| Revision as of 22:47, 22 September 2006 view sourcePatchouli (talk | contribs)7,395 editsm →Distinction from non-tendentious editors: typo← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:18, 25 September 2006 view source Durova (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,685 editsm →Distinguished from productive editing: ''policy'' to ''guideline''Next edit → | ||
| (26 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ |
{{guideline|]}} | ||
| {{policy in a nutshell|''Editors whose contributions fall outside the realm of normal scholarship may be subject to ] action after a consensus of uninvolved Wikipedians agrees that these edits constitute persistent violation of ]. ] action is necessary for administrators to ] editors who ignore such consensus. ] is an option if repeated blocks fail to curb problem behavior.''}} | |||
| {{policy in a nutshell|''Obvious ]s and aggressively disruptive editors may be ] or ] after a consensus of uninvolved Wikipedians agrees that their edits constitute persistent violations of fundamental ].''}} | |||
| ''Never let your persistence and passion turn into stubbornness and ignorance.'' ] | ''Never let your persistence and passion turn into stubbornness and ignorance.'' ] | ||
| "Show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who, if permitted, would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here." --], on ] | |||
| ==Summary== | ==Summary== | ||
| Misplaced Pages owes much of its success to its openness. However, that very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site as a mouthpiece for fringe viewpoints that constitute ] or long-discredited hypotheses. While notable minority opinions are welcome when ] through ], and normal editors occasionally make mistakes, sometimes a |
Misplaced Pages owes much of its success to its openness. However, that very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site as a mouthpiece for ] viewpoints that constitute ] or long-discredited hypotheses. While notable minority opinions are welcome when ] through ], and normal editors occasionally make mistakes, sometimes a crank creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page with information that falls well outside mainstream thought - such as insisting that the moon is made of green cheese. | ||
| Disruptive editing already violates site policy, yet certain editors have succeeded in disrupting articles and evading disciplinary action for extended periods because their actions remain limited to a small number of pages and they do not commit gross violations of ]. Collectively, disruptive editors harm Misplaced Pages by degrading its reliability as a reference source and by exhausting the patience of productive editors who may quit the project in frustration when a disruptive editor continues with impunity. | |||
| Disruptive editors may seek to disguise their behavior as productive editing, yet distinctive traits separate them from productive editors. When discussion fails to resolve the problem and when an impartial consensus of editors from outside a disputed page agree (through ] or similar means), further disruption should be liable to blocking at the ] and may lead to more serious disciplinary action through the ] process. In extreme cases this could include a site ban, either though the ] or by administrator consensus. | |||
| ], if observed, shall not be construed as a defense against action taken to enforce this policy. As stated in that policy: | ], if observed, shall not be construed as a defense against action taken to enforce this policy. As stated in that policy: | ||
| :''This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day.'' | :''This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day.'' | ||
| ==Characteristics of problem edits and editors== | ==Characteristics of problem edits and editors== | ||
| This policy concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree. | |||
| '''A |
'''A disruptive editor''' is an editor who: | ||
| *'''Is |
*'''Is tendentious''': continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors. | ||
| *'''Cannot satisfy ] and/or ]''': fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. | *'''Cannot satisfy ] and/or ]''': fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable 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. | *'''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. | ||
| In addition, such editors may: | In addition, such editors may: | ||
| *''' |
*'''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. | ||
| == |
==Distinguished from productive editing== | ||
| ⚫ | Editors often post minority views to articles. This fits within Misplaced Pages's mission so long as the contributions are ] through ]. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who wishes the information to remain. From ]: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Verifiable and noteworthy viewpoints include ] as published through reputable peer-reviewed journals. Editors may reasonably present active public disputes or controversies which are documented by reliable sources. This exemption does not apply to settled disputes; for example, insertion of claims that the Sun revolves around the Earth would not be appropriate today; even though this issue was active controversy in the time of ]. | ||
| ⚫ | Editors often post minority views to articles. This fits within Misplaced Pages's mission so long as the contributions are ] through ]. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who wishes the information to remain. From ]: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Verifiable and noteworthy viewpoints include ] as published through reputable peer-reviewed journals. Editors may reasonably present active public disputes or controversies which are documented by reliable sources. This exemption does not apply to settled disputes; for example, insertion of claims that the Sun revolves around the Earth would not be appropriate today; even though this issue was active controversy in the time of ]. | ||
| Sometimes well-meaning editors may be misled by fringe publications or make honest mistakes when representing a citation. Such people may reasonably defend their positions for a short time, then concede the issue when they encounter better evidence or impartial feedback. Articles are acceptable which document widely discredited hypotheses (and/or their advocates) which have an organized following, such as the ]. However, claims that the Earth is flat would be inappropriate in articles such as ] or ] even if presented as a minority opinion. | Sometimes well-meaning editors may be misled by fringe publications or make honest mistakes when representing a citation. Such people may reasonably defend their positions for a short time, then concede the issue when they encounter better evidence or impartial feedback. Articles are acceptable which document widely discredited hypotheses (and/or their advocates) which have an organized following, such as the ]. However, claims that the Earth is flat would be inappropriate in articles such as ] or ] even if presented as a minority opinion. | ||
| In order to protect against frivolous accusations and other potential exploitation, no editor shall be eligible for a |
In order to protect against frivolous accusations and other potential exploitation, no editor shall be eligible for a disruptive editor block until after a consensus of neutral parties has agreed that an editor has behaved in a disruptive manner. This consensus can be achieved through ] or similar means. This does not include editors whose edits constitute violations of probation or other edit restrictions, who may be blocked for such edits independent of this guideline. | ||
| ==Dealing with |
==Dealing with disruptive crank editors== | ||
| Following is a model for remedies: | Following is a model for remedies: | ||
| Line 42: | Line 44: | ||
| :Attempt to engage new editor in dialogue. Refer to policies and guidelines as appropriate. | :Attempt to engage new editor in dialogue. Refer to policies and guidelines as appropriate. | ||
| 4. Talk page discussion fails to resolve the problem. | 4. Talk page discussion fails to resolve the problem. | ||
| :Request an ] or other impartial dispute resolution. | :Request an ] or other impartial dispute resolution. | ||
| 5. Editor ignores consensus. | 5. Editor ignores consensus. | ||
| : ] administrator intervention: warning or temporary block as appropriate. | : ] administrator intervention: warning or temporary block as appropriate. | ||
| 6. Blocks fail to solve the problem. | 6. Blocks fail to solve the problem. | ||
| : Possible ], site ban, or probation per ArbCom or administrator consensus. | : Possible ], site ban, or probation per ArbCom or administrator consensus. | ||
| ===Wikilove=== | |||
| It is important to be as patient and kind as possible. No one is likely to respond well to being labeled a "crank". These techniques need to be combined with sincere efforts to turn the user to productive work. | |||
| ==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Revision as of 02:18, 25 September 2006
 | This page documents an English Misplaced Pages ]. Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this guideline's talk page. |
]
 | This page in a nutshell: Obvious cranks and aggressively disruptive editors may be blocked or banned after a consensus of uninvolved Wikipedians agrees that their edits constitute persistent violations of fundamental policies. |
Never let your persistence and passion turn into stubbornness and ignorance. Anthony J. D'Angelo
"Show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who, if permitted, would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here." --Larry Sanger, on Misplaced Pages:Etiquette
Summary
Misplaced Pages owes much of its success to its openness. However, that very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site as a mouthpiece for fringe viewpoints that constitute original research or long-discredited hypotheses. While notable minority opinions are welcome when verified through reliable sources, and normal editors occasionally make mistakes, sometimes a crank creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page with information that falls well outside mainstream thought - such as insisting that the moon is made of green cheese.
Disruptive editing already violates site policy, yet certain editors have succeeded in disrupting articles and evading disciplinary action for extended periods because their actions remain limited to a small number of pages and they do not commit gross violations of Misplaced Pages:Civility. Collectively, disruptive editors harm Misplaced Pages by degrading its reliability as a reference source and by exhausting the patience of productive editors who may quit the project in frustration when a disruptive editor continues with impunity.
Disruptive editors may seek to disguise their behavior as productive editing, yet distinctive traits separate them from productive editors. When discussion fails to resolve the problem and when an impartial consensus of editors from outside a disputed page agree (through requests for comment or similar means), further disruption should be liable to blocking at the administrators' noticeboard and may lead to more serious disciplinary action through the dispute resolution process. In extreme cases this could include a site ban, either though the arbitration committee or by administrator consensus.
Misplaced Pages:Three revert rule, if observed, shall not be construed as a defense against action taken to enforce this policy. As stated in that policy:
- This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day.
Characteristics of problem edits and editors
This policy concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree. A disruptive editor is an editor who:
- Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
- Cannot satisfy Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and/or Misplaced Pages:No original research: fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable 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.
In addition, such editors may:
- Campaigns to drive away productive contributors: violates other policies and guidelines such as Misplaced Pages:Civility,Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles, 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.
Distinguished from productive editing
Editors often post minority views to articles. This fits within Misplaced Pages's mission so long as the contributions are verifiable through reliable sources. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who wishes the information to remain. From Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Verifiable and noteworthy viewpoints include protoscience as published through reputable peer-reviewed journals. Editors may reasonably present active public disputes or controversies which are documented by reliable sources. This exemption does not apply to settled disputes; for example, insertion of claims that the Sun revolves around the Earth would not be appropriate today; even though this issue was active controversy in the time of Galileo.
Sometimes well-meaning editors may be misled by fringe publications or make honest mistakes when representing a citation. Such people may reasonably defend their positions for a short time, then concede the issue when they encounter better evidence or impartial feedback. Articles are acceptable which document widely discredited hypotheses (and/or their advocates) which have an organized following, such as the Flat Earth Society. However, claims that the Earth is flat would be inappropriate in articles such as Earth or geography even if presented as a minority opinion.
In order to protect against frivolous accusations and other potential exploitation, no editor shall be eligible for a disruptive editor block until after a consensus of neutral parties has agreed that an editor has behaved in a disruptive manner. This consensus can be achieved through requests for comment or similar means. This does not include editors whose edits constitute violations of probation or other edit restrictions, who may be blocked for such edits independent of this guideline.
Dealing with disruptive crank editors
Following is a model for remedies:
1. First unencyclopedic entry.
- Revert.
2. Editor unreverts.
- Post to talk page asking for discussion and/or sources. Revert again if no response, along with edit summary.
3. Problems continue.
- Attempt to engage new editor in dialogue. Refer to policies and guidelines as appropriate.
4. Talk page discussion fails to resolve the problem.
- Request an Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment or other impartial dispute resolution.
5. Editor ignores consensus.
- Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents administrator intervention: warning or temporary block as appropriate.
6. Blocks fail to solve the problem.
- Possible topic ban, site ban, or probation per ArbCom or administrator consensus.
Wikilove
It is important to be as patient and kind as possible. No one is likely to respond well to being labeled a "crank". These techniques need to be combined with sincere efforts to turn the user to productive work.