| Revision as of 19:39, 11 September 2006 editLlywrch (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators81,226 edits comment← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 06:25, 7 January 2025 edit undoDMacks (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators186,820 editsm Reverted edit by 37.111.159.194 (talk) to last version by RemsenseTag: Rollback | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{talkheader|noarchive=yes}} | |||
| Preliminary discussion for this proposal may be found at ] and its associated discussion. ] 02:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive box|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot II|age=300| | |||
| * ] - pre-Sept. 2006 | |||
| * ] - Sept. 2006 | |||
| * ] - Sept. - Dec. 2006 | |||
| * ] - Feb. 2007 - Nov. 2007 | |||
| * ] - July 2007 - Sept. 2009 | |||
| * ] - Oct. 2009 - Nov. 2011 | |||
| * ] - Nov. 2011 - March 2012 | |||
| * ] - March 2012 - current | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talk archive}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 700K | |||
| |counter = 7 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 3 | |||
| |algo = old(300d) | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Disruptive editing/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| == "]" listed at ] == | |||
| == Already covered? == | |||
| ] | |||
| The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 14#Misplaced Pages:DONOTDISRUPT}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> — ] ] 09:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Time to change IDHT == | |||
| How is this not already covered in ] as disruptive editing? ] 00:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I'm probably in the minority on this but despite its common usage in English, I'm of the opinion that using deafness or hearing loss as an analogy for stubbornness, uncooperativeness, or disruption, is disparaging towards deaf/hard-of-hearing people. I notice the name/shortcut of ] tends to encourage the use of this analogy, and I think Misplaced Pages should rename it to something else. ] (]) 16:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It appears in practice that currently the behavior proscribed in this proposal isn't considered disruptive enough to be actionable. The same appears to be true for the "exhausts patience" clause. | |||
| :] | |||
| :And the other factor is that the current policy is focused on behavior/community. Based upon the discussion referred to above, we are proposing a content-based standard because we feel the more important point is maintaining the reference standard instead of maintaining the editing community. | |||
| :It's not about "deafness or hearing loss" or inability to hear, it's about refusing to listen or ''plugging one's ears''. ] (]) 07:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::While I will grant a conflation between "plugging ears and refusing to listen" and "cannot hear" seems easy to make, I would question what could be done about that. There are many tropes for antisocial tropes that are a hop, skip, and a jump from direct characterizations of people with cognitive disabilities, et al. We can't rely on bare rhetorical proximity for these judgements, or we cede all ground of what words mean to what they could mean, rather than realizing that we have some influence over what they do mean, if that makes sense. All this said, I could always be unaware of just how close these connections are, so I'm happy for someone to educate or vibe check me, but all I can be is honest. ]] 02:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Bludgeoning == | |||
| :I would also point out that some of the other points in ] refer to other policy articles. It is possible that this needs to be reformulated as an independent principle which can be explicitly invoked; the sense of the preceding discussion, however, is that this needs to be considered specifically to be grounds for blocking and not merely a guide to article writing. ] 02:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Surprised to see ] not mentioned here, unless I missed it. ] (]) 07:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::This sounds a lot like "If a user isn't being disruptive enough to get blocked, but is still pushing unpopular opinions, they can still be blocked so we don't have to deal with them." The idea of a "content-based standard" would have to be very carefully developed to avoid it being misused by people who simply disagree on content. ] 07:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I think many of the editors here in Misplaced Pages know not what BLUDGEONING means and would say, "Bludgeon? I did not bludgeon them, they were brused before i hit them! It was a fair fight." :-) ] (]) 08:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The intent is to identify a particular kind of disruption and quash it more quickly. And it's directed ''specifically'' at simple disagreements on content. The point is that not all such disagreements are of merit, and that the quality of Misplaced Pages's articles is being held hostage by people who doggedly argue for erroneous statements and who, under current statements of policy, are tolerated excessively. ] 11:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As long as they're still abiding by policies (3RR, NPOV, Verifiability, Civility, etc.), I don't think they should be blocked just because they disagree on content. If they break these policies, then block them for that. ] 19:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Could you give a reason behind this? The argument here is that ''some'' disgreements specifically over content that ''should'' be suppressed. ] 13:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| So does this boil down to "ban anyone who doggedly pushes opinions from unreliable sources"? Also, it would be nice if the proposal clarified whether it intends to cover only article-space edits (eg. someone who constantly tries to make articles suggest that the Earth could be flat) or is intended to cover Misplaced Pages-space edits as well (eg. someone who adamantly believes ] is bad for Misplaced Pages, but who tows the line of scientific consensus in article-space). --] 01:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * To answer the first question, essentially. If you can think of any legitimate editing practices that the policy as proposed would outlaw, '''please''' let us know about it. All of the instances I can think of people repeatedly posting OR or non-sourced information, despite being told to knock it off, are inappropraite. | |||
| * For the second; I would only apply this to article space; ''not'' to project space, user space, or talk pages. | |||
| ::It would most definitely apply to the various "Request for " discussions (deletion, merge, move, etc.), as these are also a focus for this kind of behavior. ] 11:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, but only when they're pushing article-space POV, I hope. I think it's very different when someone is tendentious with regards to one article-space subject, versus someone else who's tendentious only about an overarching policy, and whether it's beneficial or harmful to Misplaced Pages culture. --] 15:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * It is also worth pointing out that "tendentious editing" is frequently cited in the ArbCom when booking scofflaws. It does make sense to spell out, as much as we can, what that means. | |||
| --] 04:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Great idea for a policy! Misplaced Pages needs this badly. ] 14:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Merge == | |||
| I propose this is merged with ] and/or ]. It makes no sense to have one policy that says we block/ban when such and such happens and another that says when this happens we block/ban. | |||
| It seems to me that you are proposing an amendment to these existing policies rather than a new policy. I don't know the procedure for this, but I suggest that is a better way forward - even though I sympathise with your proposal ] - ] 16:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :As a final disposition, a merger might be reasonable. I think for the purposes of discussion it would be better to work it out further and achieve reasonable content consensus before we try to fit it into the block/ban articles. Also, a lot of policies that are grounds for blocking/banning have their own articles because the principles involved call for further explication or need to be referred to directly. I think this is one of those cases, but in any case the merger isn't something we have to deal with from the start. ] 17:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == If I understand correctly... == | |||
| ...the point of this proposal is that there are frequently edit wars on articles, where one side of the war has verifiable sources and the other side does not. The edit war could then be stopped by blocking the latter party. This stems from a discussion on 'expert' editors; it is reasonable to say that any expert worth his salt could find a decent source for his opinion. So this proposal would make Misplaced Pages more worthwhile to 'expert' editors, which assumedly increases its overall quality level, which would be a good thing. Is that broadly correct? ] 19:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Although I didn't write this proposal, that is my broad understanding. In my experience, the current procedures are poor at addressing editors who pursue non-notable points of view in a particularly dogged manner. The tendentious editors who don't sink to gross vandalism can persist in harming a page's scholarship for months (or in extreme cases, years) and wear out the patience of the better informed editors who cite mainstream sources. ] 22:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Completing absent sections == | |||
| Let's discuss what the appropriate standards might be for distinguishing a ''tendentious'' editor from a normal editor. Specifically let's craft this in a way that makes this a useful proposal while insulating this standard against misuse. As a starting point I'll bullet point a few distinguishing features: | |||
| '''A tendentious editor''' is an editor who: | |||
| *''Is persistent'': continues editing an article or group or articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time (1-2 months or more?) despite opposition from one or more other editors. | |||
| *''Cannot satisfy ] and/or ]'': fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, or manufactures original research. | |||
| *''Rejects community input'': resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators. | |||
| *''Campaigns to drive away productive contributors'': violates other policies and guidelines such as ],], ], engages in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles. | |||
| How does that look for a starting point? I think that screens out garden variety edit warring and good faith editing. ] 01:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :That's already sufficient to go to RfAr, isn't it? Or is the idea that you want to be able to bypass this step and just apply a ban? ] 14:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The problem is that editors who pursue these activities on a small set of articles and do not commit gross violations of ] can fly beneath the dispute resolution radar. At ] one editor claimed to be descended from Joan of Arc's brother and edited the article into accordance with his unpublished family tree despite mediation, three peer reviews, and requests for comment. My attempt to open a user conduct RfC failed because most of the editors he had antagonized had given up and left Misplaced Pages. He masked his fringe beliefs behind vague statements and and other obfuscation tactics. Finally RfC respondants insisted that he could not possibly call a twentieth century document a primary source for fifteenth century history. It should not have taken twelve months to establish that point. ] 15:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::] In certain obvious cases, where it's one ] against a half-dozen Ph. Ds, that might be appropriate; the ArbCom is presently swamped. An immediate ban may not be the most appropriate sanction--for editors who are productive on other topics, exclusion from a certain article or subject area (backed by blocks if the offender ignores the exclusion) might be more appropriate. And there are doubtless some disputes which should be resolved by the ArbCom, due to not being obvious--things which aren't easily shown to be examples of "informed mainstream opinion" vs "determined advocate of extreme or discredited opinion". I'll write more below shortly... --] 15:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'd like to establish a good definition of a tendentious editor before we focus on sanctions (although I like EngineerScotty's ideas there). Let's identify the problem people as distinct from the good faith editors who make an honest mistake now and then. ] 16:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Before anyone gets banned (or receives any other long-term restrictions on their ability to edit Misplaced Pages), '''ample''' warning must be given. Vandals generally get four warnings before even a short block (via the infamous {{]}} templates), a more severe sanction probably deserves more--especially as this is for a ''pattern'' of behavior which is destructive, even if the individual edits, taken by themselves, are mostly harmless. Certainly several warnings from an uninvolved parties (admins, in particular) should be required; perhaps even an RfC. But this policy is absolutely '''not''' intended to ensnare anyone who make a mistake now and then; it's only for repeat offenders who have been informed, several times, that their behavior is disruptive. And again, the point ''is'' to make it possible to deal with obvious cases without going to the ArbCom. --] 16:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Does this discussion of other issues mean the editors here accept my definition of a tendentious editor? ] 18:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| The proposed policy has been linked to an existing essay ] that covers much of the same area. The essay isn't (in my opinion) bad, but the sense of this proposal is that an advisory essay is too weak. Therefore it seems to me that the essay should be merged into this proposed policy. ] 13:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I second that. ] 16:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Agree'''— Antoine de Saint-Exupery says it well: "Perfection is acheived, not when there remains nothing to be added, but when there is nothing to take away." Retaining ] and adding this project page fails the Antoine de Saint-Exupery test. | |||
| * I've copied some content over (trimming it quite a bit--essays have greater license for verbosity than does policy), but there is still quite a bit left. --] 19:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Squaring this with existing policy == | |||
| Before this gets approved (or goes for a vote), it needs to be squared with existing policies, in particular, ]. Points which need addressing: | |||
| * This policy is not intended to ''permit'' any editing behavior not previously permitted, or to define or constrain the definition of disruptive editing. | |||
| * This policy is intended, in some sense, to clarify and put in writing a ''de facto'' policy already present on Misplaced Pages (and frequently cited by the arbcom), to better explain what is prohibited. | |||
| * This policy is also intended to idenify a particular '''subset''' of disruptive user behavior, which can and ought to be dealt with summarily, and permit summary resolution. Currently, disputes which don't involve 3RR, NPA, or other actions which can result in immediate sanction, are difficult to resolve without going before the ArbCom. We believe that there is a particular pattern of user behavior which can be well-defined, and is highly disruptive to Misplaced Pages, for which administrative sanctions (blocks, warnings) may be appropriate. More complex cases, of course, would still lie with the ArbCom. | |||
| Speaking of which... a question for policy wonks: Misplaced Pages has the notion of a ] wherein a consensus of admins decide that a particular user is disruptive and should not be unblocked, despite no formal ruling from either the ArbCom or Misplaced Pages management (], the board, and/or their delegates). The ArbCom has the power to ban users; and additionally, to impose lesser sanctions like probation, article/edit restrictions, and the like. Generally, the latter are enforced only by threat of blocking. | |||
| Is there such a thing as a "community edit restriction"? Could a consensus of admins declare that a particular user is prohibited from editing a particular topic, on pain of an indef-ban? Or would a group of admins acting in such manner be considered to be excessively ], or otherwise contrary to policy? I've never seen it done before, but if the administrators' corps can kick someone off, it makes sense that they should also be able to impose a lesser penalty. --] 16:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *First off, don't vote on this - discuss instead. Thank you. Second, I like the idea of "community edit restriction". A sensible admin should certainly be allowed to, based on discussion with others, tell ] to stay away from ] for the next month or so. A better name would be "community probation"... the ArbCom sometimes puts users on probation, which means that any admin can ban them from any article (on pain of blocking). While I'm sure a probation instated by a sole admin would be too unilateral, the concept of "community probation" sounds viable. ] 16:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's not a bad idea, but I prefer what we are discussing here for two reasons. First, this is simply a policy update which requires no coding support. The "edit restriction" idea would be either dependent on a lot of active monitoring (leading to a disruption assement, etc.) which I sense is something that people would rather be rid of. The effort needed to maintain articles is also an issue here and I don't think we can sell a methodology which increases it. The alternative is code changes, with the delays and everything else that entails. | |||
| ::Second, I'm not under the impression that the crankish editors are in fact making a lot of valuable contributions elsewhere that we need to enable. It seems more likely to me that they tend to belabor a single topic or are a problem whever they appear. Even if I'm wrong about this, though, we need to judge whether such contributions are valuable enough to justify establishing (and especially coding) select blocking/banning. In the course of discussing this I sense that the problem is so extreme that a little collatoral damage WRT to what the offenders can do is tolerable. ] 16:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: "Tendentious" is a word with an agreed upon meaning. It does not mean, "non-expert" and it does not mean, "cranky" and it does not mean, "non-complient". As presented on this discussion page and as presented in the ajoining ''proposed guideline'', its meaning approximates "cranky" or "particularly obnoxious", or "unwilling to bend personal standards". Whatever is actually meant is '''not stated''' by using the word '''tendentious''' which means: '' Marked by a strong implicit point of view; partisan'' (From Medieval Latin tendentia, a cause; see tendency). There is '''nothing wrong''' with tendentiousness, Newton and Galileo were tendentious, Martin Luther King was tendentious. In fact our founder founded this sucker because he is tendentious and you honestly can't expect every editor to comply in a milk-sop sort of way with editor concensus. Boo ! ] 18:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: The original title was "Crackpot editors"; that was changed for obvious reasons. :) The phrase "tendentious editor" has a longstanding meaning within Misplaced Pages, one that the promoters of this proposal didn't invent. If you've a better title which captures the spirit of the behavior we seek to nip in the bud, please suggest it. --] 18:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I'm perfectly willing to contribute my use of the English Language to this project. People do get banned and people do get blocked. 3RR and Personal attack (WP:PAIN) are the most frequent uses of blocks. Frankly I do not yet understand what "spirit of behaviour we seek to judiciously nip in the bud". This project was started on 9 September 2006 Mangoe (Initial proposal to actively discipline tendentious users) . | |||
| * What did ] mean if not "tendentious?" | |||
| * While obviously "Discipline threat for crackpot editors" will never work, there must be '''some''' situation which ] has in mind, else he / she would not have started this project. Why don't we all take a look at the specific area which promted this project? | |||
| * Since earlier editors have been delt with by standing procedures, what difference prompts this project? Couldn't a minor addition to an existing guideline handle the situation ?] 19:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Here's an example for you--and ironically (given the origins of this discussion) an expert editor--]. Hewitt is a former professor of ] at ], and a notable individual who made enormous contributitions to the discipline. Late last year, he started to edit Misplaced Pages. Some of his edits, on CS topics, were welcome indeed. However, he got into trouble on two fronts: 1) He was a bit overzealous in promoting his own research within CS, in violation of ]. 2) More importantly for this discussion, he quickly became a pest on the ] pages, with specious claims that his CS contributions (including the ], a nondeterministic programming model which has been somewhat influential in CS) constitues a significant result in physics. The physics editors, many of whom have never heard of him (he doesn't publish in physics journals; so this was all ], and junk research at that, as far as they were concerned), objected loudly. Eventually, after an RfC or two and numerous personal appeals from involved parties and neutral admins, Hewitt was ], and given probation--whereupon he left Misplaced Pages. --] 17:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **WP:BAN already discusses "partial bans". Perhaps the need being addressed in this proposal might be met within existing mechanisms. ] 16:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::That article simply describes mechanisms. The issue here is grounds for action. ] 16:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Warnings and remedies == | |||
| Let's focus on an appropriate set of progressive warnings and penalties. Reasonable people sometimes pick up a fringe idea through honest accident, then back down when they recognize a consensus that the opinion falls outside the mainstream. I'd like to see some sort of impartial feedback worked into the process - either RfC consensus or administrator warning - before actual blocks take place. ] 17:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Let's NOT. Tendentiousness is marked by individuality and the courage to stick with one is certain is right. We have plenty of ways of slapping editors ink. Denying them because they have a point of view and manifest it is the '''wrong''' approach. If an editor is constantly quoting from and referencing to unpublished work, beat them into complience with ], if an editor is introducing original research, whip them with ], if an editor deletes your POV from an article, hammer them with ]. It is plain '''wrong''' to consider forcing milk-sop complience because a person is partisan. It goes against the spirit of Misplaced Pages which is based on everyone having a viewpoint and being able to contribute to the sum total of man's knowledge. ] 18:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: I agree that editorial approaches should--and must--be tried first. No user should be sanctioned under this policy just because they cite an unreliable source or offend a Ph. D. This only applies to a '''repeated pattern of behavior'''. Whether the editor has "courage" (it doesn't take much courage to edit Misplaced Pages, BTW; the worst that will happen to you is you get blocked) is immaterial. Keep in mind that the policy excludes edits which reasonably might be justified under ], including most disputes on public policy. And nobody objects at all to a person's opinions (as expressed in talk pages, user pages, or evident from their edits); this proposed policy '''only''' addresses conduct. | |||
| :: The policy might be amended to also ensure that documentable religious doctrine may be presented as such. (Misplaced Pages should not endorse any religious doctrine or theology; but notable religions should generally be presented). | |||
| :: The sum total of man's knowledge which this project seeks to document, at any rate, does not include crackpottery, quackery, pseudoscience, and other ludicrous claims. | |||
| :: --] 18:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::This objection appears to have been written in haste. Please ] and comment on the proposed definition of a tendentious editor higher on this talk page. As I see the proposal, this is an opportunity to address a particular breed of problem editor that evades normal disciplinary procedures. I fully agree with the sentiment to craft this proposal so that it doesn't get exploited in garden variety edit disputes. ] 18:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Not sure whether you were addressing me or Terryeo; on the off chance that it was me (and you are objecting to the rather pejorative word "crackpot"), I can't think of a better term in English which describes the topic at hand, without being unduly offensive. Of course, many terms which describe things universally considered negative quickly acquire pejorative connotations, a fine example is ], a term which is often resisted (many object to ] being portrayed as such). --] 19:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Whether you were referring to me or not, "tendentious" is not an appropriate reason to monitor editor behaviour with. Having a point of view is not something to prevent an editor from editing. An editor must abide by ], ] and ] and as those manifest by guideline (RS, CITE, etc) and must remain polite. But having a POV? Whatever it is that is meant here, the tendency to edit from a point of view is not an appropriate correction to apply to an editor. Quite the opposite, it is the richness of various points of view that makes our Misplaced Pages unique and valuable ! ] 19:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It was Terryeo - I was having connection problems. Terryeo, have you reviewed the standards I propose earlier on this page and my reasons for proposing them? POV isn't the problem at all - and I agree it ''shouldn't'' be the issue. The problem is a type of editor who gets away with fringe behavior by flying under admin's radar and perpetrates fringe interpretations for long periods without effective remedy. If what you express is a desire to distinguish that sort of behavior from normal editing, I agree with the sentiment wholeheartedly. ] 19:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: The behavior this proposal addresses is those editors who repeatedly '''fail''' to abide by NPOV, V, and NOR, and are disruptive as a result. NPOV, V, and NOR are policies which constrain ''edits'', not ''users''--in general, people aren't blocked for inserting blatant POV, unsourced edits, and original research. I've occasionally been guilty of all three in my Misplaced Pages career; virtually all editors have--it's human nature. However, there is a world of difference between someone who contributes an overzealous edit, gets reverted, and recognizes why the edit was bounced (and either withdraws, or discusses the issue), and one who notes that "gee; WP:NOR isn't a blockable offense, so as long as I'm polite, I can re-introduce the same novel theory time and time again. I've got all the time in the world to do so, so why not"? And I would dispute that "richness of points of view" is '''the''' thing that makes Misplaced Pages valuable--(hypothetical) claims that the moon is made of green cheese are likely to subtract, and not add, value. When theories or beliefs satisfy V, NPOV, and NOR (and are presented with appropriate due weight)--sure, those enrich Misplaced Pages. But the goal of Misplaced Pages should be reliability and not diversity of opinion; for the latter, there's always google. --] 19:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: (edit conflict) I understand Terryeo's point: in the vast majority of cases (say 85-95% of the time) a tendentious editor will be caught by the existing guidelines. (IMNSHO, most tendentious editors aren't smart enough to avoid those barriers.) However, there are a few cases where a tendentious editor poses a problem that these do not cover, perhaps best examplified by the story at ]; I suspect every Wikipedian who has participated on Misplaced Pages for at least a year has encountered at least one person indulging in the sophistry Jnc describes on that page. If I am understanding correctly, then the problem then becomes one of how do we enforce this guideline in a way that doesn't end up giving both sides in an edit war one more weapon to bludgeon each other with. (How this might happen is left as an exercise for the reader.) -- ] 19:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == The word "Tendentious" == | |||
| We are appealing to the "partisan"/"biased" senses of the word. Within Misplaced Pages this translates to POV-pushing. I don't think we are using the word wildly out of the more general meaning, but if someone can come up with something better, propose away. ] 19:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 06:25, 7 January 2025
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Disruptive editing page. |
|
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 300 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
"Misplaced Pages:DONOTDISRUPT" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Misplaced Pages:DONOTDISRUPT has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 14 § Misplaced Pages:DONOTDISRUPT until a consensus is reached. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Time to change IDHT
I'm probably in the minority on this but despite its common usage in English, I'm of the opinion that using deafness or hearing loss as an analogy for stubbornness, uncooperativeness, or disruption, is disparaging towards deaf/hard-of-hearing people. I notice the name/shortcut of WP:IDHT tends to encourage the use of this analogy, and I think Misplaced Pages should rename it to something else. Levivich (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's not about "deafness or hearing loss" or inability to hear, it's about refusing to listen or plugging one's ears. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- While I will grant a conflation between "plugging ears and refusing to listen" and "cannot hear" seems easy to make, I would question what could be done about that. There are many tropes for antisocial tropes that are a hop, skip, and a jump from direct characterizations of people with cognitive disabilities, et al. We can't rely on bare rhetorical proximity for these judgements, or we cede all ground of what words mean to what they could mean, rather than realizing that we have some influence over what they do mean, if that makes sense. All this said, I could always be unaware of just how close these connections are, so I'm happy for someone to educate or vibe check me, but all I can be is honest. Remsense诉 02:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
.svg)
Bludgeoning
Surprised to see WP:BLUDGEONING not mentioned here, unless I missed it. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think many of the editors here in Misplaced Pages know not what BLUDGEONING means and would say, "Bludgeon? I did not bludgeon them, they were brused before i hit them! It was a fair fight." :-) GeorgeV73GT (talk) 08:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)