Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Guideline

RE:nope, it's accepted as a guideline covering an existing convention [1]

But wasn't this born out of the Expert Revolt? Wasn't the point that cranks weren't getting dealt with? 192.75.48.150 16:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

My take is as follows. This is strictly my opinion, so that and USD $3.25 will buy you a mocha at Starbucks.

• The process outlined in this document for dealing with cranks, has been available prior to the writing of this document.
• However, in many cases where there weren't obvious violations of things like WP:NPA, WP:3RR--the process has not been used in cases where it could have been. Why, I'm not sure--in some cases, parties to a dispute were not aware of options; in others, perhaps admins weren't willing to issue blocks for patterns of behavior (it's a lot less controversial to issue blocks for vandalism or WP:3RR, where there is little room to argue). This shouldn't be taken as criticism of admins--they have a tough job, and admins who do issue controversial blocks frequently attract loud, vocal legions of critics accusing them of all sorts of nasty things.
• Having this written down will hopefully a) put people on notice--cranks and those who deal with them--that crank edits aren't welcome at Wikipedia, and that an ArbCom ruling is not needed; b) give admins something to point to when asked to justify a controversial or non-obvious block.

Again, just my USD $3.30 (did Starbucks raise the price again? Damn.)

--EngineerScotty 16:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, well put. It also aligns with and can support the new Wikipedia:Community probation process, which is a less constraining and unilateral response to disruption. FeloniousMonk 16:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it's an uneasy mix of describing current practice and trying to dictate future practice, which is pretty normal around here. But what isn't normal is that it involves the Block function, namely extending the way "community patience" blocks are applied. Very few pages address blocks, and of those that do, none are guidelines. So I hope you'll forigve the tickybox jihad, but I think you'll understand why I was unnerved at this, despite assurances that this is the way it already is. And are you sure Starbucks upped their price? Maybe your dollar just dropped. 192.75.48.150 18:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Community patience blocks have always been at the discretion of the community; no policy I'm aware of limits their use. What is a bit new, and outside the scope of this, is the concept of Wikipedia:Community probation--though that is considered a power which the community possess (on account of it being a lesser sanction than a community ban), but hasn't until recently chosen to exercise. And yes, Starbucks is raising the price of liquid crack; see [2]. At least in North America; in other parts of the world, kilometrage may vary. :) --EngineerScotty 18:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If I may add my $3.35 (Did Starbucks raise that price again?), from my reading of the discussion and history, some administrators gave this a serious look. An ArbCom member agreed that this situation ought to be handled at the community level and promoted the page from proposal to guideline. Durova 23:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Guideline is the appropriate scope of for this concept as the community begins to use it. WP:BLP was a guideline for months before it was made a policy. This guideline helps support Wikipedia:Community probation. It puts in writing and clarifies the thinking of the community and the supports arbitration committee actions. None of this is completely new. Rather it has never been put in writing in a way that explains it so clearly. --FloNight 03:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. It describes current practice and thinking, so is descriptive not prescriptive. The underlying policy has not changed, nor does it need to. Guy 12:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes to model for dealing with disruptive editors.

These changes, described as "Minor wording changes; adding a seventh step to process, " seems to be anything but minor. The Disruptive editing process was intended to be quick and informal; this proposed change would transform an informal model into a legalistic seven-step procedure. It opens the way for all sorts of Wikilawyering and I've reverted it until it can be discussed on the talk page.

My suggestion would go in the other way, changing the opening line to:

"Following is a suggested model for remedies:"

--SteveMcCluskey 17:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Steve. FeloniousMonk 18:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link that documents some history of User:Terryeo who made those edits: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Terryeo#Log_of_blocks_and_bans

Hope this sheads some light on his motivations.--Fahrenheit451 18:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

lol, I'm happy to tell you all about my motivations, that's what user discussion pages are for, I believe :) Terryeo 20:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, but the "Minor wording changes..." were made by User:John Broughton.

--SteveMcCluskey 18:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be me. I'm not sure how going from a six item list (before my edit) to a seven item list (yes, I just added ONE item) changes the process from quick and informal to legalistic; I await further explanation. As for the wording describing the six/seven steps/items, please feel free to make changes to improve it; I was striving for clarity but apparently didn't accomplish that.

I do want to explain the step I added: Ask editor to participate in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, with editor selecting an appropriate action. In my experience, one thing that separates a disruptive editor from a constructive one is the unwillingness to consider the opinions of others. Refusing ANY sort of dispute resolution IS an important indicator of where the problem lies in an inability to reach agreement on an article, in my opinion. PLUS, if the (problematical) editor selects a process (Mediation Cabal, RfC, whatever), it's more likely that he/she will become more invested in (committed to) its outcome. John Broughton | Talk 19:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense to me, anyway. Terryeo 20:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me if I sound irritated, but I thought I made a lot of constructive, if minor, changes to the project page. I've also explained, above, why I added a step. No one who had initial objections has responded - and many of the changes I made were deleted from the project page.

Unless someone objects or comments here in the next 24 hours, I plan to start posting, one by one, the minor changes I think should be made to the wording on the project page that were deleted, so each is clearly differentiated. That will make it easier, I think, to see that the changes are both constructive and minor.John Broughton | Talk 15:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

As the editor who drafted the original version of the model, I regard those changes as a lot more than adding just one step. Most of the steps themselves were altered from informal to procedural. The consensus behind this guideline is that an editor is disruptive when a consensus of uninvolved Wikipedians agree that they are. When one editor insists the moon is made of green cheese at a science article, it's pointless to force the page's productive contributors to jump through a lot of hoops. The green cheese enthusiast isn't going to negotiate and the reasonable editors may quit in disgust. Durova 17:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it a lovely thought? "An editor is disruptive when a consensus of univolved Wikipedians agree that they are?" Lovely thought. They used to run whole towns in the old west in that manner. If they didn't like someone, a concensus of townspeople simply ran the sucker out of town. As recently as WW II, the United States Government, in consensus and without authority, rounded up everyone who looked oriental and put them into guarded camps. Lovely thought and it has historical precedent, too. Lovely. Terryeo 17:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Since anyone can return as an anonymous productive editor, the consensus involves behavior not persons; so the analogy fails. WAS 4.250 17:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the analogy fails because it overlooks the uninvolved requirement. This isn't vigilante justice. It's more like consulting the people of some other town or calling in United Nations observers. Durova 17:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

We're talking about editing an encyclopedia here, not rounding up people and sending them to camps. --EngineerScotty 18:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Precisely, we are talking about how to weed people out of our midst who have a tendency to interrupt our actions. My statement is not a disagreement, but an illistration of historical precedents of this action. "Consensus" has many advantages but police type actions is not one of them, such "weeding" actions tend to be punitive rather than rehabilitative. Which is why I comment on User:Durova's statement of original intent wherein he compares his original intent with what the project has become.

I'll state it in another way. It is wrong for a consensus of editors to be able to put their heads together for 30 seconds, decide they don't want User:xyz interrupting, and block him. Plain, stupid wrong. Our "due process" is in place for the excellent reasons that it creates the spirit of community, it takes a while, and it has a process of appeal. As the project now stands it is a good, solid project with broad agreement but if it becomes too streamlined (as User:Durova's statement seems to imply) then it will no longer contribute to Wikipedia's popularity. Terryeo 18:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I support Durova's comments above 100%. The whole point of starting this guideline was that "as the project now stands" wasn't effective at dealing with disruptive editors. We must protect our productive editors more than we get concerned about a few borderline disruptives. Nobody is sent being to jail and nobody has a right to edit Wikipedia any way they care to. There are also plenty "historical precedents" of authorities getting blocked by red tape, vetos and bureaucracy whilst watching folk shell civilians or commit genocide. Let's not get bogged down with analogies that aren't relevant here. Colin°^Talk 21:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A couple of points here. First, I wear a matching set of X chromosomes. Second, Terryeo contributed to this discussion during the drafting phase. I wish the decision had been unanimous, but Terry was one of the few dissenters, and I don't see any new facts or logic in the current thread. Durova 04:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Crank

I question the use of this word in section headings. What purpose does it serve that "disruptive" doesn't already address in a less inflammatory and more objective way? One example of how disruption might not always be crankery is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors. Among other things, an anonymous editor alleged that Australian colonialists massacred native people at a site in New South Wales. The assertion is possible but unreferenced. If I understand correctly, an archaeological investigation is underway. No editor absolutely denies that this could have happened; they just haven't located reliable sources (which might exist in print or in local archives). The crank epithet might not apply in that instance, but disruptive certainly does. After the ArbCom case opened the user's behavior deteriorated so this isn't so good an example today as it was a month ago. It's fair to say that all cranks are disruptive, but outside the hard sciences disruptive editors are not necessarily cranks. Durova 17:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the introduction of the word "crank" into wikipedian policy/guideline dialog will cause more trouble than it is worth. "Agressively disruptive" does the job far better. Descriptions and not labels. WAS 4.250 17:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It's already there, although I've voiced my opinion against it in the archives. I tried deleting it from a heading and another user reinserted it, so I'm leaving it up and discussing it again. Durova 17:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe Fred introduced the term. His introduction of "tendentious" into wikipedia psuedo-legalese dialog was likewise less than felicitous for quite different reasons. WAS 4.250 18:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the English word "crank" describes the situation quite well. In English, a crank is merely an eccentric, that is, someone who insists on being different from the consensus, especially someone who is zealous. I suggest that it is the duty of the Wikipedia community to describe compassionately in a section of WP:DE: Here is what you should do if you find the consensus calling you a "crank." The Wikipedia community must describe a safe harbor in which the "crank" can operate without the crank's sourced and significant NPOV being ripped out by the localized consensus faction arrayed in opposition against the "crank." After all, there are a lot of "cranks" in the world that Wikipedia has tasked itself to represent the significant views fairly and without bias. No one has ever before in the history of humanity come as close as Wikipedia to NPOV on the significant views. We have to design the system as we go. What's next? --Rednblu 18:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The irony here is killing me. FeloniousMonk 18:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

rofl. Terryeo 21:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

My concerns about the use of the word crank are also in the archive. I guess some find it less offensive than others. Colin°^Talk 21:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Just don't get all cranky about it. :) WAS 4.250 23:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Step 2: What to do when an editor unreverts

The current version reads, for step 2:

Post to talk page asking for discussion and/or sources. Revert again if no response, along with edit summary. (19 words).

I proposed (via an edit) that it be changed to:

Post to talk page asking for discussion and/or sources. Then revert again, and refer to talk page in the edit summary. (22 words)

Durova reverted my edit with the following explanation (edit summary): the alteration made the step more wordy and less clear. The appropriate point for another reversion is if an editor fails to join talk discussion.

To analyze the specifics of that reversion:

• more wordy: yes, it was 19 words and it's now 22 words, a net increase of three words. Is this really a serious objection??
• less clear: the current version (the one I want to change) is actually the less clear one. The second sentence (the only one I changed) now says Revert again if no response, along with edit summary. That wording raises an obvious question: how long should an editor wait for a response - a hour, 12 hours, a full day? And the words along with edit summary mean what? Editors are always supposed to use edit summaries - why even bother to say along with edit summary? By contrast, my suggested reversion has neither of these problems; the timing of the revert is obvious (immediately) and the wording makes it clear that the edit summary should specifically mention the talk page.
• The appropriate point for another reversion is if an editor fails to join talk discussion. Step 3 of the process says Attempt to engage new editor in dialog. So there already is an appropriate place in the process to respond to an editor who fails to join talk discussion. And if one is dealing with a disruptive editor, why should the policy say that the article should remain with a disruptive edit in it for a while (but for how long?).

SteveMcCluskey said, above, The Disruptive editing process was intended to be quick and informal As I noted in my edit summary, the wording change that I proposed makes the process faster and less formal, since step 2 no longer says that the editor should wait (again, how long?) before doing his/her second revert. If the change I want to make is in line with Steve's suggestion, why the insistence that the original version is perfectly worded as is? John Broughton | Talk 15:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing dialogue people. Wikipedia is as alive as discussion pages grow with healthy discussion. Terryeo 15:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You've already got my opinion on the matter. Let's see what the other editors say. Durova 17:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The other editors don't seem to be saying anything, not even about [an edit by another user that added more than 30 words to step 1 of the process]. Since this talk page discussion seems to have failed to resolve the differing opinions on my proposed rewording of step 2, it appears that the next step is Wikipedia:Requests for comment or a similar dispute resolution process. I don't have a preference; if there is no further response, I'll probably start an RfC in a week or so. John Broughton | Talk 17:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

comments about this article

On first glance, this article appears to have a huge weakness. The entire article, its entire foundation, is based on the term of "fringe". The term fringe is an opinion.

What maybe fringe me may not be fringe to you. What is fringe today, may not have been fringe before, or in the future. What is fringe to Americans, may not be fringe to another culture.

This wiki guideline (thankfully it is not a policy) is inviting wikipedia to be even more ethnocentric than it already is. I can see a real Slippery slope with this policy, this policy being abused by editors, in a "might makes right" argument.

Please keep in mind, I am not advocating that wikipedians should not follow WP:OR or anything of that nature. Please see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias

Signed: Travb (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The definition of "fringe" is simple. How is well is a hypothesis accepted by the experts in the relevant field? I agree that "fringe" my change--plate tectonics was once a fringe theory; and it was once considered a settled matter that the sun resolved around the earth. But that's OK. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; we do not need to anticipate which theories which are today considered fringe, will become accepted in the future. If the state of a given theory changes, the encyclopedia changes to reflect that. Wikipedia should primarily focus on the state of knowledge today, may and should document the past when appropriate, but should avoid speculating on the future.

In some cases, systemic bias is a good thing. I'm not at least troubled that academic and scholarly sources are "biased" against crackpots.

• --EngineerScotty 05:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I respect your viewpoint, and I can see where you are coming from. Let me see if I understand your position. You seem to be equating "fringe" and "crank" with science. Whereas I have a broader definition of "fringe" and "crank", and I would hazzard to guess that most editors who read this article would take a more expansive view then simply science.

A little more background may be necessary to let you understand my viewpoint. I edit mostly political articles. And the majority of my views on the US are considered "fringe" to wikipedians, the majority who are Americans. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. So the definition of "fringe" to me is not as cut and dry as it maybe to other wikipedians. I would give several examples, but I don't want editors to get hung up on examples, and forget my main point here.

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; we do not need to anticipate which theories which are today considered fringe, will become accepted in the future.

I am not suggesting that we do. I am a firm believer in WP:V WP:NOR and WP:RS. Since many of my viewpoints would be considered "fringe" viewpoints, in the minority, I exhastively research every one of my points. I attempt to use sources which are almost irrefutable, such as senate reports, etc. Yet, from what I read in this article, my political contributions are considered "fringe" and should be dealt with administratively, simply because I have views which are not in the wikipedian majority (i.e. American).

IF this article is only meant to deal with science, as your response only focuses on, then maybe this article would be clearer if we explain clearly that this article is only are talking about sceince and scientific wikiarticles. Although the examples in this article are only sceintific examples, my query here shows that this pages intention, as it is currently written, is probably confusing to other editors (in fact, I came here because another editor mentioned this article on the village pump page, in a discussion about politics).

I look forward to your response User:EngineerScotty. Thanks for your comments. Travb (talk) 10:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The guideline goes beyond science, but it does tend to focus on academic topics where a clear locus of opinion can be reasonably found from reliable sources. Generally, political issues are another matter altogether; political thought which is documented in reliable sources is, per NPOV, OK to present in the enyclopedia. (Such opinions should never be stated as fact, and rants which are little more than unsubstantiated opinion are not welcome, whatever the source). And keep in mind; this is the English-language Wikipedia, not the US Wikipedia. Don't let large numbers of us yanks stop you from enjoying the place. :_ --EngineerScotty 16:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this guideline goes beyond science. As the archives show, my main experience with disruptive editors has been on history articles. Durova 17:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Re reversion of edits

RE: reversion of edits how does one go about making a case for changes?

There seems to be other independent editors with the same concerns as I have.[3] #Crank #1 #2

Please discuss all edits on the talk page, particularly reverts.

Thanks in advance. Travb (talk) 10:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with taking the word crank out of the article. Your edits were more extensive than that. Durova 17:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

On second thought: I support this page

I read over the archive, and I really think that this page has its real merits. These two comments from Durova and EngineerScotty and JzG's excellent , but oddly named essay Wikipedia:Tendentious editing is what convinced me that this is a commendable project.

I guess I am worrying too much about a slippery slope as many other editors have in this talk page archives.

I won't be responding to posts here.

I still support my edits which were reverted, but I won't fight for them to stay.

I hope this policy doesn't come back and bite me or other well meaning editors in the ass, but with editors like Durova, JzG, and EngineerScotty watching this page and the development of the policy, that shouldn't be a problem. Travb (talk) 11:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, we found it challenging to develop a fair standard. One of my primary concerns was to insulate this against exploitation. We didn't want to drive out legitimate contributors who held minority views (and cited them appropriately), yet we also didn't want Wikipedia to be a soapbox for editors who ignored content policies (and an unwieldy dispute resolution process was de facto making it that on some articles). Durova 14:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Returning more than a week later...I'd like to address the challenge of systemic bias. I happen to have a cup of green tea beside me as I write this. In the United States, where I live, the notion that green tea may have health benefits is euphemistically termed "alternative." However, a number of Japanese population studies have linked the consumption of six or more cups of green tea a day with lower rates of a variety of cancers. This type of tea appears to contain a mild antioxidant. Any editor may go to the green tea article, cite those peer reviewed sources, and WP:DE would protect them from the allopathic-Western-medicine-posse (I don't know if such a posse really exists but let's suppose it does). This proposal was crafted specifically to protect that kind of editor while weeding out the individuals who make it a personal mission to tell the world the moon is made of green cheese. Durova^Charge! 16:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

He he! Most of WikiProject Medicine's participants have been accused of being members of that posse. I agree with Durova - the careful editor has nothing to fear from this guideline. Sadly, medicine gets its fair share of disruptive editors. BTW: that green tea article's heath benefits section is currently a textbook example on the use of poor sources and abuse of good sources. Colin°^Talk 17:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see...

Wikipedia:Notability (science), yet another proposal. --EngineerScotty 19:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

What if?

Hi.

I saw this:

"...Only when editors show themselves unwilling or unable to set issues aside and work harmoniously with others, for the benefit of the project, should they be regarded as irredeemable, and politely but firmly removed."

In my opinion, nobody is incapable of changing themselves or doing the right thing. It's all a question of what they want to do. Do they really want to make the hard effort it takes to become a good person? What if someone gets "removed", but then decides finally to grow up and change? Is it possible for them to ever come back? At all?

Also, what would happen if somebody got banned, then decided to ignore the ban, refusing block after block but each edit they put in was positive, and they were trying to change and move away from whatever the "bad thing" that got them into trouble was?

Just a curiosity question, by the way.

170.215.83.212 00:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy. WAS 4.250 05:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Quotation from NPOV

I recently edited the quotation from NPOV, which had only partially presented a summary statement of the policy. The version before my change said:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.

This quotation omitted an important qualification to that policy, which I inserted, (quoting a later version of the policy which had also made a minor change from reliable source to verifiable source).

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all.

The "important qualification" derives from Jimbo Wales' statement:

If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then _whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not_, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancilliary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.

User:WAS 4.250 reverted to the truncated version, I have, in turn, reverted to the complete version to more adequately reflect the NPOV policy and its interactions with NOR. --SteveMcCluskey 15:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV gives its summary (nutshell) as :"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias." Your excerpt from the "Undue weight" sub-sub-section gives undue weight to a poorly phrased sentence implying Wikiality (populaity decides truth) and thus you are disruptivly editing this policy and thus ipso factoid must be banned forever ... no just kidding about that last part. But I do believe that the nutshell summary should be used rather than your handpicked quote from the bowels of the policy. WAS 4.250 03:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I was not the one who, in your terms, "handpicked [a] quote from the bowels of the [NPOV] policy." When this quote was originally addedto the guideline, it was handpicked from NPOV, but without the important qualification that relates NPOV to the NOR policy.

You implied I was arguing that popularity decides truth. As the Verifiability policy says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." As Jimbo said in the quotation above, that threshold is based on demonstrating whether a viewpoint is held and published by a substantial number of experts in the field.

Since this guideline began its life, in part, as a way to enforce the NOR policy against those advocating minority points of view against the consensus of experts in the field, it is essential that the "important qualification" be included in the quotation that User:Durova selected from NPOV. --SteveMcCluskey 16:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, this is pretty tardy, but Steve has a good point. The crux of whether someone can adapt to the site or needs to get booted often hinges on whether they grasp that specific part of WP:NPOV. I'd rather reform editors and keep them than implement sitebans so let's extend them the courtesy of highlighting exactly what they need to understand. Durova^Charge! 06:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)