Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. |
 This guideline 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 Wikipedia:Etiquette
Contents |
[edit] Summary
Wikipedia 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 original research. While notable minority opinions are welcome when verified through reliable sources, and normal editors occasionally make mistakes, sometimes a wikipedia editor creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page with information which is not verified through reliable sources.
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 Wikipedia:Civility. Collectively, disruptive editors harm Wikipedia 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.
Wikipedia: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.
[edit] Definition of disruptive editing and editors
This guideline 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 Wikipedia:Verifiability and/or Wikipedia: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:
- Campaign to drive away productive contributors: violate other policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility,Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage 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.
[edit] Distinguished from productive editing
Editors often post minority views to articles. This fits within Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia: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, third opinion, wikiquette alert, 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.
[edit] Dealing with disruptive editors
Following is a model for remedies:
1. First unencyclopedic entry.
- Assume good faith. Do not attack the author whom you suspect is a crank. However, revert uncited or unencyclopedic material. Use an edit summary which describes the problem in non-inflammatory terms.
2. If 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 dialog. Refer to policies and guidelines as appropriate.
4. Talk page discussion fails to resolve the problem.
- Request an Wikipedia:Requests for comment or other impartial dispute resolution.
5. Editor ignores consensus.
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents administrator intervention: warning or temporary block as appropriate. Possible community sanctions to institute article bans, revert parole or personal attack parole.
6. Blocks or community sanctions fail to solve the problem.
- Possible arbitration proceeding or community ban via administrator consensus.
[edit] Wikilove
It is important to be as patient and kind as possible. Techniques such as reverting need to be combined with sincere efforts to turn the user toward productive work. 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.
