Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Disruptive editing page.|
|Threads older than 300 days may be archived by.|
"Gutting" an article during deletion discussion
I've created an essay on Gutting an article during deletion discussion.
You may find it interesting reading at: User:Cirt/Gutting.
Encouraging rather than discouraging open discussion
The Failure_or_refusal_to_."get_the_point. section says "Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting, for example, by continuing to say they don't understand what the problem is." Yet, that was the section sighted as a reason to censor a discussion where I was asking that those who "don't understand what the problem is" to allow people who do understand what the problem is to discuss the problem without intimidation.
Perhaps something should be added to that section, explaining that when a person is trying to make a point, repeatedly telling that person that their point has already been addressed and they should drop the subject is not likely to produce any positive results, since if the person's concerns really had been fully addressed, they would probably no longer feel concerned.
Isn't the idea behind this whole community editing concept to allow the process to evolve into something better as time goes by, rather than to simply enforce stagnation and silence concerns?
Case in point. No sooner had I posted the above, then the following section was already delected... Talk:Evolution&oldid=649193220#Plea_for_open_discussion (The link is into the history.)
So why is it that my pleas for honesty and open discussion are treated with such hostility? I'm not the only person to have voiced such concerns, but I can easily see why people are so scared to speak openly about them. Is that the way it's supposed to be here? Or should we be trying to evolve something better, as I have been suggesting?
- Donald, as I said before, it's a two-way road, and you have to try to meet people half way. It is not a one-way road for you to keep saying the same thing over and over and expect people to come to you.
- Other editors, please see DonaldKronos's topic ban discussion. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- I have tried that repeatedly, and given up. No two-way road is available to me. This is exactly why I had suggested that someone who disagrees with me please encourage people who agree with me to discuss openly why they are concerned. The idea, as I had outlined, was that I and those who have treated me (and those anyone agreeing with me) with ridicule and censorship, could also step back, and let people other than me who see value in my concerns (if any would still come forward) discuss their concerns.
- Of course, as soon as I suggested that, I was censored, again.... even though I was basically volunteering to censor myself, if someone would just show the slightest sign of good faith. Should I act surprised?
- DonaldKronos (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- What you are ultimately asking for is an echo chamber, with faux-polite demands that those who disagree with you not engage in further discussion, so that you can create a pseudo-consensus without adjusting your goals to work with others. You have made no attempt to go down the two-way road, you have only stayed at your end and kept making the same calls. As has been said before, we're assuming good faith from you, you've just left us with little reason to assume that you are capable of collaboration. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- DonaldKronos (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
In case anyone wonders, Suggestion for Improved Accuracy is the section on the evolution page that was marked "Protracted WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT" and hidden from view, after I asked for those who disagree with me to at least allow those who agree with me to speak openly, rather than scaring them away.
Yes, it is the evolution page, and it's associated disambiguation which I have been asking for honesty on. Many people understand my concerns and have timidly expressed agreement, but others feel I have no legitimate concern, and are quick revert even a single word clarification and ridicule my idea that a definition of biological evolution should be labeled as such, or at least qualified with "in the context of biology" if it is to be passed off as a definition of evolution.
Do wiki pages not evolve? I think they do, and I am not alone in this. Note: They are not biological.
Many people look to Wikipedia only for confirmation bias to confirm such claims as "evolution is only about biology", and will not read the next line once they have encountered a definition stating that "Evolution is the change in heritable traits of biological organisms over successive generations due to natural selection and other mechanisms.", or that "Evolution, also known as descent with modification, is the change in heritable phenotype traits of biological populations over successive generations.". One of those is from the top of the disambiguation page. Can you tell which one without looking it up? Does either allow for the evolution of a wiki page? I think not... and neither do the people who have worked so hard to censor the fact that evolution is ubiquitous, and not restricted to biology only.
- For the record, your proposed changes actually do fit into my personal beliefs. I believe that the universe is driven by a chaos of divine origin, that opposing it is at best pointless, and that it manifests as different kinds of change or evolutions. However, I do not confuse these religious beliefs for science, as you do. You have continually failed to provide any sources that explicitly state there is an overarching force of evolution of which various processes called evolution are dependent manifestations thereof, and only seem to be making what you do not realize is an appeal to religious belief.
- Again, I agree that there the different kinds of evolution are manifestations of some higher force. I just do not confuse belief in that force with scientific understanding. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a debating society. Perhaps you are right and all the other editors are wrong—nevertheless, debates have to stop eventually. The Internet is a very big place and if discussions continued until everyone was satisfied, nothing would ever be achieved. Johnuniq (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- As I have tried to say, I am not the only person who has voiced concerns, and I have observed since long before I ever edited the evolution page that such concerns are squelched.
- I am simply asking that those who claim they do not see the concern, allow those who claim the do see a concern, to discuss that concern without being ridiculed and told that their concern does not exist or is unimportant.
- My point is, those who say they don't see anything to be concerned about have nothing to lose by allowing people who are concerned to discuss how best to address their concern without being intimidated into silence.
- Perhaps they could find a way to address their concerns which those who do not see their concerns would not mind.... or perhaps they would give up, but at least not because they were intimidated into it.
- DonaldKronos (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- (Notice that I'm about to give the exact same reply to your arguments. I seriously read this post, tried to write an original response, and realized I had written a paraphrase of a prior response.) What you are ultimately asking for is an echo chamber, with faux-polite demands that those who disagree with you not engage in further discussion, so that you can create a pseudo-consensus without adjusting your goals to work with others. You have made no attempt to go down the two-way road, you have only stayed at your end and kept making the same calls. As has been said before, we're assuming good faith from you, you've just left us with little reason to assume that you are capable of collaboration. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- DonaldKronos (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Not going to wade into this in any detail (I have my own circular-reasoning, proof-by-assertion whack-a-moles to deal with elsewhere and don't need to take on an additional one), but I must concur with both Johnuniq and Ian.thomson on this entire thread and the stuff that has led up to it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2015
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
The third paragraph of § Summary includes an incomplete sentence:
“Our edit warring policy already acknowledges that one act, by itself, may not violate policy, but when part of a series of acts that constitute a pattern does violate policy.”
- Done Pishcal — ♣ 16:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Integrating a summary of WP:Tendentious editing
I think it would be of value to integrate a one-paragraph summary of WP:TE as a section here, so that tendentiousness is at least briefly defined as part of the DE guideline, instead of being entirely relegated to an essay. As it stands, too often the tendentious simply take the attitude that they can ignore WP:TE because its "just an essay". If there were a WP:DETE shortcut to a section in the guideline, that would shortcircuit that form of WP:GAMING, especially if it encapsulated and "codified" the gist of the TE behavior pattern. It would also be more clearly administratively actionable than reliance upon an essay. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
There are 2 ways of regard saying Disruptive editing: one is vandalism, and the other one is good faith with NO reliable sources of tendentiously wilfulness editing and may cause Edit warring with other editors. In Wikipedia community there need an good reliable sources and No original research for verification any kind of Wikipedia articles to resolve the disputation. Some of the fellow even worst create an multiple Wikipedia user accounts to mislead and conflicting other users and you may get suspected as Sockpuppets. SA 13 Bro (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Tendentious editing wording proposal
The start of the section on disruptive editing reads as follows: "A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following: 1.Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors." I think that the last four words should be phrased differently. I don't think that an editor who continues editing in pursuit of a certain point "despite opposition from other editors" is always a case of problem editing. Sure, if an editor continues to want to insert a sentence about a hoax, a fringe theory, or a highly contentious view on a sensitive racial or gender issue into an article, despite opposition from other editors, this is a problem.
But what about a situation where an editor is proposing the addition of a well-sourced, neutrally-phrased, pertinent and not unduly-weighted sentence, but several editors repeatedly disagree without providing a policy rationale? (e.g., the edit summaries are all "Return to stable version","Revert new addition", "Never heard of that author", "Never heard of that journal", "zero Google hits on author" or "I don't like it"). Given the systematic bias in Wikipedia (see also Gender bias in Wikipedia and Racial bias in Wikipedia), it can be argued that an editor attempting to introduce published viewpoints from reputable, non-Western scholars who publish outside of the northern hemisphere may find it hard to get these viewpoints into articles, even though WP:NPOV may support a not unduly-weighted statement of these scholars' viewpoints in the pertinent articles. What if an editor is trying to add a single well-sourced, neutrally-phrased sentence about a major African sci-fi writer and her most notable books to the article on Science fiction, but several Wikipedia editors, who (according to demographic findings) probably come from the Anglosphere, revert the sentence because they've never heard of her ("Not an important SF writer") or because Western textbooks do not mention her ("She's not mentioned in any of the major SF textbooks").
The current sentence's language about "despite opposition from other editors" makes perfect sense when the editing behaviour in question is a user repeatedly attempting to add unsourced, hoax, fringe, or OR theories to an article, which other editors could oppose on a number of objective WP policy grounds. The current sentence's language does not take account of situations where an editor may be proposing a good, pertinent addition to the article which is opposed without a solid rationale by several editors. Doesn't the TE issue really arise when an editor continues editing in pursuit of a point contrary to the consensus of other editors, or continues editing in pursuit of a point contrary to Wikipedia policies? More broadly, Wikipedia may need some sort of "within-an-article" WP:Notability guideline, to determine which objective checkboxes need to be ticked off to indicate whether subtopic X (e.g., a band, book, or film) should merit a mention in article Y. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 03:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Disruptive Editing by User User:DrFleischman
Hello This editor has reverted/changed this article over 30 different times. He also has been bullying other editors acting as if he is the owner of wikipedia. In a particular instance where he told user Markos200 that he has 24 hours and he will change the article back to his satisfaction. See this article talk page of bullying towards another editor. Another edit war between him and user (talk), see the previous edit war before User:DrFleischman deleted it from his talk page. See this.
It appears when someone makes an edit to an article and User:DrFleischman does not like the edit, he will check your IP or User Editing history to try to find issues on articles you have either created or edited and tag your article and cite that it is not Neutral and needs citations and or he would request that it be deleted. He has moved to get numerous articles deleted. One recently whereas he cited that an institution called Atlantic International University does not have any Notability in Wikipedia, see this article's deletion page. The AFD clearly states
- Schools are frequently nominated for deletion. The current notability guideline for schools and other education institutions is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:ORG). This section is not a notability guideline, WP:GNG and WP:ORG are.
- Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected in AfD. Schools that don't meet the standard typically get merged or redirected to the school district authority that operates them (generally North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere or where there is no governing body) rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia. 'Redirect' as an alternative to deletion is anchored in policy.
- Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists.
- Schools that are being planned or built, except high schools reliably sourced to be opened within 12 months, are usually deleted.
There were sources provide that proved the institution exist.
Please review all User:DrFleischman's editing history as it seems that he has a lot of Bias opinions and a little over the top as to enforcing Wikipedia's procedures. He seems to be acting as a representative or some what an owner of Wikipedia. This article was created 7 years ago and as you can see, User:DrFleischman has chopped the article down to his personal liking. He will revert any meaningful edit with sources that someone makes on this article. This editor needs to understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that provides extensive information as to organizations, so chopping the article down to predominately nothing seems to be a self-serving. 2605:E000:6009:9700:3448:B254:BF69:A47E (talk) 01:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)