Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Brews ohare (talk | contribs) at 19:15, 14 March 2012 (→Misplaced Pages:Disruption on talk pages). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This sandbox is in the Misplaced Pages namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the {{User sandbox}} template.

Misplaced Pages:Disruption on talk pages

The general behavioral guideline on editorial disruption is found at WP:Disruptive editing. That guideline describes disruption across all pages of WP, and also patterns of disruption that may be distributed across many different articles, or implicate multiple editors. This proposed guideline has a much narrower focus: namely what constitutes disruption on the Talk page of a single article.

There are several statements in WP:Disruptive editing that need amplification in this narrower setting:

Interfering with consensus: Editing that prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve an article.

Failure to get the point: Editing considered to be sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it.

Avoiding consensus building: Editing that disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits and also disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.

These statements are quite clear as far as they go. They call for elaboration when applied to a Talk page because they can lead to restriction of productive discussion unless used with care. In particular, they can be construed inappropriately to restrict discussion when some editors have lost patience. The admonitions that follow are intended to avoid incendiary actions on the part of rejecting editors that express their impatience at the expense of some sensitivity to well-meaning editors.

A goal of WP is to provide a conciliatory environment for contributors. That goal is served by carefully considered responses to contributors' requests for clarification of reasons for rejection.

Interfering with consensus

It is common for an edit to elicit rejection from other editors interested in a page. For this reason, major edits are best aired on the Talk page before implementation to see what the reaction will be. There may be an existing consensus among those interested in the page, and it can happen that these editors undertake to oppose the new addition. Because the new addition may provide something new to consider, a presently prevailing majority opposition does not validate a prima facie claim that the new proposal is an attempt to upset consensus.

In critiquing a proposed addition, rejection based upon guidelines and policies such as WP:OR, WP:Syn, WP:VS, WP:Fringe, WP:Undue and so forth should include detailed explanation of why these descriptions apply to the proposed text. It is considered to be disruptive editing when these guidelines and policies are simply claimed or applied as pejorative adjectives without careful supporting argument, preferably including example quotes of offending material. Direct quotes are preferable as examples, rather than paraphrases or summary statements, to avoid possible misstatement of the offending text.

Failure to get the point

Upon rejection, it is natural for a contributor to attempt justification of their addition. Upon initial refusal, a contributor will make what they believe to be a more careful explanation.

It is a frequent failure to listen carefully. It can happen that the contributor's extended explanation is summarily dismissed by the rejecting editors, particularly after a few attempts at justification, perhaps citing Misplaced Pages:Too long; didn't read. The natural tendency is to see the new justification as just more of the same, and to be a refusal to get the point.

Some sensitivity to the efforts of the contributor demands more than off-the-cuff rejection of arguments, and refusal to read the response carefully. If the new argument appears to be the same and subject to the same objections, this failure of the justification should be presented to the contributor in detail, not just claimed. Careful presentation of the reasons for rejection will help the back-and-forth to converge, and ultimately will result in agreement or in a clear case for refusal to get the point.

Avoiding consensus building

It is natural for some controversy to arise over the value of proposed additions. An extended discussion does not in itself constitute interference with building consensus.

A rejection is helpful when it suggests what can be done to make the contribution acceptable. For example, suggested rewording, or identification of points needing sources, can make it clear to the contributor what is needed. A failure to respond to these explicit and clear suggestions may then indeed constitute a refusal to engage in consensus building.

It should be borne in mind in citing WP:RS that primary sources are acceptable for establishing particular points when worded properly to maintain a WP:NPOV. Secondary sources are necessary to establish notability only for the subject of the article as a whole, and WP:Notability is not an issue for a subtopic.

Also, citing WP:Undue suggests that a minor topic is being given more prominence in the article than it deserves. That objection may be mitigated by suggesting detail of the minor topic be explained under a separate page devoted to the minor topic. Care must be taken to distinguish discussion of a topic from discussion of a point of view per se, as the latter is subject to criticism as a WP:POV fork. It is often the case that these two can be separated by a careful choice of wording and sources.

References

1. ^ "Attempts to evade detection". WP:Disruptive editing. Misplaced Pages. 12 March 2012.
2. ^ "Signs of disruptive editing". WP:Disruptive editing. Misplaced Pages. 12 March 2012. and "Failure or refusal to "get the point"". WP:Disruptive editing. Misplaced Pages. 12 March 2012.
3. ^ "Signs of disruptive editing". WP:Disruptive editing. Misplaced Pages. 12 March 2012.
4. "Attributing and specifying biased statements". Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. 13 March 2012. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
5. "Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article". Misplaced Pages:Notability. Misplaced Pages. 27 February 2012.