Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: The irony here is killing me. FeloniousMonk 18:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  rofl. Terryeo 21:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Ongoing dialogue people.  Wikipedia is as alive as discussion pages grow with healthy discussion. Terryeo 15:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've already got my opinion on the matter.  Let's see what the other editors say. Durova 17:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Step 2: What to do when an editor unreverts 

message: 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. #Crank #1 #2
Please discuss all edits on the talk page, particularly reverts.
Thanks in advance. Travb (talk) 10:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Re reversion of edits

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: On second thought: I support this page

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy. WAS 4.250 05:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What if?