Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing/Archive 7

Disruptive editing, disruptive edits

There appears to be a slight disconnect that has come in between the title of this behavioural guideline, and the material it contains, IMHÓ. That is, we focus here on the types of behaviours which editors may display, and the consequences (for WP and for the disruptive editor), and this is proper. However, where, in this guideline or at other policy pages, do we describe the type of editing that is disruptive? rather than discuss editors. I want to repeat, IMHO it is proper to describe how "disruptive editors" may be recognised, by a pattern of behaviour, but I also think we need to be able to recognise "disruptive editing" as such. Could anyone help me out here? Thanks NewbyG ( talk) 12:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

To reword this concern: disruption can take many forms and is caused by disruptive editors, but disruptive editing is a particular form of disruption? In your opinion the latter presently is neglected in the behavioral guideline WP:Disruptive editing? Maybe disruptive editing can be distinguished from other forms of disruption as being more directly related to changing content on a Main page, or discussing such changes on a Talk page? So, for example, disruption may be a misuse of a Talk page for purposes other than discussion of content, but that would not be disruptive editing of content but another type of disruption? Any comments? Any other examples? Brews ohare (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Assuming I have read you correctly, I'd agree that this behavioral guideline is about disruption in general, and does not actually point out disruptive editing of content as a separate issue. IMO the guideline should be modified to discuss the disruptive editing of content explicitly. Would you agree? Brews ohare (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there user:Brews ohare, I will attempt to reply here to your concerns (as I read it, thanks) in theses two sections of this talk page. Put it this way, No, no, yes, sorry, yes, yes, sorry, no, no. In long form, (1) We both editors are now better informed as to the meaning of the acronym TLDR, thank you for that user:JohnBlackburne. (2) although TLDR is generally considered perjorative, it is sometimes useful, and I was not meaning any negativity on this present occasion. (3) Yes, your grasp of TLDR (that it mainly refers to lengthy posts on talk pages) seems in line with mine (4) No, sorry, you have not quite grasped my concerns, or I have expressed them un-clearly.

(5) I should like to see described somewhere a description of the actual (disruptive) editing which can occur, expressed in descriptive form, and not as this guideline does, which describes it n terms which require us to examine the "personality" and "intent" of editors, rather than the tell-tale signs which are contained in the actual edits themselves, or else in the "editing environment", rather than in the moral stance or personality of an editor, which we have to infer. (6) Sorry, yes I must agree that such editing is all too prevalent (7) Sorry, no I did not mean to imply that "a consensus of editors will form to take a matter to AN/I" -- I would hope that a consensus or unaniminity of editors on a talk page would be able to come up with a number of options for the page, and hopefully AN/I is not the one which ensues. (8) No, happily, I do not think the guideline needs modification at this time. Perhaps it can be improved, yes, of course, but it seems to me that the matter of describing "the type of edits which turn out to be disruptive" is perhaps proper to not this guideline, but another, perhaps this one. (9) Yes, be positive, but not Pollyanna (10) Yes, Thank you NewbyG ( talk) 17:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Newbyguesses: You suggest that the appropriate place to describe edits that are disruptive is Wikipedia:EW. However, at present, this guideline could be construed as focused upon very particular episodes, primarily regarding Main page editing. I'd say that WP:Disruptive is the more general guideline. Brews ohare (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia:TALK would be a good venue? Brews ohare (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am not sure which specific issue we are discussing here, can I try to summarize recent discussion? We seem to be agreeing now that disruption is a term that can be applied to editing that takes place on articles, and also talk pages and in wikipedia space and talk:Wikipedia etc. (summary ends, conjecture begins) Now, for myself I see AN/I as a place to be avoided. So, the way I like to see it work, is where the editors come to agreement on the (appropriate) talk page and so by consensus, no action against any editor needs to be enforced. In the long run, I am saying, hopefully everyone agrees to work together, which means some adjustment is necessary from whichever editor(s) are being the least productive with their edits, once they come to understand the situation.

Getting back to answer your question, we always have to take POL and guideline pages in toto. WP:EW has a part in the scheme of things as does Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. Clearly now as you suggest, WP:TPG is an important guideline. Appropriately, discussion about changes to that last-mentioned guideline, or discussion of matters relevant to that guideline, take place at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines. Good guideline, good venue uh huh. Sorry to be so prolix, and not have sure-fire answers, my approach is to hasten slowly, hope that helps a bit for now, cheers NewbyG ( talk) 15:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

NewbyG: It would help here if you could elaborate a bit on your idea of "the type of edits which turn out to be disruptive". I've suggested, for example, that it is not just objection to a thread on the part of many that determines that the thread is disruptive. What I have seen time and again is a scenario in which "statement x" is proposed, and countered by a floated reference to a guideline like WP:OR, WP:VS, WP:Soap, or so forth, tied in no way to content, deflecting subsequent discussion to abstractions over applicability of the guidelines. Statement x is forgotten, and conduct becomes the supposed issue, leading ultimately to AN/I. The motivations for introducing this diversion are sometimes objection to statement x that cannot be objectively supported, sometimes ego, and sometimes just a vendetta. Brews ohare (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, there are some ideas about this set out here Wikipedia is not about writing. NewbyG ( talk) 20:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Repeating my request above, if you have examples of this guideline being misunderstood and misapplied by e.g. being used to suppress valuable contributions please provide links to the relevant discussions.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Blackburne: I take it that you find my abstract description does not ring a bell with you. You doubt that this guideline is misapplied. Doubtless a proper response to your skepticism would involve a detailed statistical analysis to show that a significant number of misapplications have occurred, sufficient to warrant some change in policy. That would lead to further discussion of whether all the examples were properly classified and whether the correct threshold for modification were reached. This scenario for modification of this guideline is unending. Brews ohare (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I can think of no instances myself of it being misapplied, but you wrote you have seen relevant examples "time and time again" so it would be helpful if you link to some. There's no need for a detailed analysis, just some relevant examples.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

John, it is a bit indelicate, but I could identify several instances where you and I have clashed in this manner. I prefer to handle the matter in the abstract and keep it impersonal. After all, a matter of logical distinctions does not really require particular instances. Brews ohare (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter where the examples are from, though I would recommend against using your own editing history, as your past disruptive editing is a matter of record. Without examples though it is difficult to know where the problem with the guideline lies, as surely if it's always used correctly there is no serious problem?--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think examples are essential to this matter. The guideline can be written to identify violations without any requirement that examples be presented. All that is needed is to agree that should certain events occur, they are in fact violations. Perhaps the best way to do this is to make a proposal for amendment and subject it to comment. What do you think? Are you going to respond to such a proposal that it cannot be entertained without concrete instances of violation? Brews ohare (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Reversion 11 March

John, you removed my edits of the guideline with the in-line comment Repeats what's already there, but too specifically. I'd appreciate some elaboration. The first statement reverted is:

"This behavioral guideline is concerned with disruptive use of editing in general, on both Talk pages and Main article pages, and is not narrowly limited to disruptive editing of content. "

Clearly this makes the guideline less specific, contrary to your in-line rationalization. Moreover, this remark is not a repetition of anything already there. The second remark is:

"These remarks apply to Talk page discussions themselves, whether or not they are accompanied by Main page edits. If a consensus of editors on a Talk page concludes that discussion of a point should be terminated, violation of that consensus can lead to an AN/I proceeding that may result in sanctions upon those insisting on continuing discussion."

Again, this repeats nothing already there. It also generalizes the guideline to explicitly include Talk page discussion, which otherwise is a matter of conjecture, and to explicitly state your reading of this section, which I believe is hardly clear from the previous wording. Brews ohare (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

See my reply above to your previous comment. Please note also that, as it says at the top of the page, "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus." You should not make changes that change the sense or meaning without first gaining consensus.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The reversion seems correct from my perspective, taking into account that yes, talk pages and all pages are meant to be included as places where disruption may need to be addressed. Also, bold editing is allowed on guideline pages, but "first gaining consensus for substantial edits to Pol-pages" is often a better approach. We appear now, procedurally, to be in the D-phase of BRD. And, (picky I know) I changed the header of this section, according to the talk page guidelines Thanks NewbyG ( talk) 18:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me for using the "bold" approach. I thought that might crystallize matters, and indeed it has. My edits (I thought) expressed your opinion that a distinction should be drawn, and the second one expressed Blackburne's views regarding resort to AN/I, which I believe to be actual practice on WP. I suspect Blackburne doesn't like the wording that mentions Talk pages and Main pages because he wants it to apply to all pages, which it does. However, instead of proposing that change, he has decided to go the route of ambiguity, letting the reader guess whether it applies or not. Ambiguity is much favored by WP because it allows different decisions to be made in apparently identical circumstances using a posture of sophisticated balancing of unexplained factors. Brews ohare (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes that is true, the Bold approach to editing is Plan A , because it works to crystallize matters, no need at all to apologise. (2) Ambiguity has it's uses, we cannot describe every possible form of disruptive activity see (BEANS). (3) That WP's POLs allows different decisions to be made in apparently identical circumstances using a posture of sophisticated balancing of unexplained factors is true up to a point, and rather deplorable, does that not also happen in RL, though. NewbyG ( talk) 20:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed guideline

An RfC has been posted concerning a proposed guideline tentatively by the name Wikipedia:Disruption on talk pages. This proposal also could be amended to fit into WP:Disruptive editing. Please comment. Brews ohare (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

This proposal has been moved from user space to Wikipedia talk:Avoiding talk-page disruption. Comments collected so far can be found there. Please comment. Brews ohare (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

"Further reading": Proposed link to essay

Proposed: In the "Further reading" section, add a link to the Wikipedia:Was Socrates A Troll essay. Panties72 (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It's neat but I don't think it belongs on here. Gigs (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I DIDN'T ♥ THAT?

This was my impression when I first saw this shortcut. It had me confused until I finally separated the words out in my head. FallingGravity (talk) 06:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Born2cycle addition reverted

Reverted undiscussed new section. I don't make a regular habit of following Born2cycle's edits, maybe someone should, but complaining about someone complaining about an unproductive discussion, and then going to here to quietly add complaining about a discussion as "Disruptive editing" is in my view counter "any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." In ictu oculi (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

This is the section I added:

Disrupting a discussion by repeatedly complaining about the discussion

Complaining about a discussion on a talk page, especially if done repeatedly, may not directly harm an article, but it can prevent other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve an article.

What is the objection? This largely echoes what is already said on the page, under WP:DE#Attempts to evade detection:

Their [disruptive] edits are largely confined to talk-pages, such disruption may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve an article.

Do you (or anyone else?) really disagree that repeatedly complaining about a talk page discussion is disruptive to that discussion? --В²C ☎ 15:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• No of course I don't agree. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to note when (as often happens) Talk page discussions are going nowhere, are not improving article space or any number of other legitimate reasons. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
• Also opposed. You seem to think that no one would "really" disagree, so I fail to see value in stating the obvious. I don't see any evidence that there is a problem related to this text, much less one where the scope of the problem would be reduced by this text. It seems rather redundant with the text you quoted. Finally, I am not convinced that we should characterize comments about RS-free WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM and other legitimate discussion ailments as "complaining". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, well, I certainly wouldn't want to characterize such comments as complaining either, and I can see how this particular wording could be construed as such. But that's not the type of commentary I'm talking about.

I'm trying to address the situation where several editors are attempting to develop consensus about a proposal through discussion, and one or more other editors who are opposed to the proposal repeatedly post comments addressing not the substance of the proposal, but just complain about the discussion as being pointless or not going anywhere, etc., not with legitimate objections like WP:SOAP or WP:FORUM. Don't you agree such commentary is disruptive? How can this wording be improved to say that? --В²C ☎ 16:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be since such remarks are (supposed to be) ignored when a closer determines consensus. You can use a WP:POLL to try to focus the discussion. To get more eds to comment you can do an RFC and advert the thread at the V-pump etc. If someone still stands in the way anyhow, that's what WP:DR is for. Writing lawyerish text for such situations is a seductive notion, since a silver bullet would make short work dealing with such tactics. Unfortunately, lawyerish text is lawyerish text rather than a silver bullet. The only real solution is to refine your own skills at smoking out the basis for other eds' opinions on things. When your opponents just don't like it and you have good reasons marshaled beyond your own liking it, the other skill to refine is getting a decision on consensus despite their baseless opposition. Lawyerish text can't take the place of either skill, sorry. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I get what you're saying and do try all that. Still get frustrated. I want a way to easily identify such comments as being disruptive to hopefully nip such problems in the bud without having to go to DR, etc. --В²C ☎ 17:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I feel your pain! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Then help both of us alleviate the pain by figuring out a way to word this that won't be misconstrued! --В²C ☎ 23:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Not possible, as stated in my remarks 2 comments back.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk page sabotage

Recently I ran across a new IP who made a determined effort to ignore TPG formatting standards. After I pointed out a few things they still made a determined effort to post badly formatted walls of text. In my view, whatever the wallsoftext might say, if a user insists on not following TPG formatting standards, after being specifically notified, then they are not really here to collaborate to improve things. In other words, that is a mild form of disruption.

At first I was wading thru the wallsoftext trying to sift wheat from chaffe. Then I realized the IP was abusing the rest of us by doggedly creating extra work.

That inspired me to add a section calling this "mild form of disruption" and explicitly saying such comments can be ignored.

• The addition to the TPG is here
• Here is a discussion thread regarding this addition

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

"Gutting" an article during deletion discussion

• User:Cirt/Gutting

I've created an essay on Gutting an article during deletion discussion.

You may find it interesting reading at: User:Cirt/Gutting.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2015

The third paragraph of § Summary includes an incomplete sentence:

“Our edit warring policy already acknowledges that one act, by itself, may not violate policy, but when part of a series of acts that constitute a pattern does violate policy.”

Please fix this, perhaps with: “… but when part of a series of acts, they constitute a pattern that does violate policy.” 174.141.182.82 (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Done Pishcal — ♣ 16:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That was my best guess as to the intended meaning, at least; good to know someone agrees. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Encouraging rather than discouraging open discussion

The Failure_or_refusal_to_."get_the_point. section says "Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting, for example, by continuing to say they don't understand what the problem is." Yet, that was the section sighted as a reason to censor a discussion where I was asking that those who "don't understand what the problem is" to allow people who do understand what the problem is to discuss the problem without intimidation.

Perhaps something should be added to that section, explaining that when a person is trying to make a point, repeatedly telling that person that their point has already been addressed and they should drop the subject is not likely to produce any positive results, since if the person's concerns really had been fully addressed, they would probably no longer feel concerned.

Isn't the idea behind this whole community editing concept to allow the process to evolve into something better as time goes by, rather than to simply enforce stagnation and silence concerns?

DonaldKronos (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Case in point. No sooner had I posted the above, then the following section was already delected... Talk:Evolution&oldid=649193220#Plea_for_open_discussion (The link is into the history.)

So why is it that my pleas for honesty and open discussion are treated with such hostility? I'm not the only person to have voiced such concerns, but I can easily see why people are so scared to speak openly about them. Is that the way it's supposed to be here? Or should we be trying to evolve something better, as I have been suggesting?

DonaldKronos (talk) 06:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Donald, as I said before, it's a two-way road, and you have to try to meet people half way. It is not a one-way road for you to keep saying the same thing over and over and expect people to come to you.

Other editors, please see DonaldKronos's topic ban discussion. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I have tried that repeatedly, and given up. No two-way road is available to me. This is exactly why I had suggested that someone who disagrees with me please encourage people who agree with me to discuss openly why they are concerned. The idea, as I had outlined, was that I and those who have treated me (and those anyone agreeing with me) with ridicule and censorship, could also step back, and let people other than me who see value in my concerns (if any would still come forward) discuss their concerns.

Of course, as soon as I suggested that, I was censored, again.... even though I was basically volunteering to censor myself, if someone would just show the slightest sign of good faith. Should I act surprised?

DonaldKronos (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

What you are ultimately asking for is an echo chamber, with faux-polite demands that those who disagree with you not engage in further discussion, so that you can create a pseudo-consensus without adjusting your goals to work with others. You have made no attempt to go down the two-way road, you have only stayed at your end and kept making the same calls. As has been said before, we're assuming good faith from you, you've just left us with little reason to assume that you are capable of collaboration. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

In case anyone wonders, Suggestion for Improved Accuracy is the section on the evolution page that was marked "Protracted WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT" and hidden from view, after I asked for those who disagree with me to at least allow those who agree with me to speak openly, rather than scaring them away.

Yes, it is the evolution page, and it's associated disambiguation which I have been asking for honesty on. Many people understand my concerns and have timidly expressed agreement, but others feel I have no legitimate concern, and are quick revert even a single word clarification and ridicule my idea that a definition of biological evolution should be labeled as such, or at least qualified with "in the context of biology" if it is to be passed off as a definition of evolution.

Do wiki pages not evolve? I think they do, and I am not alone in this. Note: They are not biological.

Many people look to Wikipedia only for confirmation bias to confirm such claims as "evolution is only about biology", and will not read the next line once they have encountered a definition stating that "Evolution is the change in heritable traits of biological organisms over successive generations due to natural selection and other mechanisms.", or that "Evolution, also known as descent with modification, is the change in heritable phenotype traits of biological populations over successive generations.". One of those is from the top of the disambiguation page. Can you tell which one without looking it up? Does either allow for the evolution of a wiki page? I think not... and neither do the people who have worked so hard to censor the fact that evolution is ubiquitous, and not restricted to biology only.

DonaldKronos (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

For the record, your proposed changes actually do fit into my personal beliefs. I believe that the universe is driven by a chaos of divine origin, that opposing it is at best pointless, and that it manifests as different kinds of change or evolutions. However, I do not confuse these religious beliefs for science, as you do. You have continually failed to provide any sources that explicitly state there is an overarching force of evolution of which various processes called evolution are dependent manifestations thereof, and only seem to be making what you do not realize is an appeal to religious belief.

Again, I agree that there the different kinds of evolution are manifestations of some higher force. I just do not confuse belief in that force with scientific understanding. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a debating society. Perhaps you are right and all the other editors are wrong—nevertheless, debates have to stop eventually. The Internet is a very big place and if discussions continued until everyone was satisfied, nothing would ever be achieved. Johnuniq (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

As I have tried to say, I am not the only person who has voiced concerns, and I have observed since long before I ever edited the evolution page that such concerns are squelched.

I am simply asking that those who claim they do not see the concern, allow those who claim the do see a concern, to discuss that concern without being ridiculed and told that their concern does not exist or is unimportant.

DonaldKronos (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

My point is, those who say they don't see anything to be concerned about have nothing to lose by allowing people who are concerned to discuss how best to address their concern without being intimidated into silence.

Perhaps they could find a way to address their concerns which those who do not see their concerns would not mind.... or perhaps they would give up, but at least not because they were intimidated into it.

DonaldKronos (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

(Notice that I'm about to give the exact same reply to your arguments. I seriously read this post, tried to write an original response, and realized I had written a paraphrase of a prior response.) What you are ultimately asking for is an echo chamber, with faux-polite demands that those who disagree with you not engage in further discussion, so that you can create a pseudo-consensus without adjusting your goals to work with others. You have made no attempt to go down the two-way road, you have only stayed at your end and kept making the same calls. As has been said before, we're assuming good faith from you, you've just left us with little reason to assume that you are capable of collaboration. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Not going to wade into this in any detail (I have my own circular-reasoning, proof-by-assertion whack-a-moles to deal with elsewhere and don't need to take on an additional one), but I must concur with both Johnuniq and Ian.thomson on this entire thread and the stuff that has led up to it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Integrating a summary of WP:Tendentious editing

I think it would be of value to integrate a one-paragraph summary of WP:TE as a section here, so that tendentiousness is at least briefly defined as part of the DE guideline, instead of being entirely relegated to an essay. As it stands, too often the tendentious simply take the attitude that they can ignore WP:TE because its "just an essay". If there were a WP:DETE shortcut to a section in the guideline, that would shortcircuit that form of WP:GAMING, especially if it encapsulated and "codified" the gist of the TE behavior pattern. It would also be more clearly administratively actionable than reliance upon an essay.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

There are 2 ways of regard saying Disruptive editing: one is vandalism, and the other one is good faith with NO reliable sources of tendentiously wilfulness editing and may cause Edit warring with other editors. In Wikipedia community there need an good reliable sources and No original research for verification any kind of Wikipedia articles to resolve the disputation. Some of the fellow even worst create an multiple Wikipedia user accounts to mislead and conflicting other users and you may get suspected as Sockpuppets. SA 13 Bro (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Tendentious editing wording proposal

The start of the section on disruptive editing reads as follows: "A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following: 1.Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors." I think that the last four words should be phrased differently. I don't think that an editor who continues editing in pursuit of a certain point "despite opposition from other editors" is always a case of problem editing. Sure, if an editor continues to want to insert a sentence about a hoax, a fringe theory, or a highly contentious view on a sensitive racial or gender issue into an article, despite opposition from other editors, this is a problem.

But what about a situation where an editor is proposing the addition of a well-sourced, neutrally-phrased, pertinent and not unduly-weighted sentence, but several editors repeatedly disagree without providing a policy rationale? (e.g., the edit summaries are all "Return to stable version","Revert new addition", "Never heard of that author", "Never heard of that journal", "zero Google hits on author" or "I don't like it"). Given the systematic bias in Wikipedia (see also Gender bias in Wikipedia and Racial bias in Wikipedia), it can be argued that an editor attempting to introduce published viewpoints from reputable, non-Western scholars who publish outside of the northern hemisphere may find it hard to get these viewpoints into articles, even though WP:NPOV may support a not unduly-weighted statement of these scholars' viewpoints in the pertinent articles. What if an editor is trying to add a single well-sourced, neutrally-phrased sentence about a major African sci-fi writer and her most notable books to the article on Science fiction, but several Wikipedia editors, who (according to demographic findings) probably come from the Anglosphere, revert the sentence because they've never heard of her ("Not an important SF writer") or because Western textbooks do not mention her ("She's not mentioned in any of the major SF textbooks").

The current sentence's language about "despite opposition from other editors" makes perfect sense when the editing behaviour in question is a user repeatedly attempting to add unsourced, hoax, fringe, or OR theories to an article, which other editors could oppose on a number of objective WP policy grounds. The current sentence's language does not take account of situations where an editor may be proposing a good, pertinent addition to the article which is opposed without a solid rationale by several editors. Doesn't the TE issue really arise when an editor continues editing in pursuit of a point contrary to the consensus of other editors, or continues editing in pursuit of a point contrary to Wikipedia policies? More broadly, Wikipedia may need some sort of "within-an-article" WP:Notability guideline, to determine which objective checkboxes need to be ticked off to indicate whether subtopic X (e.g., a band, book, or film) should merit a mention in article Y. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 03:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing by User User:DrFleischman

Hello This editor has reverted/changed this article over 30 different times. He also has been bullying other editors acting as if he is the owner of wikipedia. In a particular instance where he told user Markos200 that he has 24 hours and he will change the article back to his satisfaction. See this article talk page of bullying towards another editor. Another edit war between him and user (talk), see the previous edit war before User:DrFleischman deleted it from his talk page. See this.

It appears when someone makes an edit to an article and User:DrFleischman does not like the edit, he will check your IP or User Editing history to try to find issues on articles you have either created or edited and tag your article and cite that it is not Neutral and needs citations and or he would request that it be deleted. He has moved to get numerous articles deleted. One recently whereas he cited that an institution called Atlantic International University does not have any Notability in Wikipedia, see this article's deletion page. The AFD clearly states

• Schools are frequently nominated for deletion. The current notability guideline for schools and other education institutions is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:ORG). This section is not a notability guideline, WP:GNG and WP:ORG are.
  • Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected in AfD. Schools that don't meet the standard typically get merged or redirected to the school district authority that operates them (generally North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere or where there is no governing body) rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia. 'Redirect' as an alternative to deletion is anchored in policy.
  • Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists.
  • Schools that are being planned or built, except high schools reliably sourced to be opened within 12 months, are usually deleted.

There were sources provide that proved the institution exist.

Please review all User:DrFleischman's editing history as it seems that he has a lot of Bias opinions and a little over the top as to enforcing Wikipedia's procedures. He seems to be acting as a representative or some what an owner of Wikipedia. This article was created 7 years ago and as you can see, User:DrFleischman has chopped the article down to his personal liking. He will revert any meaningful edit with sources that someone makes on this article. This editor needs to understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that provides extensive information as to organizations, so chopping the article down to predominately nothing seems to be a self-serving. 2605:E000:6009:9700:3448:B254:BF69:A47E (talk) 01:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Try WP:ANI instead. GAB^Hello! 01:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you2605:E000:6009:9700:3448:B254:BF69:A47E (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

what do you said?

Guinners world récord said as 2013 madonna has sold 305.6 millions in albums. What rule i violented? Jjavier1978 (talk) 05:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Nonacademic language

Can use of slang or nonacademic language be considered disruptive? Benjamin (talk) 09:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

It depends on the context. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be clarified in the page? Benjamin (talk) 19:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

It's too contextual and situational. There are times where I've cussed (just not at anyone) on the administrator's noticeboard, and there are times where I haven't because it'd've caused issues. It isn't simply hard and fast rules but considering how people (are going to) react. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

That seems rather arbitrary. Benjamin (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Please provide some "diffs" to illustrate whatever you think is the problem. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sealioning

Should we not introduce the concept of Sealioning to this article and/or the related article Wikipedia:Tendentious editing? I find myself using the term more frequently in relation to disruptive/tendentious editing and WP:ICANTHEARYOU in particular. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Mediation

The "Dealing with disruptive editors" section says, "If mediation is rejected, unsuccessful, and/or the problems continue...". We don't have a mediation committee anymore, so should we stop referring to "mediation"? How about rewording this to "If attempts at dispute resolution are rejected, unsuccessful, and/or the problems continue..."? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. DonIago (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks :) Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

A less than ineffective lack of unclarity

The third paragraph of § Summary contains this sentence:

Disruptive edits may not occur all in the course of one brief period without fruitless attempts to discuss with the user, (as when the user persists after 12 warnings to stop) and may not consist of the repetition of the same act.

There are so many negatives there I honestly can't work out what it's trying to say; it loses me partway through every time I try. ("...without fruitless attempts..." is about where my eyes usually glaze over. Huh?) If someone who's able to unpack it could re-word the intended message a little more accessibly, I feel they'd be doing the community a service. (You could just explain it to me, I suppose, but that wouldn't make the sentence any clearer. Though, once I understood what it was trying to say, I'd be happy to deal with the clarity issue myself.) -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

It seems Dlohcierekim inserted the "without fruitless... warnings to stop)" part of the sentence in this edit from 2018-02-10. Dlohcierekim, can I ask for a clarification on the intended meaning of that insertion / sentence? My apologies, I'm just not following what it's trying to communicate. -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I think he's trying to say that disruption need not be the act of a moment but may instead be a pattern of edits spread over time, but as written it's unfathomable to those not already in the know. EEng 02:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

No response from Dlohcierekim since my ping 4 days ago, tho they've been quite active since (mostly on administrative tasks, looks like)... I'll leave a talk page message summarizing my question, see if they're able (and interested) to provide any clarification. -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Followup: Given the recent kerfuffle at WP:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour I don't think we should use the word fruitless. EEng 10:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Hi! I came to this talk page just to Ctrl+F the word "fruitless" just to find this very topic. Even though there's already been this conversation, I'm still unable to comprehend the sentence. Probably, the author of the addition just misunderstood the meaning of the initial version of the sentence, that actually emphasized on the absence of the time limit (disruptive edits may not occur all in the course of one brief period), so that the additional explanation seems to be redundant. I've removed the confusing part, but feel free to rewrite it and bring it back.--Piramidion 13:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Piramidion: Yeah, sorry. I know I kept making noises about fixing the sentence in question, but the truth is that, even after I felt like I sorta had a handle on what it was trying to say, every time I attempted to make an edit the sentence just intimidated me into wimping out and wandering off into some other, less-threatening part of the project with more puppies and rainbows. You have my full support for just reversing the insertion in question, though, because I think by now a consensus view has been established that it made things less, not more, clear. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oh, and to address EEng's concern some months ago, rest assured that as long as I'm around, Wikipedia shall never be truly fruitless. That is one promise I can make! #SoToSpeak -- FeRDNYC (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2019 (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)

Sometimes in the heat of battle one must exaggerate a tad. Gandydancer (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Another day of editing

-EEng

I never exaggerate. Shocking habit. EEng 18:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• It has come to my attention that this amazing discussion about the "sexist image" was continued elsewhere [1]. EEng 06:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Balance restored

If you can find an image of a man with an ear-trumpet...
— User:EEng

Challenge accepted and completed, using this image — which is arguably an even better illustration of the problem anyway. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Any change to a policy page must have broad consensus. EEng does not have consensus for his edit. Bright☀ 06:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Why do only women's opinions count? EEng 12:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

1) You are engaging in disruptive editing; 2) you're removing something that's been there 3 years you're lying, your new version has existed for two months; and 3) contrary to the essay WP:STATUSQUO, there's no consensus by status quo. Appealing to status-quo is an indication of ownership behavior. What you need is consensus, not flippant answers. Bright☀ 17:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The image was first inserted in October 2016 [2]. At one point a different image was swapped in [3], but 16 minutes later [4] the original was added back so they were both there.

You better watch it with the lying accusations. Cluelessness I deal with myself, but if you keep up that kind of shit you're gonna get blocked.

I still wonder why "broad consensus" has anything to do with this. Men and broads should be free to opine. EEng 22:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Followup: BrightR has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Surprise! EEng 06:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• After reading this section, I'm surprised to see that EEng#s (talk · contribs) hasn't been warned for repeated personal attacks. On topic, the argumentation of sexism in the choise of picture is troublesome to say the least, as that implies that women can not be used for any illustrations of negative aspects simply because they are not in majority. BP OMowe (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  OK, it's been a quiet week so I'll bite -- what are these personal attacks, exactly? On topic, I appreciate your recognizing that the sexism accusation is bullshit. EEng 01:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  No answer. Huh. EEng 08:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

IDHT image

There's nothing wrong with my editing.

Reading this at AN/I suggested another image to convey the concept of IDHT. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 04:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I support this, because the current picture shows someone trying to hear, but this image illustrates someone purposefully not hearing, which is what IDHT is all about. Plus, it's funnier. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Like it. EEng 04:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@BlackcurrantTea, Crossroads, and EEng: See [5]. I have no particular problem with the new image, but the rationale the current picture shows someone trying to hear appears to be based on a flawed assumption about the content of the image. I know nothing about the subject except what I read in our article about her, but still. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

On second thought, I agree -- the new one is funnier, as long as it is accompanied by the caption seen here (which wouldn't make sense with the old image). I initially read the caption that was live on the page before writing the above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I expect that few people would have clicked on it and then read her article, so the point would have been lost. I'm glad others see the humour in the new one. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, it was immediately funny to me, because I didn't have to click anything in order to understand why it was funny, but I realise very few editors here already knew Madame de Meuron, and I'm also against unnecessarily offending people. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sluzzelin: I assume that by it was immediately funny to me you are referring to the caption presented immediately beside this text, which I added here. I came here from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=946129520 ANI] (Thanks, Bus stop!) and initially saw that only the image had been changed, and the rather banal "I can't hear you." caption left intact. I didn't notice until after posting the 09:49 message above that the caption proposed on the talk page actually was much funnier. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not even sure, Hijiri 88, which caption I saw at the time. I just immediately recognised Mme de Meuron, anecdotes about whom I'd heard since childhood, and chuckled. But I don't think any caption would make it clear, to most unaware editors, that the picture is in no way making fun of people who have lost their hearing. For this reason, I'm happy with the change, even if I personally liked the picture with the ear trumpet. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

(Old image) I can't hear you.

• I'm curious: How many of you are saying that you don't recognize what the old lady is holding in her hand? EEng 21:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  I did recognise it (loving 19th century illustrations and BBC period series), but I also understood that in Mme de Meurons's case, and given her character, the ear trumpet was meant to signalise "I will decide what is worth hearing and what isn't", which is not automatically clear from seeing a person holding a hearing device. My grandfather (and probably many other grandfathers too) managed to pull the trick of selective hearing and non-hearing pretense without any device, and it's a superpower I wish to possess too, one day). ---Sluzzelin talk 22:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry, did you say something? EEng 22:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  Nope. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I recognised it, but not being familiar with the woman in the picture, didn't see the image as that of someone choosing not to hear. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

"Disruptive editing" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Disruptive editing. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 26#Disruptive editing until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sysages (talk | contribs) 01:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Some general guidance for disruptive editors

A disruptive IP editor said he didn't understand why he was blocked. I answered him here at the bottom of his talk page.

After reading it I realized it applies generally to editors who are both "editing while emotional" and who are "blind" to the reasons their editing is disruptive, so I decided to link it here in case anyone else finds it helpful. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2020

I wish to change "Not to be confused with Wikipedia:Vandalism or Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point" to "Not to be confused with Wikipedia:Vandalism". It is unlikely that someone would confuse this with Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and that the {{distinguish}} template should be removed. 2600:8801:2A80:2B68:DC38:9F26:C75D:AE3A (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: WP:DISRUPT points here, which could reasonably also stand for Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. BilCat (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Lack of Clarity

I think the first sentence of this policy page is somewhat misleading, as it implies that disruptive editing must extend over a long period of time, such as months or years, when in reality IPs/new users are blocked/warned all the time for disruptive editing. Here is an example of an user blocked for disruptive editing User talk:Lalalavibes. This is the part I feel is problematic. Does anyone concur?:

"Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time on many articles, and disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia."

If WP:VAND doesn't state "Vandalism usually occurs over a long period of time", then I don't think it is necessary that this does either. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

P,TO 19104, I don't think the one (undeleted) edit was a "disruptive" edit. I think that was plain old vandalism. It might be less confusing if {{Uw-vandalism3}} didn't link to this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Is this the place?

I have encountered an editor who repeatedly deletes documented material because they don't think it's relevant. (I wrote the material, so of course I think it is relevant.) I have posted my reasons for including the material on the articles' talk pages. The articles are bird lists; I brought up the issue in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds (in a now-archived thread) where I and others have asked this editor to take their opinions to the articles' talk pages for discussion rather than using the edit summaries. But they have done so in only one instance.

Is this the proper forum for the next step? Thank you. Craigthebirder (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC) To clarify - I mean, is the Disruptive Editing process the next step? Craigthebirder (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

It sounds as though this may be a conduct matter rather than a content dispute; if you agree with that, then WP:3RN may be the proper venue if they're edit-warring over content. If they're being disruptive but not quite that blatantly, then you'll likely need to go through WP:ANI. If it is a content dispute, though, you can bring it to WP:DRN, but be advised that DRN can't provide binding solutions; it's incumbent on editors to participate and follow any ensuing recommendations. DonIago (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately it appears to be both a conduct and content dispute. Also unfortunately, WP:DRN requires that the issue be recently discussed in a talk page and the editor won't discuss there. Craigthebirder (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Sounds to me like ANI may be your best option then. There aren't a lot of other great options for dealing with non-responsive editors who aren't edit-warring or committing obvious vandalism. Good luck! DonIago (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Tenditious" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:Tenditious. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 5#Wikipedia:Tenditious until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Paul_012 (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

"An editor who repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests ...

I would like to:

1) Confirm my understanding of the WP:DE provision that "[an editor who] repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits" is engaged in disruptive editing.

2) Assuming that my understanding at #1 is correct then I would like to find the appropriate mechanism(s) whereby to enforce the provision.

3) Assuming that my understanding at #1 is correct then I would like to find appropriate mechanism whereby to deal with administrators who are inexplicably failing to enforce the provision.

As I understand the provision, if in the course of an editing dispute or discussion, if an editor is asked a question then they have an enforceable obligation to provide a responsive answer.

By way of example:

Mr.X reverts my edit, providing the reversion reason "BLP smear".

I respond "On what basis do you assert a BLP policy violation?  Please reference the specific BLP provision that you believe makes my edit a BLP violation.  As the contents of my edit are well-sourced and undisputed accurate, how can the contents of my edit be a "smear"?

At this point Mr.X has an obligation to respond to and address my concerns.  If Mr.X fails to do so then Mr.X is violating WP:DE.

Is my understanding the WP:DE policy accurate?  Am I correct that an editor's commission of WP:DE is a violation of the editor's good faith obligations?

Aside: I keep referring to this specific WP:DE provision.  Is it reasonable for me to ask that a shortcut be created for the provision?  Something like WP:OBLIGATIONTORESPOND?Deicas (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

My two cents: "Editors'" is plural, meaning more than one editor. In other words, it's not necessarily disruptive editing solely because Mr.X doesn't engage with you, but if there was a pattern of Mr.X failing to engage with multiple editors, then that would likely be considered a sanctionable problem. To my understanding, no editor is required to respond to a specific editor, though failing to do so may be construed as a lack of interest in pursuing the matter further.

This is difficult to respond to without a specific context though. If you and Mr.X disagree on a content issue, and you initiate a Talk page discussion and ping Mr.X to alert them to the fact that you've done so, and Mr.X fails to engage in that discussion, you would likely be within your rights to put your edit through...but if you're trying to add unsourced material or such, then Mr.X probably has the right of it on principle, though they should be telling you that.

In any case, if you believe an editor is editing disruptively, WP:DDE (a subsection of WP:DE) already details potential remedies. Your suggestion that admins are failing to enforce this is highly problematic in the absence of one or more specific instances; do you have such, or is this a rhetorical discussion? DonIago (talk) 06:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, it's hard for me to look at this and think you're asking this question in entirely good faith. Courtesy pinging Acroterion (talk · contribs) as an involved admin. DonIago (talk) 07:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Doniago: I am attempting to act punctiliously in good faith.

As to your "[my] suggestion that admins are failing to enforce this is highly problematic in the absence of one or more specific instances; do you have such, or is this a rhetorical discussion?"

Please see here: Talk:Brookings Institution#Former Brooking analyst Igor Danchenko was indicted for lying to the FBI. Note these questions/challenges that I have posed that have not been addressed nor, to my knowledge, has @Acroterion, the involved administrator, made any effort to induce the questions' targets to address the questions.

Examples of these unaddressed questions:

"Please cite & quote that portion of BLP policy that you are asserting permits removal of mention of Danchenko's indictment."

"Please explain your claim that mentioning Danchenko's indictment in the Brookings article is a "WP:COATRACK violation"."

"Please explain how mentioning Danchenko's indictment in the Brookings article IS a BLP violation but mentioning Danchenko's indictment in Danchenko's Wikipedia IS NOT a BLP violation. Please quote and cite the applicable portion of WP:BLP whence you claim "That's what makes it a BLP vio"

"@SPECIFICO claim of "BLP smear" is clearly false. The fact of Danchenko's indictment is an undisputed fact. Therefore @SPECIFICO's CLEARLY false claim of "BLP smear" is a violation of good faith. Please explain how a clearly false claim is *not* a violation of good faith?"

Does this, just above, answer you questions and concerns, @Doniago?

To my knowledge there is not issue here with " trying to add unsourced material or such", on my part. Do I understand correctly, @Doniago, that your advice in this case, given lack of response, would be to " put [my] edit through"? Deicas (talk) 08:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

As admins are already involved in this situation, and given that you were blocked for some of your actions with regards to this situation, I have no interest in pursuing this discussion further as I have concerns that you are not arguing in good faith. DonIago (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Doniago: As yet I have not been able to persuade the block-issuing administrator, @Acroterion, to quote my specific comments that were the basis for him issuing said blocks; so I'd hope that you would not suggest that the blocks are the basis for "hav[ing] concerns that [I am] not arguing in good faith". Given that, would you please explain concerns over my good faith? Or, alternatively, would you please strike-out your concerns over my violation of my good faith obligations? Deicas (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

In case any other editors are considering becoming involved in this thread, I recommend reviewing this discussion first. DonIago (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Hatnotes

The edits I made to the hatnotes were for clarification. Please read Template:Redirect/doc, Template:Distinguish/doc, and Template:Redirect-distinguish/doc. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 23:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Revert

I had to laugh !

My edit on this page DISRUPIVE EDITING was reverted, I.e. completely removed.

Funny, as I added to the article, and my addition was CANCELED. VERY TYPICAL OF AMERICAN "CANCEL CULTURE"

It is not that way on the German and Cebuano wiki's, of which I am an editor on both.

Typical Americans ... "If we don't like it we will CANCEL IT ! ! "

Think Hiroshima. Think Nagasaki. Think Cancelculture.

'Nuf said ...

GeorgeV73GT (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

P.S. "

Well, if you want to get nationalistic about it, Germany's had its cancel-culture moments too, now that you mention it. EEng 21:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, and the Japanese had some infamous cancel moments also. BilCat (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! I was speaking ONLY of Wikiculture. 'This true the Germans tried very hard to cancel the Jews and other undesirable minorities.

After more than fours livivg in Asia I do (dispite the official Wikipedia position of neutrality) notice the American bias in the English Wikipedia not only from a cultural standpoint but from Grammatical and Spelling aspect. I lived in British culture and became fluent in British English, and I know not one of the English Wikipedia articles written in British English. I think there ought to be at least two or possibly more English Wikipedias, American, British, ond possibly others.

Did You have a kip with Your mates and then were You chuffed? GeorgeV73GT (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

About the Japanese cancel culture, See https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-rape-of-nanking GeorgeV73GT (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)