walks away. In the case of a good faith stonewaller people might turn on them unfairly when this tactic is applied. But no matter what happens, the whole positive atmosphere and rhythm and tempo of editing is lost. I can't think of any positive endgame remaining in that situation. --Kim Bruning 18:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC) You can't clear a jammed process by jamming it harder

It's a extreme measure to request protection, but it forces discussion, which is usually all that's needed. It makes BRD a non-issue. --Ronz 19:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmph, protection is the ultimate stone wall. It stops the normal consensus process dead. (And thus, you are right, it also stops BRD, which depends on the normal consensus system). --Kim Bruning 19:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Page protection does not prevent the issue, it simply prevents it from being an edit war. WP:BRD and WP:DR are both useless if someone refuses to compromise or seek consensus. The inherent problem is that people can block or refuse to work towards consensus without violating any particular behavioral guideline. I agree that solutions to the issue could potentially be used to just enforce "majority rule", but we trust our sysops to make judgment calls on a regular basis for grey areas. For example, judging sockpuppetry (both whether it is occurring and whether it is an unacceptable form of it) is a very complex issue the community trusts with admins. I don't see how a provision allowing sysops to enforce the basic wiki process would be any different, except that preventing disruption of the root processes of the wiki is even more important than preventing abusive sockpuppetry. Vassyana (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If individual editors fail to abide by a consensus reached by the community on the article or topic involved, they can be sanctioned per WP:CONSENSUS. But I find myself reluctant to extend this concept to a minority who by disagreeing with a majority prevent consensus from being arrived at in the first place. I don't beleive a consensus arrived at by force and coercion is a real consensus. If we think a system in which a minority can blocking decision-making is a problem, I think it would be much more respectful of others, and more honest with ourselves, to change the system itself and move from a consensus system to a simple majority system and let the majority establish the rule. In that way rules and decisions can be established without any coercion or force being levied on dissenters. The United States reached this conclusion and moved from the consensus system established by the Articles of Confederation to the majority system established by the United States Constitution. An argument can be made Wikipedia should do something similar. But until it does, we have to live with the necessary consequences of the system we've established. If we give a group of dissenters the power to block consensus, they necessarily have the right to do so, and I don't see how we have any business calling the exercise of that right a punishable activity. The idea of achieving something called a "consensus" by coercing dissenters into compliance seems fundamentally non-Wikipedian. Such a concept of "consensus" isn't a real consensus at all, it's a majority that merely chooses to call itself a consensus. If we don't like the consequences of the consensus system, we'd be much better off calling a spade a spade and simply let the majority rule and override the dissenters without any need to blame, villify, coerce, or punish anyone. W. Edwards Deming characterized societies which blame individuals for problems which are foreseeable consequences of the system itself as unjust. Better to change the system. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 05:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem when going by majority, is majority of whom? At WP , it intrinsically means , majority of those interested in the topic, since participation in any discussion is voluntary. This tends to limit participation to those with strong POV one way or another. Of course, everyone could join in any discussion--except that we have thousands of discussions usually going simultaneously--at AfD alone there are over one hundred each day--and nobody can participate intelligently in more than a fraction, unless they were to devote 168 hours a week to it, and have a Time turner available. For an analogy, this is a system of Jury trial where people can pick whatever cases they wish to judge--I know of no political or legal system that works in t his fashion.--and for good reason, because it leads to dictatorship by pressure group. This is modified slightly by the prohibition on canvassing, but promoted by the availability of watchlists--many of us have hundreds or even thousands of articles being watched, ready to intervene to protect our views on our favorites.

The solution I favor is mandatory binding arbitration, as a parallel process for AfDs on user conduct. ArbCom doesn't always give the result any indivdual one of us might desire, but at least they do decisively settle the question. DGG (talk) 08:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Murphys law states that such a solution would often be decisive, elegant, clear, and wrong :-P. This is why arbitration does not decide on article content, only on whether particular behavior is a net asset or net detriment to wikipedia. We don't make binding decisions, because consensus can change. --Kim Bruning 18:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting (here) they should rule on article content. A failure to reach consensus may revolve around a content dispute, but certainly things such as stonewalling and refusing to attempt to reach consensus are behavioral issues, not a question of article content. Vassyana 19:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Stonewalling is a clear behavioral issue, hence my suggestion above of looking at WP:DE for guidance. --Ronz 22:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that in most cases, it is too subjective to be be an "actionable offense." What might look like (and be reported to ANI as) stonewalling to one person is a heated disagreement to another person. Where does it shift from disagreeing and prolonging discussion to stonewalling and blocking consensus? Should people be sanctioned for disagreeing with the majority? Mr.Z-man 23:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

A good stonewaller will make it look like the other editor is stonewalling. We should just focus and address specific tactics that we can agree are disruptive. —Viriditas | Talk 03:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen a "good stonewaller." Mostly, I've seen editors just repeat a single argument over and over, changing the argument little if at all despite all discussion to the contrary. I also commonly see them try to reverse the burden of proof/evidence/verifiability. In both cases, it doesn't take too long to see that the stonewallers are refusing to follow WP:CON.

Note that WP:CON states, "Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome." --Ronz 04:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at any of the long running ethnic disputes at WP -- Palestine, Eastern Europe, Armenia. ArbCom has been helpless here,because the most effective people can avoid the sanctions by technically following the rules. The people survive who are skilled enough to refrain from committing ban-able mistakes, and who are able to refrain from expressing their anger. ArbCom can and does do very well in removing the others, but this has no relation to the resolution of the issue or improving the content of wikipedia. It has no relation to the establishment of consensus on editing, either. There never becomes consensus, because sufficient people are left who can effectively oppose any consensus against themselves. DGG (talk) 12:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the kind of behavior that concerns me. It's obviously destructive to consensus and the wiki. It's broadly considered harmful in myriad ways. I truly believe some form of acknowledgment in policy of this problem is required. Vassyana 09:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

First, it would be necessary to decide what to do about it, and test out the solution. Our policies are descriptive of practice, so they will be updated soon enough if the practice changes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well said. We seem to have defined the problem, but we're not sure how to go about solving it. Any ideas? --Kim Bruning 19:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Carl, that's the ideal, but not very true (ironically) in practice when it comes to behavioral rules. There is significant opposition to sysops imposing blocks for behavior not covered by policy. Similarly, ArbCom attempts to restrict itself to the bounds of extant policy. So, to say we need to reflect the current practice in such policy results in a vicious circle. ;)

Kim, clarifying and strengthening the current language may be sufficient. We could clarify and strengthen at "Rejects community input" (under "Definition of disruptive editing and editors"). This could be done by altering or adding to the existing language. We could also add "Rejects consensus building" before that point to clarify and distinguish better between consensus and broader community input. We could also change point 5 under "Dealing with disruptive editors" from "ignores" to "ignores and/or obstructs".

I don't think the existence or undesirability of the problem is controversial. If we simply add to the guideline to reflect what is commonly understood to be disruptive, the normal process of sysop and ArbCom enforcement will do the rest. Vassyana (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

problem is, any tightening of the rule against disruptive editing will also be used to dismiss valid views trying to break the grip of those owning a page--and and attempt to protect the expression of viewpoints dissenting from a clique in control of a page, will be used to protect truly disruptive editing. Allowing proper editing and preventing improper isn't a matter of wording the rule, it's a matter of its fair and equitable application. The only way for equitable use of any power is its application by uninvolved editors, and a way of preventing those in the dispute from rejecting outside views on their pet subject. I generally see outside opinion totally ignored, even when several people all say them the same thing. "ignores and obstructs" will always be a matter of judgment. This is why I continue to support some form of binding arbitration for content disputes. But if those here are optimistic enough to think it can be done by modified wording and gentle persuasion, by all means give it a try. Maybe I'm wrong--maybe all the bad experiences in Wikipedia editing since the beginning have suddenly become irrelevant. Maybe we've all suddenly become truly converted to the principle of cooperative work. DGG (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh I still remember the day when I said we needed to learn how to deal with uncooperative editors, because we'd get more of them as wikipedia grew. --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC) I hate being right. Does that make me a curmudgeon?

One common trait I have seen with this problem is dismissiveness. Sometimes this happens when editors have had to answer the same question over and over, and lose patience--but that is still no excuse. Editors who block consensus often simply dismiss dissenting opinions as not worthy of consideration, or change the subject by criticizing the form of argument or attacking the messenger. I've seen long side arguments belittling editors over fine points of logic, as if training for a college level debate team were a prerequisite to participating in talk page discussions. When ownership issues are involved, newcomers to the discussion will be told they don't understand, but without explanation. Newcomers may also be told to go away, or read the archives, or otherwise made unwelcome. Sometimes editors will make only condescending and flippant comments to create a hostile atmosphere. So we should add dismissiveness to the list of disruptive behaviors, because it is not useful in a consensus building process. Dhaluza (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

For a perfect example, folks, see this nonsense:

Wikipedia talk:There is no credential policy

I posted my page on WP:VP and a fair amount of editors saw it. They just didn't feel the need to comment on the talkpage. Then, a tiny swarm of editors who apparently misunderstood the page came along and mostly one of them, Penguin, refused to let me tag it as a policy supplement.

Our conversation went roughly like this:

(paraphrase)

"There's no consensus."
"Yes, but why? What's the opinion in the essay?"
"The opinion is that there's no consensus."
"That doesn't logically follow. It's a red herring. There is no opinion in the essay."
"It doesn't matter if there's no opinion. There's still no consensus."
"You're not really adding anything to the discussion, here."
"I'm not required to discuss."
"WHAT opinion or advice am I putting forth?!"
"The opinion that there is consesnsus, look I'm done discussing this with you!!!"

This kind of thing happens often, because good editors don't have as much of an incentive to "put up a fight" against editors with bad arguments, as vice-versa. Something needs to be done about this.

Based on empirical evidence laid out in WP:FAIL, I recommend that English Wikipedia and all wikis investigate the policies of German Wikipedia and try to mimic them, since they clearly work, something even WP:NOTFAIL acknowledges. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

<-- Note also, re these off-the-wall comments, that userZenwhat earned themself a good holiday (blocked), for actions taken in these disputes with a number of editors, who attempted to help Zenwhat see reason. Oh, and ZW then got blocked again for "trolling" user:Jimbo's talkpage. There are two sides to every coin, but one editor trying to enforce some opinion onto a number of other user's can be quite irritating, for a while. And it undermines the credibility of that editor, as in this case, until they can come to see reason. Newbyguesses - Talk 18:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That he did! So you see that the system works. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Kim, if you are saying that ZW did eventually come to see reason, funnily enough, I agree with you. The actions at the time were disruptive, some good followed, admittedly, and now ZW is putting in a better effort I think. I learned from the episode too, but, not enough it seems. Maybe I should check out Dmcdevit's essay? Newbyguesses - Talk 19:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that some people seem to edit war, and then pages get locked. This only actually assists those people who are blocking consensus. For a different approach, see User:Dmcdevit/On edit warring especially the section on usefulness of repeat protections. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Definition of "Disruptive"

A la "Harvard", "disruptive" does not necessarily mean something negative. In fact, from a Business School perspective it actually means more or less something so new that established competitors are not prepared. Indeed, bona fide innovation is typically called "disruptive" by established competitors in a competitive "disruptive" field. This is NOT "O.R." and should be clearly highlighted and, frankly, encouraged. "Anti-StatusQuo" editors deserve to be treated appropriately. That is all.68.59.4.188 (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

In light of recent events, I take great offense to being called "disruptive" I was labelled this (and indeed blocked for a day) because I was disruptive. Did I vandalize a page? No. Did I go to another user's page and tell them how awful they were? No. Instead, I had a list of users on my user page that I didn't like. Is this nice? No. Is it disruptive? Absolutely not.

The definition of "disruptive" needs to be changed and/or defined. I did not disrupt anything. Was my list a good thing? Probably not, however it certainly was not disruptive, and it should not be treated as such.

A user's User Page is similar to a workplace cubicle. I may have a picture or something that you don't like or that you disagree with, but it doesn't disrupt you. You can just look at it and move on. In fact, it's in my cubicle so you probably won't even know it is there. If it is truly offensive, you should tell me to take it down. Call me offensive, but don't call me disruptive.

I would like comments on this. I take pride in my contributions to WP, and I find it ridiculous that someone calls me disruptive when none of my actions were disrupting. Maybe they weren't nice, and I have resolved this — but i was never disruptive. Timneu22 (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

In general, it's better not to take a single incident and use it as a guide to change our policy documents. "Hard cases make bad law". — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not taking a single incident. I'm simply asking where I was disruptive, as I was not. Timneu22 (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have already answered your own question, it will be difficult to listen to other people's answers. I'd recommend reading again through the thread on ANI to see what other people said; that might give you a sense of how they perceived the page you created as disruptive. I haven't participated in that thread, so I hope you can take this as somewhat neutral advice. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I am taking it as neutral advice (and thanks, btw). I'm simply on this page to understand how a user can be "disruptive" without altering anyone's talk pages or vandalizing an article. The term disruptive means to interrupt the normal course. I did no such thing. Thus, I'm on this talk page to determine if different terminology needs to be used. I didn't disrupt anything. Timneu22 (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Making a list of people you don't like? Sounds disruptive to me. Remember, we are here to write an encyclopedia, not document the people we don't like. It being in your userspace is no exemption, as other need to go there as part of the Wiki process. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, trying to determine the definition and get this quantified... exactly who am I disrupting with that list? No one has answered this. A disruption means that I'm getting in the way of something. I was not. There must be a different definition that is required. I didn't vandalize a page (disruption) or make threatening edits on someone's user page (disruption). So what did I disrupt? Timneu22 (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Not knowing anything about your edit history... I would assume that you were blocked correctly, but for the wrong reason. Keeping a "hate list" certainly is not very WP:CIVIL, and comes close to WP:NPA. You could have been blocked under either of those. You are correct in that WP:DE is designed mainly to deal with disruptive behavior in articles and talk-pages; more precisely, it is intended to deal with kooks and POV-pushers who are polite and civil (and thus not blockable under the aformentioned behavrorial policies), but nonetheless insisting on publishing rubbish in Wikipedia despite numerous objections. Rude POV-pushers and kooks can usually be dealt with under other policies. At any rate, keeping a "hate list" here on Wikipedia is not acceptable behavior, even if there isn't a specific clause in a specific rule that explicitly bans such--don't be a wikilawyer. (Likewise, you would likely find that your employer would object were you to hang a list of co-workers you despised outside your office--even if there was no specific company policy addressing that case). --EngineerScotty (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the most reasonable response I've seen to this yet. I will add that the list was HTML-commented after one user's comment, although I was still blocked afterward. I find this ridiculous. Perhaps you are correct, that it's not CIVIL, but it certainly isn't a personal attack. However, it is definitely not disruptive. I was blocked and it was wrong. Was I wrong to have a list of Wikipedians I Don't Like? Probably, but this is not disruptive, and you seem to be stating this plainly. Any, I'd expect that WP have better policies and guidelines. An HTML-commented list of "bad people" is certainly not disruptive, and I cannot fathom that someone could use disruptive to describe it. Anyway, this info is logged on here for all WPers to see. I believe the definition of "disruption" does not cover the "crime" I committed; I think it should be better-defined so other users don't experience this travesty. Take care, Sir Scotty. Timneu22 (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Do take note--I didn't say you shouldn't have been blocked; I just said the admin cited the wrong reason. I have no opinion as to whether or not a block was appropriate in this case (it would depend on what sort of warnings you received); but WP:DE is probably the wrong policy in this case. However--since your block has now expired--don't worry much about it. Blocks aren't intended to be demerits, but instead to give folks time to think. If you become a productive editor who stays out of flamewars and doesn't publish "hate lists" or whatnot; nobody will really care about one block. Lots of folks around here, including numerous admins, have a few "bad days" in their block log; it doesn't prevent them from being productive editors. --EngineerScotty (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with disruptive editors

I did a major overhaul of this section, making it more "step by step" and adding in links to other areas of dispute resolution that have become available. I also attempted to address one of the key concerns that has come up via my involvement with the Working group on cultural and ethnic edit wars. One of the most common complaints I've been hearing is, "Okay, we're supposed to get an admin, but what do we do if no admin responds?" So I tried to add in some wording to address that eventuality, as well as add common-sense advice on how to get attention at ANI. I've shown the draft to a few other admins (off-wiki) and the feedback was good. If anyone else here has opinions or feedback, I look forward to hearing it. The new section is at: Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Dealing with disruptive editors. --Elonka 08:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(continuation of off-wiki conversation) It seems like a reasonable elaboration of the previous text and the people who felt the previous text was not specific enough will probably find a lot to like. If anything it may come across as overly detailed. It might also be misunderstood as a rigid flowchart that everyone must follow - rather than a set of suggestions which are offered in the hope that they will be helpful. Haukur (talk) 10:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've read it a few times, made a small tweak to #3, and think this is going in the right direction. Simple instructions, that are detailed enough to be effectual, are sorely missing. The more detail we can add, without the reading becoming burdensome, the better. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the lawyerly model proposed here. The initial motivation behind this proposal, back in the days when it was called "Expert retention" was to provide an expeditious way to deal with Disruptive editing, primarily through the fast imposition of a Community Ban. This process adds many steps and provides a whole range of intermediary sup-steps, offering the possibility of all sorts of Wiki-Lawyering if the procedures aren't correctly followed. I think the revisions should be deleted. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on my read of WP:BAN, isn't that basically the same thing as posting at ANI? --Elonka 15:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Steve, the way I understand it, this is intended to be a guide, rather than the law. It is more intended for people who are pulling out their hair wondering how do they proceed. Those of us that have been around the traps for a while know how to attract attention to an issue, and if we sit and think for a bit, we can usually correctly judge the communities expectation, so we know how to skip steps if that is prudent. New users, or even long term users that suddenly find themselves in a spot of unexpected bother, will benefit something that is structured more like a procedure. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I really like the idea. Navigating Wikipedia policy and procedure can be daunting for newer or casual editors - the more we can make things clear and concise like this, the more chance that someone will use these ideas to resolve a problem productively. I did make a small change, since, in my experience, the problem can continue if mediation fails or sometimes the behavior returns even if the mediation seems to work everything out. Shell ^babelfish 16:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I find the increased level of detail very helpful. It clarifies the process considerably, and I think that the clearer procedure will help the dispute-resolution process run more smoothly and prove less frustrating to the involved parties. I also appreciate the increased emphasis on the importance of civility maintaining a cool head. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The detailed recommendations are, in fact, very helpful and John Vandenberg's comments that those of us who have been around "know how to skip steps if that is prudent" is right on target. Unfortunately, this is written for people new to problems of this kind, and does not point out that these are not steps that must be followed in sequence but may be skipped if appropriate. That kind of clarification is needed. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for the changes that were made here as the expansions were greatly needed. Instead of being a page that is not often sourced, I believe the flowchart appeal of this new layout will this a much better resource for new users as well as established editors. Clear-cut procedure can only help in the aims of pointing those in need in the necessary direction as well as preventing a backlog at avenues that should be reserved for higher-escalation. the_undertow ^talk 17:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Poorly name page

I have heard this page's acronym being thrown out a lot over the years in edit wars, but I never actually read this page. I am really troubled by the contents as it relates to the title. The title is over broad. People with minority views are not the only editors who disrupt.

I think portions of this page should be moved to a page such as Expert retention and general comments about disruption should remain.

In the United States and most other countries "disruption", in the form of laws such as "disturbing the peace" has been historically used to crack down and brutally silence dissent. I am not surprised that Wikipedia has its own dubious "disruption" page.

I wouldn't even dare to attempt to modify this article as I described above. I am sure, like most policy pages, there are a handful of veteran editors and administrators who vigorously guard any changes to this page.

So I am simply launching my feeble protest here.

I am also sure many of these page guardians will quickly shoot down this idea. So be it. Inclusionist (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I agree that this is poorly named, as discussed in the #Definition of "Disruptive" section above. What is disruption? I was blocked for a day because I had html-commented text on my own user page. What/who did this disrupt? I agree that this policy is poorly-worded and dubious. Timneu22 (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If you look back over the history of this page and it's earlier source in Expert retention, it is quite clear that it deals with a perennial problem, especially acute in the academic as opposed to the current events and pop culture areas, of editors pushing pseudo-scholarly theories through repetitive argumentation on talk pages, to the point where productive editors are driven to pack up and abandon Wikipedia.

I've had to struggle with a few of those, and I find that even the procedures outlined in Disruptive Editing are far too slow. As I said above, the quotation from Larry Sanger once set the tone of this guideline; it's loss may be one of the things that makes it seem superfluous.

Of course, if you think that what Sanger called "trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists" belong on Wikipedia, we will just have to disagree. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Should we Boycott Disruptive Editors?

I've opened this section to discuss an idea posed above at #Do we really need Sanger's quote? Ashanda pointed out that an effective tactic against Disruptive Editors is to deny them recognition; I suggested that one way to do this was for editors to agree not to answer the Disruptive editors posts on article talk pages. This would be something short of a ban, since the Editor would be free to edit, but would not be able to engage in the lengthy debates about the subject of articles that some of them seem to enjoy.

The model I had in mind was the classic one of the Boycott, which was described by an Irish MP in 1881 in this fashion:

Let everyone in the parish turn his back on him; have no communication with him, have no dealings with him. You need never say an unkind word to him; but never say anything at all to him. If you must meet him in fair, walk away from him silently. Do him no violence, but have no dealings with him. Let every man's door be closed against him; and make him feel himself a stranger and a castaway in his own neighbourhood. --John Dillon, M.P. — Speech to the Land League 1881

That seems to be the goal we have with Disruptive editors -- at least with incorrigible ones. We want them to feel that their activities make them unwelcome.

On a minor point of terminology, Ashanda suggested the term Shunning rather than Boycott. I know that Boycott has now acquired the sense of economic activity but Shunning has a religious connotation of cutting off communications with unrepentant members of a sect. I don't think Wikipedia has gone to the level of enforcing orthodox teachings ;) so I prefer Boycott in its classical sense.

As to implementation, we need do nothing more than post on affected talk pages a statement something like this (somebody who knows syntax could probably design a template box to go near the head of the talk page):

In view of the disruptive editing of OffensiveEditor on this Talk page, the undersigned editors have imposed a Boycott on the comments of OffensiveEditor and will not reply to any of his comments on this page (or on their respective user pages).

User1 date/time

User2 date/time

...

Any user who agrees with the Boycott could add his name to the list. Once a significant number of the active editors on a talk page have given such notice, the Disruptive editor will have lost his debating partners.

I can anticipate a number of objections so this proposal may need refinement, but it would put effective community action against one kind of Disruptive editing at the level of the effected articles. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Link to article talk page

New editors may not know how to find talk pages or even that they exist. Re this sentence: "Consult Do not bite the newcomers, and be aware that you may be dealing with someone who is new and confused, rather than a problem editor." I suggest appending to the end: "provide, in the edit summary, a link to the article talk page." ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tag team

Hi, we are inviting interested editors to participate in the writing of the Wikipedia:Tag team essay. It would be good to get as many eyes as possible, so we have our best shot at adequately defining the scope of the problem, as well as offering suggestions for remedies. Right now the essay is heavily in flux, so feel free to jump in and make changes. --Elonka 23:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So wot is a disruptive editor?

The current definition of a disruptive editor in this project is crucially unclear about whether it is one who must satisfy all of the four conditions listed, or else just at least one of them, or else some other minimal number of them from 1 to 3. Which is it ? --Logicus (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It is time to make this a policy

DE is a serious problem here; this should be a policy. I do however think it needs a little work first. For one thing, as the quote from Larry Sanger suggests, DE is in effect an "operationalization" of trolling and we should perhaps have a little more discussion of how to recognize a troll because i think a lot of the signs are related to disruptive editing. Crucial and I think this needs discussion in the policy (or guideline) itself, is that a pattern of edits can be disruptive even if no single edit is clearly disruptive. In fact, I think this is a very serious problem facing Wikipedia, when no single edit violates any other policy - the comments, at least out of context, may appear to be civil - yet the pattern is disruptive.

Another thing, under definition we already call attention to the fact that a DE may not respond to other people's questions or requests for explanations. Just as telling is an editor who disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.

So these are two areas I think need filling in and developing in what we have. Bu then I would support proposing this as a policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

What we commonly call "trolling" is a form of disruptive editing. Some trolls are skilled at editing in such a way that they skirt the edges of our assume good faith policy, and thereby recruit defenders from well-intentioned by naive users. Maybe this page needs to contain our principal policy statement on trolling?

I think we should include something in this page addressing your observation that disruptive editing may consist of a pattern of edits, none of which is individually in violation of any policy. For example an editor may make a new account, create a user page and talk page devoid of content, and immediately proceed to a noticeboard to start a thread with the intent to generate drama – and immediately be defended by a number of people who see him only as an overly-enthusiastic newbie. There is nothing in policy prohibiting nominating oneself for adminship, but starting a new account, and opening an RFA is a common form of disruption by trolls. Another person may splatter tags on numerous articles with no talk page discussion.

Is anyone else watching this page? I think we need a policy on disruptive editing that goes beyond the "disruption" section of the blocking policy. Antandrus (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe we have a policy (or even a WP essay) on trolling, can you provide me with the link? I think we need to make clear that while no one edit may violate any policy, there are ways to realize that a pattern of edits do not reveal good faith. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's been moved to meta (WP:TROLL), presumably since it applies to all projects. The move took place in May, and I'm not clear why it happened: there is no discussion on the talk page I can find (Wikipedia talk:What is a troll?) Antandrus (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That was not even a policy. It is an essay. it had no official standing at WP, and by moving it to meta it has even less standing. I think we need to start from scratch on "ttrolling" start fresh with a discusion of what it is, what the tell-tale signs are, and think in toerms of a new policy rather tan old essyas. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is a good example of what I mean: each individual edit is civil. The user appears to care about policy. But the pattern is trollish. I think we need to find more such examples and really come up with a good list of diagnostics of the pattern. I think repeating the same questions rather than responding to another user's answers may be one sign. It has a lot to do with not explaining one's own reasopnign AND a pattern of ignoring the reasoning provided by others. But I think there is more to it. I really hope other experienced eidtors will join in here!! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say many instances of WP:SPA qualify as trolling, although it can be difficult to draw the line. To me, AfD's with a lot of SPA edits (this recent one comes to mind) are suspicious, as are new accounts that only participate in AfD, RfA, etc., especially if, say, they show extreme deletionism in AfDs, or continually oppose at RfA. Indeed, there's nothing wrong with opposing (or supporting) a single RfA, or with !voting to delete (or keep) a single article, but when someone's sole contributions to WP involve !voting the same way on the same project page, something smells trolly. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of AfD's, there are situations where sockpuppets have been used to start and/or participate in them, including vote stacking. Unfortunately a successful AfD results in a red link and all edits in that editor's edit history related to the deleted article are gone, IOW the evidence of their sockpuppetry misdeed gets erased. Only users who have observed it happening may know what happened, but if the evidence was a bit doubtful at the time they may have hesitated to file a report. Only later, when a pattern has been established, may they wish to be able to use that old evidence, but it's gone. This needs to be changed so edit histories aren't deleted. They should be visible, but without the possibility of resurrecting the article. -- Fyslee / talk 01:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this should be policy, by the way, once enough examples are spelled out. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that many SPAs are trolls - but many are not. The one's who are are usually POV pushers so my question is, do we need to cover them in this policy or does WP:OWN already provide us with a way to deal with them? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:OWN deals with the POV pushers pretty well, but since that's one of the most blatant and disruptive forms of trolling, I'd say it at least merits a summary (with a link to WP:OWN) in this policy. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but can you imagine other cases of clear trolling that currently does not violate OWN? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's always the abuse of the referencing process--e.g., repeatedly and knowingly citing unreliable sources, or citing a bunch of sources in order to hide the fact that one is misinterpreting them or introducing biased text (here is a recent example of the latter). Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. This page documents the way disruptive editing is commonly handled, which these days unquestionably includes lengthy blocks which are interpreted as community bans because they are sufficiently uncontroversial that no admin will reverse them. It does not matter much to me if this is tagged as essay, guideline or policy, it is a description of how we deal with a known problem. If some admins feel uncomfortable blocking obviously disruptive editors without this being called a policy, then by all means call it a policy, but it won't really change anything other than the comfort factor: as Larry Sanger said right up front, show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who, if permitted, would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here. And let's not pretend that some of that poison has not already happened. It's great that people assume good faith and try to help some really odd people to hang together to make an encyclopaedia, the social glue is important, but if an editor is making it impossible for others to contribute without endless argumentation then they should be blocked, if only to contain the locus of dispute to their talk page while people work out what to do in the longer term. I think we should be more willing to use blocks, with courteous explanations, as a means of containing disruption. Nobody has a right to edit Wikipedia, it's a privilege, and it's one that can only exist as long as the small group of active admins can keep a lid on the increasingly determined people who come here to promote their agenda. Guy (Help!) 18:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Guy's hit it on the head here - we don't make policy to change behavior, we write policies (or guidelines or whatever) after common practice. In this case, common practice is that disruptive editing leads to topic bans, blocks and full site bans regardless of what we want to call this page. Shell ^babelfish 03:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedians, even admins, are divided as to whether policies are descriptive or pro/prescriptive. Certainly policies are taken more seriously than guidelines. But please note what I actually proposed: I am not merely proposing to make this a policy, I am proposing specific ways to improve it, and inviting more discussion about how to improve it. If you think it cannot be improved upon, well, just say so, fine. But I see no reason to discourage other people from trying to improve it. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• It is our policy that our policies are descriptive rather than prescriptive. There is an obvious problem that this policy is self-referential but it seems well supported by other texts such as WP:IAR and WP:5 which indicate that policies should follow practice rather than driving it. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• The example provided above by User:Slrubenstein does not seem a good one because I find that QG's position was logically correct. Rather than keep repeating the same loop, editors have to escalate the matter with third opinions and the like so that sufficient editors are involved that a true consensus may be established - you can't get that with just a small number. Anyway, please note that accusations that an editor is a troll by reference to WP:TROLL have been held to be uncivil in the recent case of User:Firefly322 who has been blocked for this reason. Another editor repeatedly nominated his articles for deletion and Firefly contended that this action was trolling. There is a procedural difficulty if you may be blocked for suggesting that another editor is trolling, as User:Slrubenstein is now doing. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, if policies are descriptive and not prescriptive, this is true for CIV as well. The real point is that community consensus is constantly evolving. I know that there are those who consider the identification of a troll uncivil; I am calling for discussion that is open to the other view, one which guided Wikipedia for many years, and one with many people continue to hold to, which is that trolling is a great threat to Wikipedia, and that trolls need to be identified and blocked or banned. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Enforcement

One issue if we are to propose this as a policy is effective enforcement. One of the candidates for ArbCom suggested this, in answer to another question: "On the other hand, the community could develop a strategy, perhaps based on tendentious editing warnings, issued by admins, with say three warnings in three months leading to a block." This sounds reasonable to me. Can we have some discussion? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with enforcement through dispute resolution and reports on ANI? Enforcement of CIV functions like that. -- Vision Thing -- 11:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Not just fact tagging

Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Signs of disruptive editing currently calls out inappropriate use of reference-related templates is a sign of disruptive editing. It seems strange to me to say that slapping {{unref}} on a dozen stubs is disruptive, but that (for example) doing the same thing with Template:Globalize/US to every article in Category:Federal courthouses of the United States is perfectly acceptable. Fundamentally, it's the narrowness of the existing text that I want to address, but because {{fact}} tagging is a large problem, I propose leaving that statement as it stands, and adding something along these lines to the guideline:

• Uses tags as badges of shame: engages in tag bombing or fills articles with templates as ways of emphasizing perceived faults or discrediting their contents; stacks disparaging templates in articles that do not reflect the editor's personal views.

I am entirely open to suggestions on how to best present the idea. Does anyone have any comments? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Your proposed addition is a rather subjective view of efforts to clean-up articles; there are many articles (most) that are woefully lacking proper sourcing. I do not believe your proposed addition should be made and note that it was and has already been removed.

The "hostile cite-tagging" bit was summarily added here by an anon, who would seem to be User:Catherineyronwode. There appears to have been no discussion of this. It would also appear have been part of user's dispute with User:Hrafn (of which I know nothing); see also: here and here where much the same language was added to Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, and see that it was promptly removed (twice).

Given the lack of any discussion for this, I feel it, too, should be removed and discussed here on the talk page.

Jack Merridew 09:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

While Catherineyronwode's intent was clearly WP:POINTy, I do think there is a germ of truth here. While removal of unsourced material should not (per WP:BURDEN) be considered disruptive editing, removal of sourced material without a good explanation, and particularly persisting in attempts to remove it without a consensus on talk, is generally considered disruptive (and not-infrequently as outright vandalism).

On 'tag-bombing', I've actually been criticised in the past for what amounted to a 'failure to tag bomb' -- for deleting chronically-unsourced material on the basis of an article-wide 'unreferenced' tag, rather than tagging each and every unsourced statement first. In response I've tended to become more heavy-handed with tagging in recent months. Either way however, I think it is a matter of mutually agreed wikiquette, not disruption. This is of course for tags for which prima facie justification has been established. Tags that are clearly inappropriate (per above Globalize example) or unsubstantiated (POV-tags just because the editor says that the article is 'biased and horrible', without any further detail or evidence) would always be disruptive. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the removal of properly sourced material is often inappropriate. However, the language of this bit is clearly hostile in itself and takes a partisan stance. In its current form, it should be removed. If some other wording is proposed and supported, fine. 'til tomorrow. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Didn't have this on my watchlist, it is indeed odd wording which seems to conflict with WP:V, so I've changed it as follows:

• Engages in "hostile cite-tagging"; uses a "scattershot" method of adding {{fact}} tags to an article and announces an intention to delete large portions of the article if other editors do not immediately find citations to support the material thus tagged. In egregious examples, proper citations already appear at the end of a paragraph and the cite-tagger inserts the tag at the end of each sentence within the paragraph.

changed to:

• Engages in "hostile cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{fact}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable.

In my opinion that's an improvement, discussion and improvements welcome. . . dave souza, talk 17:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. The original overlaps with a considerable amount of non-disruptive behaviour. The 'egregious example' for instance would cover an example where a paragraph contained multiple statements, only the last of which is verified by the citation -- in which circumstance a {{fact}} tag on the remainder of the paragraph is perfectly reasonable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, disruptive fact tagging is hard to nail down as being disruptive. There are many things that don't need to be fact tagged, simply because they are common sense. It's very possible for an editor looking to "stick it" to another editor, to go to articles that other editor is involved in editing, and then start tagging everything. When questioned, the person could say, well I don't find it to be common sense and disputed facts can be tagged. When questioned about the coincidence of happening to edit some articles that s/he normally doesn't edit, s/he can say, oh I happened to take a look at the articles you were working on and I noticed they are in horrible shape so I wanted to help clean them up. There is really no way you can stop this kind of behavior or pin someone down for doing this. Indeed, if I were to make a guide on how to disruptively edit, this would be near the top of the list of how to do it. It takes very little time and energy on the disruptive editor's part, but can cause a lot of problems for the other editor. --C S (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the statement that "there are many things that don't need to be fact tagged, simply because they are common sense" is that it is often difficult to distinguish between 'common sense fact' and 'apparently common-sensical but fallacious truthiness'. While the former would most probably outweigh the latter, I would not be surprised if the instances of the former whose membership is obvious at first glance is of a similar magnitude to the latter, rendering the fact-tagging of apparent 'common sense fact' not unreasonable. Also, I think looking too closely at the motivation of editors in fact-tagging, unless and until their actions have been shown to be spurious, both violates WP:AGF & reverses WP:BURDEN (in that it places the burden on them to show that they have a good faith reason for placing the tag). Also, I would point out a good faith motivation for following an editor's work and further tagging them. An editor who is lax on one article is likely to be lax on others, and is likely to remain a regular on articles where that laxness is tolerated. Likewise lax enforcement of WP:V on an article makes it more probable that other articles (but not necessarily all' others) in a category will suffer similar laxness. This probability rises to a near certainty if this is observed on two three articles in a row -- whether the pattern is 'by editor' or 'by category'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You're not telling me anything I don't know. Everything you said has been, in the past, offered as reasons for why certain people's disruptive editing is in fact in "good faith". That's why, as I said, it's difficult to pin this kind of behavior down, and near the top of my list on ways to disrupt Wikipedia to your advantage and even get a barnstar for it. --C S (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This is certainly an improvment. I'm going be a tad bold and change the name of it to Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging". Overall, I feel that such laundry lists of pet-peeves should be avoided. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Emphatically agree. "Hostile" puts too much emphasis on disputes between editors, whereas "disruptive" puts the emphasis where it belongs -- on the effect on the project as a whole. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Jack, I don't believe that the mere fact that the "hostile cite" addition was undiscussed, especially since it was accepted for four months, is a reason for removing it. You could with equal justification say that it's perfect in its original form, since nobody ever bothered to say a word about it. Furthermore, WP:BOLD supports doing exactly that.

I also direct you to Bold, revert, discuss, in which the ideal form of editing is to make a change, and when/if it gets reverted, to start a discussion. Note that this is what I did: I made a change. A single editor removed it on the (IMO specious) grounds that it linked to a Wikipedia essay. I started the discussion. The fact that a single editor did not instantly approve the change does not disqualify the proposal from ever being discussed and introduced (should consensus resolve in favor).

About the ref tagging item, I approve of removing the word 'hostile'. I do not think that we should shorten the description of the various forms that this activity could take: I want no room for wikilawyers to claim things like, "WP:DE only applies to the use of {{fact}} in a single article, and I used {{unref section}} on 200 different ones, which is totally different..."

I realize that many articles are woefully undersourced. My point here, however, was not to perfect the ref tagging item. The sort of thing that I want covered is this: the angry editor (note that the editor was blocked over this and has since been permabanned for disruptive and tendentious POV pushing) dumps an intimidating stack of templates at the top of a page to communicate his anger, not out of any desire to actually improve the article. He lost (all) the talk page discussions, and this was an effort both to warn readers away from a version of the article that he disliked and to extort concessions from other editors.

I want an item that specifically addresses template abuse involving any and all clean up templates, not just {{fact}} and {{unref}}. Does any editor have an objection to addressing the non-reference-related disruption? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you did anything wrong; you added a bit, it was removed, you're discussing (and don't seem to have garnered any support), and the other bit has been discussed, gotten support (for change), and tweaks have been made. I said above that I didn't think your change should go in; it's more laundry list. I don't know just what went on with you, Guido, and Da Costa's syndrome. I do note that you reverted him with the disturbingly owning edit summary "Any other editor is welcome to restore any tags that they think are useful and warranted."

Clean-up tagging is important. Characterizing their use as "badges of shame" needlessly personalizes disputes. WP:BRD applies here, too. The whole "Signs of disruptive editing" section is dubious; one can't, and shouldn't list all 'signs'. These lists are magnets for irate users to add their latest beef to. A determination of disruption is not made by citing '3 hits on WP:DE#Signs' — it is made by analysis of a specific situation and the patterns that led there. As such, the list of 'signs' should be kept short and general. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

<ud> That brings up a couple of good points. Maybe "A disruptive editor is an editor who:" is too specific, not sure of a better phrasing, maybe "A disruptive editor typically:" Also, it's a good point about not just tags, so maybe rephrase as:

* Engages in "disruptive tagging"; adds unjustified tags to an article, such as adding {{fact}} tags when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable.

Just my opinion. . dave souza, talk 09:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

While not disagreeing that tagging can sometimes be a means of disruption, I don't feel that singling out specific behaviors is proper; once you start a list, people will want to extend it with whatever just pissed them off. This just happened over at WP:TEND^diff. Making a list invites the development of techniques not on the list. The real issue is that protracted disruptive behavior will be noticed, will result in a discussion somewhere, which may impact one's editing privileges. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Dave's "merger" of the two issues works for me. It's not necessary to have them be separate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not necessary to have them. The issue is disruptive editing, not calling-out specific gripes. See also: WP:BEANS. Jack Merridew 06:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

So do you think that we should delete WP:DE#Signs_of_disruptive_editing altogether? I think that making the list of examples more general would be more appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw this edit -- the article is in formal mediation right now -- and thought of this page. Here we have an example of an editor that is marking up most paragraphs on a page with {{who}} and {{dubious}} instead of {{fact}}. Does anyone consider this type of tagging to be less disruptive than adding {{fact}}? Can we PLEASE agree to use more general language on this page, instead of calling out cite-tagging as the only kind of disruptive tagging? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing’s Blitz Krieg - Disruptive Editing?

dave souza; Would you call this an example of WhatamIdoing using blitz krieg editing where more than 20 templates and 60 "citations needed" etc. have been added to the Da Costa's syndrome sub page draft on a "cut and pasted" sandbox here[2] which I have responded to here[3]; Regarding my response see also [4] Posturewriter (talk) 08:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)posturewriter

Don't forget this is a draft for improvement, not a mainspace article under "attack", and it looks to me like helpful guidance on issues like references and formatting. Wikipedia:When to cite gives a useful guide. See also this comment. . dave souza, talk 09:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

dave souza; The point I was making was that WhatamIdoing is using multiple templates etc to disrupt editing, while criticising Guido den Broeder for doing exactly the same thing in the fourth paragraph here[5], and I have suggested in the past that double standards need to be addressed in Wikipedia policy compliance in various sections on the RFC page here[6].. I find that WhatamIdoing will change sourcing policy from "must be independent sources one week, to must be secondary sources the next, to must be published within the past five years etc here[7], for the sole purpose of "moving the goal posts" to be disruptive. WhatamIdoing is such a biased an inconsistent and unreliable source of policy advice that I simply ignore it and go to other similar pages for layout ideas and section headings etc. It seems to be that policy is being interpreted this way . . . if WhatamIdoing does something it is OK, but if another editor does exactly the same it is a violation of policy X paragraph Y????Posturewriter (talk) 10:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)posturewriter

Hi Posturewriter,

The difference between templating a real article, like Da Costa's syndrome, and making notes to myself in User talk:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox is enormous.

I know that you're mad at me because I oppose using your Iguana website to 'prove' that Da Costa's syndrome is a subtype of Chronic fatigue syndrome, and that I've been insisting that you quit relying on a 1951 book, and so forth. But you're going to lose: the sources that support your POV simply are not reliable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

dave souza; I think that your suggested template here[8] is a good method of responding to an editor who is flooding a page with criticism in an attempt to overwhelm new contributors e.g. here[9], rather than discussing the individual items of dispute on the talk page. Please also note WhatamIdoing's response above in trying to create the false impression that I am angry when I am not here[10], and to misrepresent a medical consumer's webpage which was related solely to the topic of CFS[11] as an irrelevant page about iguanas, and to discredit a book by Paul Dudley White by calling it a 1951 book without mentioning the authors name or the reference details “White, Paul Dudley (1951). Heart Disease. New York, New York: MacMillan. pp. 578-591”, and by trying to create the impression that I am relying on it, when it is one of 60 references in the list at the end of the subpage here[12], and note that Paul Dudley White wrote that Da Costa's syndrome was "a kind of fatigue syndrome” and in some cases “it is more or less a chronic condition”. That references fits the WP:MEDRS#Use_up-to-date_evidence requirements where it clearly states “History sections often cite older work, for obvious reasons”, and is OBVIOUSLY RELEVANT to the section of Da Costa's syndrome called “history” here[13] and on the subpage here[14]. I have discussed these matters many times before with WhatamIdoing e.g here[15], and the other editor who I was quoting made that observation earlier on WP:MEDRS#Use_up-to-date_evidence here[16] but all of those comments are repeatedly ignored. (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)posturewriter

Posturewriter, the place to convince people that a 1951 book conforms with WP:MEDRS#Use_up-to-date_evidence for current medical and scientific information, and that a webpage entirely written by a non-expert medical consumer (at www.anapsid.com, a website that is largely about iguanas) is not an unreliable self-published source is at WP:RSN, not here. The place to make your argument that "a kind of fatigue syndrome" that "is more or less chronic" is the same thing as Chronic fatigue syndrome is at WP:NOR. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing; Avnjay is already aware that Paul Dudley White's book is relevant here[17], so I don't have to convince him of anything. This page is about disruptive editingPosturewriter (talk) 07:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)posturewriter

talk Please also note that I have used words such as Da Costa's syndrome is a “type of” CFS[18], and "needs to be distinguished from"[19], and I HAVE NOT SAID that DCS is THE SAME AS CFS. You are the only one who thinks that I am saying DCS “is” or is the “same" as CFS, and you have said it repeatedly in an attempt to discredit me e.g. here[20], and again here[21] and again here[22].

Please also note that Gordonofcartoon has stated that "Da Costa's syndrome "is" a historical ME-type disorder" here[23], and note that ME is also called CFS according to WP:MEDRS here[24] , so you should be trying to convince him that it is not a "type of CFS"Posturewriter (talk) 07:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

dave souza; About 12 months ago WhatamIdoing accused me of giving too much space, WP:UndueWeight to my own research, and deleted it, so I abbreviated it, and it was deleted again, and told me to support information from independent sources, and then removed WP:Synth, and said the sources must be secondary, not primary etc etc. and then went back to the defeated COI number one to start COI number 2. That process is called “arguing in circles” and has been done twice. It is also called setting up a “wild goose chase”. which is recommend as the name of a type of Disruptive editing that should result in blocking because the purpose is to stop a new contributor from adding information to Wikipedia that discredits WhatamIdoing’s POVPosturewriter (talk) 12:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)posturewriter

The solution to disruptive Wild Goose Chases

As I mentioned before, I have never said that DCS is the same as CFS, mainly because DCS is precisely defined, and CFS is not, however WhatamIdoing has been trying to create that false impression for the sole purpose of blocking my contributions. Nevertheless please note that Melissa Kaplan’s webpage refers to it as a synonym for CFS here[25], and WhatamIdoing’s tag teamer for the past 12 months, Gordonofcartoon, has agreed with this statement here[26]

Please also note that WhatamIdoings tag teamer for the past 12 months, Gordonofcartoon, has been creating the fake impression of consensus by arguing “we” think this and that etc. to control the content by deleting virtually all of my contributions, and replacing them with theirs on the DCS page. Tag teamers who push the same POV are disruptive editing and should be perma banned from editing on the same page.

Also note that since I started on the Da Costa's syndrome pages, I have provided 90% of the useful information, and the tag team of WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon have been doing 90% of the disruptive editing here[27] and here[28]. My solution is to perma ban them on all Da Costa's syndrome and fatigue related pages, and to ban them from commenting on any of my contributions anywhere in wikipedia. There are supposed to be several million other pages for them to edit in wikipedia, and unless they have very strong “hidden”, “surreptitious” COI’s, they should be happy with that, because their are plenty of other editors in wikipedia who have genuine NPOV and could co-operate constructively on the DCS page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Posturewriter (talk • contribs) 2009-01-26T12:56:20‎

Disruption to article versus talk page disruption

There is a distinction between disruptive edits to an article and disruption on an article's talk page. Some editors may do primarily one or the other. This article, WP:DE, could do more to distinguish between these two types of disruption. --Slim five (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagreeing with one edit, erasing half a dozen

I'm talking about the following behaviour, which I feel may be a case of gaming the system.

Editor 1 makes 5 different, unrelated edits to an article;

Editor 2 strongly disagrees with one of them;

So Editor 2 reverses all of Editor 1's edits, even those that are not controversial.

Is this disruptive editing? Gaming the system? or else? Ninguém (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that's called "blind-reverting". It may be done carelessly, or out of laziness, not wanting to dissect the changes. If it occurs as part of a pattern it could be considered disruptive. I know of one case in which an editor simply reverted three weeks of work on the lead section of an article, and then was blocked, as that came on the heels of other questionable behavior. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The editor in question is User:Opinoso. It is a systematic behaviour. See, for instance, White Brazilian. Ninguém (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Refusal to get the point

Hi.

I saw this bit:

"Wikipedia is based upon collaborative good faith editing and consensus. When a stance passes the point of reasonableness, and it becomes obvious that there is a willful refusal to 'get the point' despite the clear statement of policy, and despite reasoned opinions and comments provided by experienced, independent editors, administrators or mediators, then refusal to get the point is no longer a reasonable stance or policy-compliant – it has become a disruptive pattern, being used to make or illustrate a point."

But how can a "stance" (i.e. a view point) possibly be "non-compliant" with policy? It is actions on the Wikipedia that policy governs, not what opinions or view-points you can/can't hold. Wikipedia is not a "thought police" or something. There's got to be a better way to write this. What do you think? Also, I'm not sure of the difference between this and WP:Tendentious editing. mike4ty4 (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Harvest09 (talk · contribs)

Can I get some opinions on this:

• 1) Harvest09 (talk · contribs) is the same editor as JScardilli (talk · contribs). He is a WP:SPA still after four months.
• 2) This editor's first edit was on 11 October 2008 on Don Stewart (preacher) and has continued making edits to exclude critical information and include promotional material on miracles.
• 3) In four months the user has not edited a single article except Don Stewart (preacher).
• 4) This editor says he is in personal contact with the preacher/association and is writing a book on the subject/Stewart. ("it will be in my book".)
• 5) This user's motivation is clear and his edits as well as discussions are unproductive.

I started working on evidence here, but here are a few diffs were he is trying to get material remove by criticizing the sources/journalists/google:

• • 3) In this diff he is told not to call a living journalist a liar/Ayatollah.
  • 4) In this diff "following statement was made up by Fisher and attributed to the Dallas Morning News..." (Fisher is a living journalist.)
  • 5) In this diff he cautiously does it again calling a living author/journalist and an organization "...Fisher and Trinity don’t accurately quote the news articles that look so officially referenced in their theological dissertations." I read the articles, and in fact inserted the Dallas Morning News article and this editor is incorrect--as explained below. Furthermore this same Dallas Morning News is the one he wants removed below (see #12-15)
  • 6) In this diff, without evidence, claims "I'm reading the cited articles on this page and many of them are misquoted, don't link to the sight listed, or only give one point of view." They were not misquoted or mislinked. But yes sources have views, but that's not reason for exclusion.
  • In contrast, he says a book by the article's subject "seems like the most NPOV."
  • 7) In this diff he states: "In the section "What Wikipedia is not,” it says something about people using Wikipedia as another web-site for themselves, I think the Trinity Foundation is doing this with Stewart and many of the ministers they don't like."
  • 8) He wrote: "The Trinity Foundation also puts itself in as many Wikipedia articles as it can, in an apparent attempt to create links that help boost its web page’s rank on Google. When Wikipedia defines itself, “What Wikipedia is not.” The use of the Trinity Foundation in this manner is a violation of this policy."
  • 9) He wrote: "I’m not fond of the Trinity Foundation, because I feel they are biased against Pentecostals and ignore abuse by all other ministries who do the same things."
  • 10) He wrote: "The Trinity foundation only criticizes Pentecostal Ministries and is not NPOV. There is no criticism or even on going investigations on the Trinity Web page of non-Pentecostal ministries such as Catholic Priests who molested young parishioners, and the money spent to defend and settle these cases..."
  • 11) He wrote: "...the only source cited that had anything to do with Stewart was provided by a service using an old photo copy of an article who's reliability could easily be questioned."
  • He is wrong the other sources have everything to do with Stewart. As for the "old photo copy," it actually google's online archive. You be the judge: "Arson Could Be Cause". Kingman Daily Miner. September 22, 1982. Retrieved 2009-05-17.
  • 11.2)Repeated again: He wrote: "The newspaper source BBiiis refers to wasn't Google. He may have been lead there by Google, but it is a low budget internet newspaper photocopy service."

Thanks visit my work page for more details. BBiiis08 (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you need to go to dispute resolution for help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, consider the Conflict of Interest Noticeboad. PhilKnight (talk) 12:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Where can I find some help?

Where can I find some help with a disruptive editor. I've been trying to integrate some of the changes of this editor, but all they do is full reverts, 3 a day. I've tried to engage them in discussion, but they basically blow off the points I'm trying to make with smoke and mirrors. Could somebody familiar with patterns of disruption look in at Thelema and Talk:Thelema? Will in China (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look over things. In general, our dispute resolution policy lays out quite a few options for dealing with disputes. If I can be of further help, please do not hesitate to let me know. --Vassyana (talk) 04:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional signs of disruptive editing: Straw-man tactics and misrepresentation

I suggest it would be helpful to recognize repeated use of straw-man tactics and misrepresentation as another sign of disruptive editing. I've noticed it going on. It can consist of paraphrasing something posted by another editor in an unfaithful way, often in a way that introduces flaws not in the original, or that exaggerates those arguably there, followed by a challenge against the whole or an attempt to refute the whole, based partly or wholly on the introduced matter that was not in the original.

This can strongly hinder consensus-building and tends to provoke or inflame dispute, in part because it can naturally be upsetting to reasonable editors to have mis-statements and defective arguments attributed to them which are not theirs, and which they have not expressed.

This activity can also obfuscate and complicate more fundamental and perhaps basically simpler points of difference, including some that might well become easier to solve in the absence of this activity.

On the other hand, making a faithful paraphrase of anything is not an easy task, especially when the subject-matter is in any dispute, and it can happen inadvertently. So it would no doubt be appropriate to point out initial mis-statements that might appear to be of this kind in a gentle way, initially assuming good faith and inadvertence. It might be helpful in many cases to advise the direct use, or direct quotation, of the actual words, whether of the other party to discussion, or of the text in question. This is often safer and preferable to a paraphrase, by reducing the risk of inaccuracy or distortion and of the inflammation of any dispute. Please forgive my posting without logging in. 80.195.182.68 (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

While I'm sympathetic to the problems that this creates, I've also just been through a bruising dispute with an editor that repeatedly tossed around "strawman" inappropriately, and it was very frustrating for all concerned. (In the instant case, the editor basically claimed that nobody could possibly believe the idea that a well-known subject matter expert wrote (and debunked) about a common myth, so the myth must be a strawman.)

It might be better to not suggest it here as another hot-button insult to this list. I don't think that we necessarily need to document every possible error people make. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

My sympathies: it seems that your discussion partner could have been using the 'straw-man' label itself in a misrepresenting way. So maybe it was injudicious, in the parent post, to refer to the metaphor of 'strawman' tactics, when what constitutes such tactics can itself be disputed and misrepresented. But the underlying issue is the corrosive effect of misrepresentation. I don't see that problem acknowledged as an aspect of disruptive editing in the existing text of the article. It seems to deserve some recognition. Terry0051 (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus building is good if the consensus turns out in your favor. If not, it's called tag teaming and disruption and meatpuppery... you cannot always be on the winning side (unless being there is the purpose). I don't think the guideline should use all tactics used in disruption (or enforcing consensus, depending on what side you're on :)) - it becomes "soapboxing for dummies" tutorial (WP:BEANS). NVO (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Is the word 'disrupting' reserved?

After using the word "disrupting" in an RFC comment with regard to suggesting we stop disrupting the dialogue with off-topic chat that could be held elsewhere, another user (not the one I was replying to) accused me of making a personal attack as I had accused someone of violating this policy on "disruptive editing". Is there any truth to be had in this, has it been agreed that the very word "disrupt" and its variants is now reserved for WP:DE rather than allowing Plain English to take precedent?—Teahot (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That seems quite unusual. Generally speaking "disrupting" itself is not a disallowed word. But it's a term to use with care, just as any term that casts another editor's behavior in a negative light. Context and evidence counts for a lot. Durova²⁸⁵ 02:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Even if one were to assume that the word "disruption" could apply only to this policy (which is an extremely odd assumption), it still wouldn't be a personal attack. Asking that people respect the talk page guidelines and refrain from off-topic dialog - assuming that's what you did, in the absence of a diff - is not a personal attack. For people who like concrete snippets of policy, WP:NPA states: "...discussion of a user's conduct is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion." I agree with Durova about the need for care, and for context; without knowing more of the specific context here, it's hard to say more than that. MastCell ^Talk 03:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to examine the context of the above claim of DE, you can see this diff.—Ash (previously Teahot) (talk) 07:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Almost humorous. Rich Farmbrough, 19:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC).