Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

Expert retention Archive 1 - pre-Sept. 2006 /Archive 1 - Sept. 2006 /Archive 2 - Sept. - Dec. 2006 /Archive 3 - Jan. 2007 - Dec. 2007

Contents 1 Do we really need Sanger's quote? 2 Blocking consensus 3 Definition of "Disruptive" 4 Dealing with disruptive editors 5 Poorly name page 6 Should we Boycott Disruptive Editors?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Definition of "Disruptive"

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)