Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:DE)
Jump to: navigation, search

Born2cycle addition reverted[edit]

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

This is the section I added:
Disrupting a discussion by repeatedly complaining about the discussion
Complaining about a discussion on a talk page, especially if done repeatedly, may not directly harm an article, but it can prevent other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve an article.
What is the objection? This largely echoes what is already said on the page, under WP:DE#Attempts to evade detection:
Their [disruptive] edits are largely confined to talk-pages, such disruption may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve an article.
Do you (or anyone else?) really disagree that repeatedly complaining about a talk page discussion is disruptive to that discussion? --В²C 15:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • No of course I don't agree. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to note when (as often happens) Talk page discussions are going nowhere, are not improving article space or any number of other legitimate reasons. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Also opposed. You seem to think that no one would "really" disagree, so I fail to see value in stating the obvious. I don't see any evidence that there is a problem related to this text, much less one where the scope of the problem would be reduced by this text. It seems rather redundant with the text you quoted. Finally, I am not convinced that we should characterize comments about RS-free WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM and other legitimate discussion ailments as "complaining". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah, well, I certainly wouldn't want to characterize such comments as complaining either, and I can see how this particular wording could be construed as such. But that's not the type of commentary I'm talking about.

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

I don't think it needs to be since such remarks are (supposed to be) ignored when a closer determines consensus. You can use a WP:POLL to try to focus the discussion. To get more eds to comment you can do an RFC and advert the thread at the V-pump etc. If someone still stands in the way anyhow, that's what WP:DR is for. Writing lawyerish text for such situations is a seductive notion, since a silver bullet would make short work dealing with such tactics. Unfortunately, lawyerish text is lawyerish text rather than a silver bullet. The only real solution is to refine your own skills at smoking out the basis for other eds' opinions on things. When your opponents just don't like it and you have good reasons marshaled beyond your own liking it, the other skill to refine is getting a decision on consensus despite their baseless opposition. Lawyerish text can't take the place of either skill, sorry. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay. I get what you're saying and do try all that. Still get frustrated. I want a way to easily identify such comments as being disruptive to hopefully nip such problems in the bud without having to go to DR, etc. --В²C 17:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I feel your pain! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Then help both of us alleviate the pain by figuring out a way to word this that won't be misconstrued! --В²C 23:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Not possible, as stated in my remarks 2 comments back.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk page sabotage[edit]

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

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

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

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

"Gutting" an article during deletion discussion[edit]

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

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


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

Encouraging rather than discouraging open discussion[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donald, as I said before, it's a two-way road, and you have to try to meet people half way. It is not a one-way road for you to keep saying the same thing over and over and expect people to come to you.
Other editors, please see DonaldKronos's topic ban discussion. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I have tried that repeatedly, and given up. No two-way road is available to me. This is exactly why I had suggested that someone who disagrees with me please encourage people who agree with me to discuss openly why they are concerned. The idea, as I had outlined, was that I and those who have treated me (and those anyone agreeing with me) with ridicule and censorship, could also step back, and let people other than me who see value in my concerns (if any would still come forward) discuss their concerns.
Of course, as soon as I suggested that, I was censored, again.... even though I was basically volunteering to censor myself, if someone would just show the slightest sign of good faith. Should I act surprised?
DonaldKronos (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
What you are ultimately asking for is an echo chamber, with faux-polite demands that those who disagree with you not engage in further discussion, so that you can create a pseudo-consensus without adjusting your goals to work with others. You have made no attempt to go down the two-way road, you have only stayed at your end and kept making the same calls. As has been said before, we're assuming good faith from you, you've just left us with little reason to assume that you are capable of collaboration. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

For the record, your proposed changes actually do fit into my personal beliefs. I believe that the universe is driven by a chaos of divine origin, that opposing it is at best pointless, and that it manifests as different kinds of change or evolutions. However, I do not confuse these religious beliefs for science, as you do. You have continually failed to provide any sources that explicitly state there is an overarching force of evolution of which various processes called evolution are dependent manifestations thereof, and only seem to be making what you do not realize is an appeal to religious belief.
Again, I agree that there the different kinds of evolution are manifestations of some higher force. I just do not confuse belief in that force with scientific understanding. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a debating society. Perhaps you are right and all the other editors are wrong—nevertheless, debates have to stop eventually. The Internet is a very big place and if discussions continued until everyone was satisfied, nothing would ever be achieved. Johnuniq (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
As I have tried to say, I am not the only person who has voiced concerns, and I have observed since long before I ever edited the evolution page that such concerns are squelched.
I am simply asking that those who claim they do not see the concern, allow those who claim the do see a concern, to discuss that concern without being ridiculed and told that their concern does not exist or is unimportant.
DonaldKronos (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
My point is, those who say they don't see anything to be concerned about have nothing to lose by allowing people who are concerned to discuss how best to address their concern without being intimidated into silence.
Perhaps they could find a way to address their concerns which those who do not see their concerns would not mind.... or perhaps they would give up, but at least not because they were intimidated into it.
DonaldKronos (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
(Notice that I'm about to give the exact same reply to your arguments. I seriously read this post, tried to write an original response, and realized I had written a paraphrase of a prior response.) What you are ultimately asking for is an echo chamber, with faux-polite demands that those who disagree with you not engage in further discussion, so that you can create a pseudo-consensus without adjusting your goals to work with others. You have made no attempt to go down the two-way road, you have only stayed at your end and kept making the same calls. As has been said before, we're assuming good faith from you, you've just left us with little reason to assume that you are capable of collaboration. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)