Wikipedia talk:Disruptive user

Policy Proposal

I'm sure the creation of this article will raise eyebrows and draw the cavarly charging in. I apologize ahead of time that I'm not overly familar with the procedures of making policy pages. I purposed this on the Village Pump but only got a very short reply saying that, yes there was such a thing as a Wikipedia Bully, with elements of who these people are covered under personal attacks regulations and the procedures involoving trolls.

We've all seen them. The people that dont vandalize the articles but slam the content, calling the users names, stating that the article itself is garbage, and then slapping VFD notices out of spite or causing disruption on an FAC page.

I would like to propose that this page be examined by other users and perhaps be made into: Wikipedia policy. I was bold in creating it since one of Wikipedia principals is to indeed be bold. Floor is open for further action here. -Husnock 6 July 2005 04:00 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm not really sure what this proposal is saying. Do we mark their user pages with some bully insignia? Do we tell users to watch out for them? How? Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} July 6, 2005 16:21 (UTC)

I was thinking along the lines of establishing a procedure on how to identify a Wikipedia Bully and then steps to handle such people. The problem with such users is that they dont vandalize pages, but rather attack other users with very harsh words and engage in things like massive VFDs or constant opposition to any FAC that a particular user nominates. -Husnock 6 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)

• Here are my suggestions for this project. Other users can add their input and we add this to the pollicy if it is accepted. A disruptrive user (DU) is nominated on the project page. The DU is told about it and is asked to defend himself. If the community feels that he is not a DU then the case is closed. If it is agreed that he is, a committee (more on that later) decides to either take it to RfC of Mediation Committee. They also may decide to deem the person a vandal or troll. Then they may go straight to ArbCom or the places above. The committee will have four or five members for a later decided term. They will have the following powers: all the things listed above, closing a case against a DU and deciding the outcome, and mediating with the DU if it is deemed usefull to do so. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} July 6, 2005 23:40 (UTC)

Comments regarding suggestion by Howabout1:

• I like that idea and actually proposed something similar quite some time ago, to be known as the "Civility Committee". Such a committee would have the power to declare when a user is behaving improperly on Wikipedia, i.e. engaging in hostile actions towards other users or cuasing problems. They could then warn the user (a requirement before further action would be taken) and refer the user to one of the more serious committees if the actions continued. The delaing with disruptive users should also somehow be incorporated into Dispute Resolution. -Husnock 7 July 2005 22:29 (UTC)

• • On further note, the committee to declare someone a disruptive user I think should be added in the following template to the right. Perhaps under "Member Associations"

Well, berore we make a committee we need some more support. So far it has been just us debating this. I'll advertise this on the village pump. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} July 7, 2005 23:27 (UTC)

I don't see that this serves any need. We already have a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. Maurreen 8 July 2005 02:40 (UTC)

Yes, but is there anything there for disruptive users? Would the mediation committee be necissary here? What are we mediating? Sure, we could just go straight there if it was an article, but what about a user? If a user is being insulted, but not to the point of a personal attack, what then? What I am suggesting, I suppose, is a milder form of the Mediation committe. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} July 8, 2005 03:29 (UTC)

There is also Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts and WP:RFC. Maurreen 9 July 2005 05:55 (UTC)

I happened to notice that page a few minutes after I answered you before. The only problem with it is it is only for constructive critisism, not mediation. As for RfC, if you read my statement above we will use RfC. However with the problem we are addressong, RfC might not help in all places. Even with the community talking to a user, he/she may not back down. Remember, we are addressing a single user here, not a dispute. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} July 9, 2005 15:40 (UTC)

You also might want to vote below. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 00:03, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this page/policy is useful or necessary -- the existing procedures are enough. They don't always work smoothly, but adding another layer of committee, bureacracy and m:instruction creep are not going to make it any smoother, and it's not going to make the "DUs" suddenly more cooperative. — Catherine\^talk 20:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay. This may not be useful. I have one question, though. Suppose you were in a dispute with a "disruptive user", what would you do. If you have a good replacement for this, then I might reconsider my vote. You might want to vote. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 22:38, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

More votes are certianly needed. I agree, Request for Comment seems to be a way to handle these kinds of people. Maybe this can be a sort of committee (much like my older "Civility Committee" idea), in that people can be refered to RFC when and if they are causing problems on Wikipedia like overbearing personal attacks, abuse of VFD, and problems on FAC pages. But, regardless of that, more people need to vote on this! :-) -Husnock 22:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Name change

This needs a new name. Suggestions are nolonger welcome.

I think the point was well made that calling someone a "Bully", especially those who would be engaging in such behavior anyway, would indeed cause further problems. The name was changed to "Disruptive User" per the comment below. -Husnock 7 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)

Suggestions

1. Wikipedia: Disruptive users.

Vote

Voting ends 04:32 July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Support

• I support -Husnock 6 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)
• The name has been changed so I support. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} July 7, 2005 16:50 (UTC)
• Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose -- I think this might have a chilling effect on editors and brew up a host of problems in the direction of name calling. Calicocat 02:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. My reasoning is above. Maurreen 05:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. An invitation to abuse. The editors who feel that their pet Truth has been doubted will call others Disruptive Users. Septentrionalis 13:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Will not induce Disruptive Users to be less disruptive, will only be used as a weapon. — Catherine\^talk 17:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't quite see how calling a user disruptive is constructive, as per my comments below. — Asbestos | Talk 17:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The existing systems are more than sufficient, as per talk below. brenneman^(t)(c) 02:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose per Asbestos. r3m0t ^talk 13:28, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is little that is firm enough to even call a vote on that I can see. Also, the proposal is redundant with Mediation, RfC, ArbComm even if they don't always work. -Splash 02:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Vote discussion

• • How is a place for "DU"'s to defend themselves before going to Mediation Committee or RfC any more, if not less, a weapon than either of them. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 17:44, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • This could also be used as a simple definition, i.e. when someone goes to RFC, and various broken Wiki rules are listed as precedence, being a Disruptive User can be one of them. It doesnt have to be an actual process just a designation for a certain type of user much like vandal, sockpuppet, and bot. -Husnock 17:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
    • That would be an interesting definition. Propose it on the appropriate page and I may well support the edit; but it's not the proposal we're voting on here. Septentrionalis 02:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Thats a good point. Where would the page be moved to as a definition of policy instead of policy itself? Is there are another category of project pages? -Husnock 03:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Perhaps we could tell their mummies on them. Grace Note 02:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC) Do not remove my vote. Why you want an institutionalised form of whining is readily apparent, but you are likely to find your way onto Wikipedia:Humourless User at this rate. -- Grace Note
  • Do you have an actual reason for opposing this? Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 02:21, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • That looks to me as inactionable, as it states no reason for or against just expresses a dislike. As far as the original vote, I think it got removed as vandalism as it said something about spanking people and pulling down their pants??? 1 -Husnock 03:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't have to give a reason for opposing your proposal. I can simply vote to oppose it if I like. Someone else wrote about spanking people. I suggested we could write to the mothers of the people who are upsetting you. That might work. At least, it'll probably work just as effectively as having committees for you to whine about them to. -- Grace Note.
      • "Write to the mothers of the people who are upsetting you"? Are you actually expecting people to take you seriously? That strikes me as an arrogant attack of the proposal by someone to which it would actually apply. As far as you not writing the vandal comment, we cant prove it but it is interesting you are posting under various anon IP addresses and the same vandal IP address that posted the above comment has appeared on your own user page 2. -Husnock 04:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    • What I find interesting is that comments like that are exactly the kind on incivility that we can do without. Imagine I said, "yes, it's interesting how cross-dressing and spanking are common on U.S. Naval ships when crossing the equator and it's interesting that it's said "what happens at sea stays at sea"? You would quite justifiably take that as an unacceptable personal attack. If you believe something, state so clearly, with evidence, in NPOV. brenneman^(t)(c) 02:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
      • LOL! I wouldnt find that offensive at all. I have been through a Crossing the Line ceremony and am a Shellback. And what you said...is absolutely true! ;-) -Husnock 02:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• I don't quite see how calling a user disruptive is constructive. If I think a user is being disruptive and want community input, I'd probably think it best to file a Request for Comment. This would be much less provocative, as it isn't name-calling (plenty of respectable users here have been engaged in RFC's. If I actually wanted some action taken against them, I might file a RFAr. This seems to fall somewhere between the two extremes, but doesn't really seem to contribute to the dispute resolution process. Maybe this could be changed to Wikipedia:Don't be a disruptive user, or something of the sort, which lists specific kinds of behaviours which you believe aren't covered explicitly elsewhere, and which could then be used in RFAr? — Asbestos | Talk 17:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Thats the best idea I've heard. Make this a Guideline Page and use this template. If we did that, would people change votes to support? -Husnock 18:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I wouldn't. This isn't a guideline page - it's a proposed policy, guideline or process, like the template says. You can't just put the "guideline" template on it. I still don't get the point of this page. r3m0t ^talk 13:31, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Alternatively,

it may be possible to alleviate the problem by discouraging personal attacks. In particular, some people have argued that users that make frequent personal attacks should be given a warning block, just as users who frequently revert war are given one (per the 3RR, for instance). See Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Personal attacks for details and discussion. Radiant_>|< 11:32, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Suggest that above. The proposal is about bullies. Everyone seems to be voting on my idea. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 14:37, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Possibly to advance the points on the project page, it might be better (there or a longstanding page), to essentially define certain behavior as "disruptive", without labeling people. That is, possibly then during dispute resolution, User X could say User Y has been disruptive.

But I am wary of the possiblity of subjective blocking. Maurreen 16:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I think this page would serve as a definition for someone when bringing someone before an RFC. In an RFC, there is a list of policies that a person has possibly violated. Being a disruptive user could be one such case. -Husnock 17:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Part of my point is to distinguish the behavior from the person. Maurreen 17:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

If we wanted to be punative, this would be a great proposal. Ambiguous enough to be abused, and without any apparent "carrot". If instead we want to improve the behavior of borderline users, this is a poorly considered proposal. Additionally, we already have problems with the outcomes of previous judgments weighing too heavily in current ones. See William M. Connolley's RFA where his mere appearance in an RFAr appears to have prevented his promotion. brenneman^(t)(c) 02:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Obfuscation: editors who create this should face consequences

This is a technique employed in bad faith against legitimate efforts to ensure discussions cannot be focused and essentially sabatoging the consensus builing exercise. Discussion becomes bloated and 'back-and-forth', this in turn tends to scare off other editors from participating. The tactics of obfuscation:

• Ad hominem arguments mostly free of perjorative terms and entireley free of anything crude
• Accusations that don't explicty accuse editors of bad faith, but imply it - without any support for the accusations
• Offering spurious proposal after spurious proposal without addressing the argument made (for example, primary topic argument in a request to move)
• Repeating such proposals in new threads when the old threads have been closed
• Whenever such a proposal is addressed, respond with any of or a combination of: clean ad hominem attack, new proposal, accusation, or repeat a proposal from a previous thread
• Not answering fair questions about such proposals
• Calling for answers to each and every iteration of such proposals
• Turning down multiple opportunities to have the last word and instead raising an accusation or proposal to keep discussion going

Naturally making false assertions is part of the strategy, but these are not part of the problem, good-faith editors will make false assertions as well. The problem is all assertions get lost in the muck created by the obfuscator. Calling upon victims to ignore ad hominem attacks, spurious proposals that create tangents, accusations, and calls to answer questions raised is not enough. Ignoring an obfuscator is more difficult than ignoring a troll as they are harder to identify at first for both involved editors and editors looking upon the discussion for the first time. The difficultly stems from the lack of overtly crude or rude language.

I will cross post this on the village pump (policy) for comment as well. Karbinski (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds like a description of yours truly! Asking questions is disruptive; not answering then is disruptive too, proposals are even worse. Hell, yesterday I disrupted a FA with 26 edits, I guess it's a 26 year block (taking utmost care not to look like a spurious proposal). Verdict: this trout can be used to slap anyone. NVO (talk) 05:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Anything can be obstructive if carried too far; and almost any proper argumentative method can be labelled "obstructive" when one doesn't like the conclusions that are being drawn from it. This is no the sort of thing that can be legislated. DGG (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The argument isn't that bulky discussion with active participation by one or more users is a problem, rather it is if the above pattern is being adhered to in this process. Any proper argumentative method will not adhere to the above pattern, since no proper argumentative method focuses on the editors but instead focuses on the article and its content. The real red flag is the presence of ad hominem attacks, but when "free of perjorative terms and entirely free of anything crude" they alone do not substantiate bad-faith. However, if an editor systematically employs such arguments in conjunction with the other listed tactics, it can be seen that thier purpose is simply to obstruct. That being said, I see that such a policy may become the favored "cry wolf" and would complicate the disruptive user policy by a degree. Would such a policy be asking too much from admins? Karbinski (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I found this post (the latest example of forum shopping by you given that you cannot gain consensus) faintly amusing. You are after all the editor who attempted to edit the page on Philosophy to a definition based on your own extremist political position, without declaring your source. You also edit warred on the subject. Given that behaviour anything you do on the Rand page is at least suspect in its intent. I'd suggest that you deal with the legitimate objections to your proposal rather than running around wikipedia trying to get someone to support you. If anyone is real interested in this then take a look at Karbinski's edits on the talk page of Philosophy and elsewhere and you will get a sense of K's actual behaviour. --Snowded TALK 20:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I second that invitation. Be wary of selective archiving by Newbieguesses though. If you bother, please visit a number of discussions I've participated in. Karbinski (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Since user Snowded brought himself into this discussion, the recently closed Request to Move on the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article talk page is the inspiration for my proposal. Karbinski (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It would take any experienced editor a couple of seconds to track back to your "inspiration". Its normally better to be honest. If you think an editor has behaved badly say so (here or elsewhere) and have the decency to tell them on their talk page. In general your behaviour has been, from time to time to act as an advocate (and in Philosophy as a covert advocate) for an extremist political philosophy. Best to let people look at that for themselves. Some of the archiving in effect protects you from some of your more extremist statements so I agree, if someone is really interested (which I doubt), look at the archives as well.

I'm sure you are counting on no one being bothered, hence all the mud chucking. Karbinski (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Look Rand is a minor literary figure, you need to learn to live with it and avoid NPOV to try and gain attention. Because she is such a minor figure I doubt if many people are interested. If you plaster parts of wikipedia with your complaints (without the honesyt to name names and properly notify) then (i) don't be surprised to see a response to said complaints in the interests of transparency and (ii) try and be honest with yourself about the way you edited the Philosophy page, it might help you in the future. --Snowded TALK 21:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(i) if the proposal went through, the next time, if there ever would be, would be the time I could register a complaint on a user page (as of now, there is no policy basis for a complaint). (ii) The way I edited the Philosophy page: first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth. - honest! Karbinski (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)