User talk:Light current/archive14

User nicknames

I'm going to be blunt about my take on the name shortenings. When we (I and others) use a shortened or abbreviated username it usually is because we feel that we are not so much abbreviating to save keystrokes but to introduce a bit of informality, "coolness" (not coldness) and a gesture of friendliness. I certainly feel a measure of all of those components when I refer to you as Lc or to HappyCamper as HC or to StuRat as Stu. The problem comes in when the abbreviation does little or nothing to convey any of those positive attributes and instead comes across as disingenuous or even as an attempt to side-handedly aim a bit of a slight towards the user that is being addressed or referred to. Now the real nastiness comes about when the abbreviation is called to your attention as being less than complimentary and you defend your use of the abbreviation. Again, to be blunt here, that defense should never be anyone's position. For example, If someone thought it clever to refer to me "Hyd" for whatever reason (thick as hide or cowardly hyding) then its meaning would obviously not be intended as a compliment. It would be unseemly for me to criticize you for that usage but someone may come along and whisper (OK, yell) that you shouldn't be using that shortened (Hyd) reference. That being the case one should never persist in its usage by defending that (put your own reasoning here) and that there is nothing to be inferred by its usage; that's not obtuse, that's pretending obtuseness and all can see it as such no matter the degree of your protest. A user's wiki-name should be respected as an extension of that user's persona and ought not be screwed around with no matter how innocently you declare your intention. If anyone brings it up then stop. Thanks for taking the time to read this whether you agree or not. --hydnjo talk 20:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Did I not stop it after it was pointed out?

The problem comes in when the abbreviation does little or nothing to convey any of those positive attributes and instead comes across as disingenuous or even as an attempt to side-handedly aim a bit of a slight towards the user that is being addressed or referred to.

How do tell positive from negative attribution? Is that a matter of judgement perhaps? Actually all my nicknames like Hippo, Chairy, TOAT were either used as abbrevs. or used in a friendly manner (or both). Of course I cant prove that. But you cant prove they werent. I should be given the benefit of any doubt here. Your name is not worth abbeviating. Joe :-(--Light current 20:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately you did not stop when it was pointed out. Calling Rockpocket "Freshman" was not intended in a friendly way though, was it? You were trying to belittle his abilities by alleging he has a low edit count (I care so little about whether that is true that I have not even checked). When you did that, immediately after your last clock for incivility and name-calling expired, it was the equivalent of saying "block me". I was gobsmacked; if you recall, I was talking (fairly politely I think) to you about another matter when I saw it unfold. Can't you edit here without insulting and belittling other people? Please think about it; nobody here has it in for you (at least I certainly don't); we just want you to edit nicely. Good luck and best wishes, --Guinnog 21:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I implied he was fresh yes (compared to me: because he is). He was implying he had more experience and better judgement than I. He doesnt! Hes a relative newbie admin

It was obviously not pointed out by the people whose names I was abbreviating. No one except the person involved has the right to tell be what to call other editors, unless the names I use are obviously offensive.Guinnog--Light current 21:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Quality of edits and interaction is more important than number of edits, you know that (for the record Rockpocket has Mainspace: 2935; Talk: 920 and User talk: 1022 edits). So to call him freshman, therefore, was a fallacious argument. It could even be considered an argument from authority (snide) or an ad hom (attack), depending on how one interprets it. You try and fly under the radar with calculated risk but fail to factor in the repetition element. Anyone can see how you cleverly use the language as a tool to defeat the rules. Your real problem is the rules are not written in stone and the admins are free to interpret your volleys for what they are, as opposed to what you claim they are. If you are really the mistreated editor with an innocence of English then I'm afraid this may be a long ride since it is clear you are sending mixed messages with your current vernacular. David D. (Talk) 22:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

So have you looked at my first (say) 20000 edits at all?--Light current 22:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, i have. It's good stuff, which is why i think it is a shame that your time is being wasted. But that does not mean rockpocket is not experienced. I cannot condone the use of the term freshman to make your point. I think it is invalid as I explained above. I probably would not have blocked you for it, but i can see why you were blocked for it. David D. (Talk) 22:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

So what phrase would you have used? 'Some one who is relatively inexperienced?' What the bloody diff? Some peole round here are so damn sensitive it makes me want to puke.!--Light current 23:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the exchange again, Light current. Where exactly did I "imply" I had "more experience" than you? I can assure you, I implied no such thing. I was explaning to you why demanding things of others is considered impolite. (If you chose to infer something else from that, then I am sorry, but that is outwith my control). In this regard, the amount of time I have been an administrator is irrelevent and the number of edits you (or I) have made is irrelevent (Do honestly think having the ability to hit the save page button automatically affords you respect, experience or judegement? Do you think the many edits you have made, today alone, in asking rhetorical questions to try and justify a WP:POINT, demonstrates that edit count = good judgement?) Rockpocket 22:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I inferred it from your Tone using my judgement. I didnt demand anything. The amount of time you have been an administrator is highly relevent. You are inexperienced at the game. (As I would be if Id only been there 3 months) Im afraid you miss the point again completely on edits. No of edits = experience (which tends to lead to better judgement than freshmen). I have more edits than you. Please reviwe the forst 20000 or so to see what editing is all about. I'll put that down to your lack of experience. 8-(--Light current 22:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinion, Light current. However my judgement (which was endorsed by community consensus at WP:RfA), tells me your judgement (which has earned you 6 or 7 blocks so far) in continuing to push this freshman angle is lacking. Take somr advice from this "newbie": if you don't quite this soon you will find your block extended. Rockpocket 23:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Aha1 Run out of arguments have we? So resort to blocking (BTW on what grounds this time? Incivility perhaps). How novel!.

Blocks for general incivility are controversial; "cool-down" blocks are very controversial. Consider whether a 1-hour block will result in 2 months' drama. See Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. You bet!--Light current 18:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Lc, this isn't a matter of proving intention at all. That's the point, since intention can't be proved then the nickname should be avoided when attention is called to it. A totally non-controversial abbreviation would by definition never be brought up. Again, by definition, if it is brought up then it is controversial and its usage ought to be stopped. There is no room for argument or defence about this - if a nickname is objected to by anyone then that nickname ought not to be used. The only exception that comes to mind would be if the user comes forward and condones the nickname. --hydnjo talk 21:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, I have no objection personally to anyone referring to me as Joe. There may be objection however from another user who has already been using that "nickname".  ;-) --hydnjo talk 21:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

So how is anyone to read the mind of all 1000 admins to avoid cuasing possible offesnse to those who are not actually involved in the convo. Are you real on this? The mind boggles.--Light current 21:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Lc, I (for one) am definitely "real" on this. I (for one) see no defense for nicknaming (or screwing around) with a username abbreviation once it has been brought to controversy by anyone since the user in question is hardly likely to object personally. Wouldn't you agree? --hydnjo talk 22:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No not really. Whos screwing. I might not take offence at you calling me Lc, but an admin , thinking you had some sort of grudge against me might see that abbrev. as namecalling. do you see that?--Light current 22:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No I don't and if you do then you may indeed be on your own way as you and others would certainly come forward to defend my usage of Lc in reference to you:

There's a sign on the wall but (s)he wants to be sure

And you know sometimes words have two meanings...

--hydnjo talk 22:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If thats a quote from somewhere, tell me where. If not plaes explaing the meaning.--Light current 22:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean you aren't familiar with Led Zeppelin? Their song "Stairway to Heaven" must be one of the most famous and most-played popular songs of all time. Personally I don't like it, but the point I think Hydnjo is making is that you are playing with the meanings of words. Let me put it to you like this: if you were to say that you abhor your name being shortened to LC for some reason, I would respect that. Nobody is going to buy the idea that it is on a par with ridiculing an admin for only having ~3k mainspace edits, when you have just come back from a block for namecalling. Please either accept that you are blocked and sit it out, think about your behaviour that led to the block, and come back with a better attitude, or else challenge your block in the proper way. --Guinnog 23:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont listed to crap! (esp the words) 8-(

I think that this is the "crap" that Guinnog and I were referring to.  :-) --hydnjo talk 23:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats right. Very little (if any ) musical content cf BB or Jazz.--Light current 23:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I DIDNT CALL ANY DAMN NAMES. I used nicknames. If you cant see that I really do despair. If words are not defined than they are open to multiple interpretations. Yes. You must use your judgements as to what they mean. Is your judgement superior to the person who wrote the post and knew what they meant?--Light current 23:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Joe's input/comments

Lc, I'm really going out on a limb here and becoming a bit idealistic (OK, a lot idealistic) with this example. Knowing full well that you are not a particular fan of contemporary rock music, I'm using this for illustration only. So, please take a look at these guys backstage (think RD talk) and with that reinforcement amongst themselves, they go onstage (think the RD desks) to do their best.

This is what I'm talking about (if that link doesn't work try this one and select the first video, a treasure, I can almost imagine you playing bass up there), a camaraderie amongst themselves (backstage), think ourselves (on RD talk), that surely enhances their effectiveness (onstage). Now, for my take: the more energy we expend "backstage" then the less energy we have left-over for this project's mission: A Reference Desk.

That of course is broad and over-generalized but, not too far off the mark. Good editors are fearful of deleting crap and trolls are serving it up! A surprise, no not at all. I'm certainly not advocating against discussion at RD talk, rather I'm suggesting that some seem to be staking out positions (t)here that seems to me to be more like claiming "squatters rights" at the RD. I don't believe that it is healthy for us to be cast in an "us" and "them" position because for one thing it corrals some of us into an artificial position. Our positions here are much more (I hope) nuanced than that.

Please consider this message without prejudice as that is how it is intended; I'll continue to consider all argument on your behalf or against your position with an open mind and I know that you'll read all of this similarly. Still :-) --hydnjo talk 00:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually dont think there is a great degree of correleation between backstage relations and on stage performance in the bands I have played in. 8-)--Light current 01:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes the Eagles have harmony.--Light current 01:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

My point exactly, harmony isn't restricted to music - I was just showing that to you as a metaphor for my view of how an "ideal" RD would work. Working out the kinks "backstage" and giving the OPs a run from our best rather than the other way 'round. I harbor no ill will against anyone here ('specially you Lc) and think that the casual OP (well, not one of us of course) should be amazed by us and not confused by our squabbling. I'd go on but I think that you get the point. --hydnjo talk 01:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You may not have noticed, but Im not actually doing much discussion these days. most of my time is spent fending off stupid accustaios of incivility , name calling, disruption, farting before an admin (I didnt know it wwas his turn1 8-)) etc.--Light current 01:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Fan Mail

From Ned Wilbury

An apology is good. But wouldn't it be better to avoid the behavior that leads to the blocks to begin with? All editors must be able to collaborate with each other- this is a group project. I have known you to be reasonable in the past, so please try to put disagreements behind you in this case. Remember to work toward an acceptable consensus, not disagree for disagreement's sake. Ned Wilbury 02:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I am reasonable. I was blocked before I was told what the problem word was. I didnt mean it to be offensive. As for the nicknames, well thats just an excuse as there are no guidelines saying they cant be used, and I had no compliants. I really think Admins should try to follow the agreed policy on blocking people and not make it up as they go along. The policy is on this page for anynoe who has difficulty finding it. 8-)--Light current 02:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Being reasonable is good. Make sure, though, that you do not lapse into the same kind of behavior that lead to your recent block. How would it look to others if you came off a block and started doing the same things again? A general attitude of incivility is what's not accepted here- it's not about using one particular word or another. If you get a 24-hour block and don't use the opportunity to cool down a bit, you're only giving people reason to try a longer block. Ned Wilbury 16:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. It was one word that got me blocked. That word was schitzoid in describing friday. If you know differnt, pls advise. THe only interpretation of incivilty was in my using the word schizoid to describe friday. What other examples of incivilty did you notice? 8-(--Light current 16:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

One word may indicate you've gone overboard, but damn. Do you not understand that the editors here expect people to work together in a civil way? You were just tweaking those you see as adversaries- how else do you explain it? I also see you removed the block notice, then put big letters on your page complaining that you were "unfairly" blocked for "some unknown" reason. This is not mature behavior - frankly, it's something I'd expect from a child. As for incivility, a quick glance at your contributions after the block shows this example of a combative, straw man argument, and here where you're suggesting the problem is not your behavior, but rather that other people are "anal retentive". Wasn't it brought to your attention just recently that you should refrain from offering mental diagnoses of other editors? You've been blocked a dozen times, yet every time you insist it's anyone's fault but your own? Again, this is not adult behavior. If you're trying to push the boundaries, I suppose you've succeeded, but do you expect people to extend such patience to you indefinitely? Ned Wilbury 16:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see reply to Ten below. This should address all your points--Light current 21:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't- the way I read it, your reply below is just nitpicking about the trees, and failing to see the forest. For what it's worth, accusing editors of duplicity isn't very civil either. If you really cannot see for yourself when you're being uncivil, why not just take other people's word for it, and cut it out when they ask you to? You even misrepresented your block here- as Ten apparently took the time to explain to you in email, it wasn't for "one word". Seriously, do you understand how this is going to look to other editors? If you keep doing what you're doing without changing your approach, do you honestly expect different results? Ned Wilbury 23:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want an argument, you are going to be disappointed EOC!--Light current 23:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course I don't want an argument- I was more aiming for understanding. By the way, I don't know what many of the abbreviations you use mean, including "EOC". Ned Wilbury 23:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Good! Use your vivid imagination. Definitely EOC! Bye for now--Light current 23:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

He means "end of conversation" (which, incidently, is another example of a lack of politeness when dealing with other editors). Rockpocket 00:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is that impolite? You surely have a thin skin if you think so!! EOT (work that one out)

It is impolite because a conversation is a two (or more) way dialogue. By declaring EOC you are imposing a decision on your correspondent. If you do not wish to discuss a matter further, you could always try and write "I do not wish to discuss the matter further". This informs us that you do not wish to communicate without demanding the same of us. Making demands of others is lacking in politeness. Your posts of the last few days have left me wondering if you are either entirely lacking in empathy or being purposefully antagonistic. As I have yet to meet an editor on WP who manages to misjudge the basic tenets of polite communication quite so regularly. Rockpocket 01:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I am entirely lacking in empathy. 8-) I had it removed as a child. WTD between EOC and "I do not wish to discuss a matter further".?--Light current 01:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you even bother reading what I'd written in your haste to type out a "witty" retort? The difference is is explained clearly above. Rockpocket 03:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly no diff. Except that EOC is quicker. EOC 8-)--Light current 16:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Also how many editors have you actually dealt with to have gained such great experience i wonder? [1]--Light current 00:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Your point being? Rockpocket 01:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think my point is rather obvious, dont you, Freshman? 8-)--Light current 01:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd composed a reply querying whether you believe the community would corrolate your 22000+ edit count with good judgement. However, you appear to have been blocked (again) for the above comment, which, I guess, answers my question. My intention was not to incite you into another block, but its becoming evermore obvious that any attempt to encourage you to improve your communication technique simply results in further namecalling. I'm going to do you a favour and inform you that I do not wish to discuss this matter further, if only to save you from yourself. Rockpocket 03:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank Christ for that! Thats one less tedious Admin I have to respond to! --Light current 23:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

How do you define namecalling. Calling you a freshman was to indicate your rather poor number of edits to have any experience.Calling you a name that is not your own but still applies like Admin? OK Admin. Again you miss the point completely that there is no substitute for experience. Judgement probably does improve with experience. Thats why most legal judges (IMC) are very experienced and old! The poblem with people who have little experience is that they thinkn they have superior judgement to those with greater experience. I wonder why?--Light current 13:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

From Ten of All trades

Incidentally, it wasn't just one word, as Light current knows. I'll quote below a portion of an email that I sent to him when he asked (by email) to explain why he had been blocked after the warnings he received.

Between the initial warnings and advice from several editors and your most recent block, you chose to repeat the namecalling ('Hippo') and accusations of mental illness ('schizoid').

Use of the term Hippo was not namecalling as I have explained about 5 times now. That was a nickname for him to which he did not object. The term 'schitoid' was used in error by me. When I determined the proper sense of the word I immediately replaced it. I think you yourself commented on AN/I that i was 'busy' changing it'

For bonus incivility points, you also accused Friday of 'duplicity' for the heinous crime of softening his position so that it more closely aligned with your own. You're using a mocking diminutive of Chairboy ('chairy').

Fridays position I dont think does closely align with mine. And Im extremely suspicious of his motives here for coming out with 2 mutually contradictary statements within 3 hours of each other. That is why I used the term duplicity. Perhaps there is a better one- I cant thikn of one ATM/.

For Chairboy see reply to Hipocrite accusation.

Finally, since your block you erased the explanatory message that I left on your talk page, and placed a banner message suggesting that you were blocked unfairly and without reason.

I felt the block was unfair becasue of the reasons I ve stated above,

In other words, he was blocked for a pattern of incivility toward Friday and other editors, and was informed of that fact. To continue to insist that he was blocked for 'one word' is incorrect. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

NC --Light current 21:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC) EOS--Light current 00:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

From Rockpocket

Light Current. I detected no conflict or acrimony in our dialogue in response to you original post and, since you asked a number of questions of administrators, felt that you would welcome a response. Yet you archived our discussion just 28 minutes after your posted a response. I take it you consider our dialogue over, yet oddly you chose not to archive your original post. Is that because you are hoping to canvas admin opinions that are favourable to you, while removing those that are not saying what you want to hear? Since archives are meant to remain an unedited record, I'm not going to reply in your archive. But I wonder if you have considered how such rapid archiving may be interpreted by other editors who attempt to converse with you in good faith? Its the accumulative burden of such small, antagonistic gestures that results in blocks that, to you, appear unwarranted. I would advise a reappraisal of your overall stance towards other editors - start treating them as colleagues rather than opponents and you will find a lot more good will in return. If you manage to antagonise an administrator even when pleading to be unblocked, I don't hold out much hope for your long term future here. Rockpocket 03:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearing decks for next round. No offence. I ve put it back below now. BTW which Admin did I antagonise whilst pleading?--Light current 03:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Also as with any talk page, one is allowed to copy the relevant bit from the archive to the active talk page for further discussion. But Im sure you knew that!--Light current 04:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. If you regularly refactor your talkpage that quickly then I'm sorry for assuming your archiving of our discussion has specific significance. I didn't want to move it back myself and risk further conflict. I was referring to the archiving as being potentially antagonistic (to me). As it is, I accept you meant no harm and I'm sorry for making a big deal about it. But - for future reference - it might be worth noting that a lot of people do find the rapid deletion/archiving of (what they consider to be) an ongoing conversation antagonistic. It might be worth giving dialogue a little longer before you archive to avoid that impression.

I don't want to sound patronising here, but I had been quite impressed with the moderate position you had taken in your editing over the last few weeks. Which made it all the more perplexing to me when I noted your, rather out of immediate character, criticism of Friday. I think a lot of people responded to that because it seems pretty illogical - and, for you faults, that isn't something I would consider you to be. If you want to stand by that, well thats up to you, but I can't help but wonder if there was something else that precipitated it. As it feels more like a reaction of frustration to me, than a considered position based on logic. Just a thought. Anyhow, I've had my say now so feel free to archive this (and our discussion) at your convenience and I hope to see you back editing again soon. Rockpocket 07:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

'Lightning' archive explanation

Whilst blocked, my talk page got upto 47k. You cant archive when you are blocked. So, as soon as I became unblocked I took the chance to archive and start on a fresh sheet so to speak. Im sorry if I gave you the impression that I did not want you to comment further. I just thought you probably had no more to say so I archived having read your post. I did not arch my original post because I wanted to keep the blocking policy material there for futher discussion. Your post was more to do with recent issues rather than the general one of blocking policy that I want to keep alive on this page.

That was an oversight on my part. I should have archived the whole thing or left the whole thing.

Now, if you are a frequent vistor to my talk page, youll see that I only delete posts if they are in the wrong place and they are disagreeable/not worth keeping. Almost all of the critical posts are kept visible on the page until archiving time. Normally I archive at more obvious and convenient (for others) times when the page gets above about 32 k.

I shall reply more fully on my interpretation of Fridays stance in due course.

Actually I dont think Ill bother. Its all here and there fir you to find and I dont think any further exposition of the incident is going to do me or anyone any good. Plus I dont want to spend all my time answering critics. Thats why I stopped answering Q s on the RDs. It seems some people will not be happy until I have been driven off WP compeletely 8-(

From Rockpocket

The problem, Light current, is that concern was expressed about your comments before you were blocked, yet you didn't take that opportunity to express regret or withdraw the comment. That only happened after you were blocked. Prior to the block, your attitude was defient and you invented - for the first time - nicknames for each and every individual editor that expressed concern. I interpreted that as an attempt at belittlement. I'm sure you will argue that wasn't your intention - and perhaps so - but in future you may wish to choose a more opportune time to adopt mass terms of endearment.

Taken with your previous history, the interpretation I (and i'm sure others) make is that you do not regret attacking Friday at all, you simply don't wish to be blocked anymore. In addition, claims of admin abuse will rarely help your cause. Admins are entrusted with using their judgement to deal with situations. Because a specific incident in isolation doesn't, in your opinion, warrant a block does not mean the blocking admin is abusing his position. Instead the accumulative weight of disruptive editing and personal attacks may be taken into account. Its unfortunate that your past record counts against you, but if you will repeat a personal attack on the same person as you did before, and ignore a warning from the editor that unblocked you previously, is it surprising that form will be considered? My advice to you is to sit this one out, then comeback and prove to us all you regret attacking Friday by not doing so again. Rockpocket 01:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The comment calling Friday a schitoid was a mistake. I misinterpreted the meaning of the word. Apparently it means severly mentally ill or someone who has no touch with reality or something.. I wasnt suggesting that. I was suggesting that Friday seemed to hold (and was pushing) two diametrically opposite views at the same time and that that position deserves no respect and is untanable. When I realised the problem word I immediately removed it and I apologised. THe problem was that Ten, not having heard from me (as I had been out) probably thought I was ignoring things.--Light current 01:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Your chance to define 'disruption'

Lets see what everybody thinks its means! Please add your defns here:

Noitpursid backwards. Re: your block. I like your banter on the Science reference desk (only place I've come across you). Parts of this current campaign do remind me a bit of "The Crucible" and some people shouldn't be given a little bit of power because they won't be able to stop themselves from using it. But (there's always a but!) some of your comments (the photography one spring to mind) are offkey. Does it really matter? (When people are vandalising the place with "This is shit!" etc.) I don't know (I'm not an administrator.) Anyway, look forward to seeing you back.Mmoneypenny 01:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If a person's actions, by themselves, make it difficult to edit or enjoy the project, that's disruption. If you simply get distracted by them, or if people are choosing to respond to the individual, then it isn't disruption. I think the key sentence is, "Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it is disruption." It's the difference between a bully and a troublemaker. A troublemaker may stand there and be objectionable, but you have the choice to walk away, ignore him, and enjoy your life. If you get upset and feel "disrupted" by him, that's YOUR fault. But a bully won't let you walk away. And that is the difference. If people are choosing to be disrupted, then you can't call the instigator "disruptive." Disruptive: Erasing large amounts of text, adding large amounts of nonsense text, messing with system functions, etc Not disruptive: Expressing anger or frustration, disagreeing with an admin, expressing an unpopular opinion, questioning an admin's judgment, etc.
Tragic romance 17:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

WP 'Blocking policy' defn of disruption

Disruption:

A user may be blocked when their conduct severely disrupts the project — their conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia.

Disagreements over content or policy are not disruption, but rather part of the normal functioning of Wikipedia and should be handled through dispute resolution procedures. Blocks for disruption should only be placed when a user is in some way making it difficult for others to contribute to Wikipedia.

Sysops may block IP addresses or usernames that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia, or pose a sufficiently severe threat to it. Examples include (but are not limited to):

• Vandalism
• Excessive reverts (3RR)
• Inappropriate usernames
• Abusive sockpuppet accounts
• "Public" accounts, where the password is publicly available or shared with a large group
• Anonymous and open proxies
• Bots must have prior approval on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval and may be blocked if an admin thinks they are malfunctioning in a damaging way

my italics.--Light current 00:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Extract form WP:DIS

Disrupting Wikipedia is a serious offense, blockable under Wikipedia's blocking policy. Wikipedians want to produce a comprehensive, correct encyclopedia, and disrupting the mechanisms we have in place to ensure that we are working towards that goal makes us very very mad.

Because of the extremely negative connotation the word "disruption" has on Wikipedia, it is tempting every now and then to use the word to refer to certain acts that, while they should not have been committed, do not actually disrupt anything, either. Please try to avoid this.

For instance, one user gratuitously insulting another user, while inappropriate, is not disruptive. Neither is simple small-scale vandalism.

Furthermore, don't cause actual disruption in an effort to fix a perceived disruption. An excellent example of this is the Great Userbox War of 2006; several users who claimed userboxes were disruptive, set about deleting and trying to stop further creation of such userboxes. The ensuing fight was orders of magnitude more disruptive than any supposed disruption for which the userbox opponents were able to provide evidence. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it is disruption. Disruption is a large-scale hindrance of Wikipedia's ability to function, whether technically, administratively, or socially. An insult, or even a string of insults targeted at several users, does not do this.

Certainly, acts which, taken by themselves, are not disruptive may be part of of a larger disruptive act.