Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing

Active discussions

Picture of womanEdit

Shouldn't the picture of a foolish woman ("I can't hear you"), which is the only picture in the article, be either removed or replaced by a photo of a foolish man? Only about 1/6 of wiki-editors are women, and the problem of systemic bias has been widely discussed on- and off-wiki. Thanks.NightHeron (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Given what's going on at ANI right now, a picture of you would be most appropriate of all. If you'd supply one that would improve the page greatly. EEng 13:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I deleted this photo of (per our article) "Madame de Meuron (22 August, 1882 – 22 May, 1980), was an aristocrat and well-known eccentric personality in the city of Bern, Switzerland." It was returned with the edit summary: "Amusing to see someone not getting the point in editing a section on not getting the point. I assure you that thousands of others DO get the point." I can assure you that I am not at all amused and I (along with perhaps many other women) believe this really does need some explanation about what "the point" exactly is. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
It's not a "foolish woman", it's a person using an ear-trumpet i.e. someone who has trouble hearing things. If you can find an image of a man with an ear-trumpet, feel free to add it for balance. EEng 19:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I think User:EEng#s is the one who's not hearing well. A reader who came to the page would likely get the impression that the authors of the article think that women editors are the most likely disrupters. User:EEng#s might also need an ear trumpet to hear the clamor of complaints about sexism on Wikipedia. There's a list of references at the beginning of the article on systemic bias in the April issue of Signpost.NightHeron (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 
Offensive, perhaps, to skinny people?-EEng
I see: an image of a woman with attribute X implies that most persons with attribute X are women. I'm known for not suffering fools gladly but I confess that my powers of invective are unable to do justice to the stupidity of such logic. Perhaps henceforth we should use genderless stick figures wherever possible. EEng 04:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
but ... that stick character is obviously not male - (missing tiny dick-stick. :) ... Vsmith (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I'll try to find a stick figure with a fig leaf. EEng 13:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm usually the first one to enjoy a little talk page humor but it is not funny to use the photo from one of our bio articles to demonstrate disruptive. And a picture of a woman with a hearing disability at that. We should not be mocking people, either male or female and certainly not people with disabilities. Gandydancer (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

You might be more comfortable editing Victimpedia. EEng 17:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes in the heat of battle one must exaggerate a tad.   Gandydancer (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 
Another day of editing-EEng
I never exaggerate. Shocking habit. EEng 18:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • It has come to my attention that this amazing discussion about the "sexist image" was continued elsewhere [1]. EEng 06:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Balance restoredEdit

If you can find an image of a man with an ear-trumpet...
— User:EEng

Challenge accepted and completed, using this image — which is arguably an even better illustration of the problem anyway. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Any change to a policy page must have broad consensus. EEng does not have consensus for his edit. Bright☀ 06:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Why do only women's opinions count? EEng 12:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
1) You are engaging in disruptive editing; 2) you're removing something that's been there 3 years you're lying, your new version has existed for two months; and 3) contrary to the essay WP:STATUSQUO, there's no consensus by status quo. Appealing to status-quo is an indication of ownership behavior. What you need is consensus, not flippant answers. Bright☀ 17:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The image was first inserted in October 2016 [2]. At one point a different image was swapped in [3], but 16 minutes later [4] the original was added back so they were both there.
You better watch it with the lying accusations. Cluelessness I deal with myself, but if you keep up that kind of shit you're gonna get blocked.
I still wonder why "broad consensus" has anything to do with this. Men and broads should be free to opine. EEng 22:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Followup: BrightR has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Surprise! EEng 06:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • After reading this section, I'm surprised to see that EEng#s (talk · contribs) hasn't been warned for repeated personal attacks. On topic, the argumentation of sexism in the choise of picture is troublesome to say the least, as that implies that women can not be used for any illustrations of negative aspects simply because they are not in majority. BP OMowe (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
    OK, it's been a quiet week so I'll bite -- what are these personal attacks, exactly? On topic, I appreciate your recognizing that the sexism accusation is bullshit. EEng 01:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
    No answer. Huh. EEng 08:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

A less than ineffective lack of unclarityEdit

The third paragraph of § Summary contains this sentence:

Disruptive edits may not occur all in the course of one brief period without fruitless attempts to discuss with the user, (as when the user persists after 12 warnings to stop) and may not consist of the repetition of the same act.

There are so many negatives there I honestly can't work out what it's trying to say; it loses me partway through every time I try. ("...without fruitless attempts..." is about where my eyes usually glaze over. Huh?) If someone who's able to unpack it could re-word the intended message a little more accessibly, I feel they'd be doing the community a service. (You could just explain it to me, I suppose, but that wouldn't make the sentence any clearer. Though, once I understood what it was trying to say, I'd be happy to deal with the clarity issue myself.) -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

It seems Dlohcierekim inserted the "without fruitless... warnings to stop)" part of the sentence in this edit from 2018-02-10. Dlohcierekim, can I ask for a clarification on the intended meaning of that insertion / sentence? My apologies, I'm just not following what it's trying to communicate. -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I think he's trying to say that disruption need not be the act of a moment but may instead be a pattern of edits spread over time, but as written it's unfathomable to those not already in the know. EEng 02:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
No response from Dlohcierekim since my ping 4 days ago, tho they've been quite active since (mostly on administrative tasks, looks like)... I'll leave a talk page message summarizing my question, see if they're able (and interested) to provide any clarification. -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Followup: Given the recent kerfuffle at WP:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour I don't think we should use the word fruitless. EEng 10:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi! I came to this talk page just to Ctrl+F the word "fruitless" just to find this very topic. Even though there's already been this conversation, I'm still unable to comprehend the sentence. Probably, the author of the addition just misunderstood the meaning of the initial version of the sentence, that actually emphasized on the absence of the time limit (disruptive edits may not occur all in the course of one brief period), so that the additional explanation seems to be redundant. I've removed the confusing part, but feel free to rewrite it and bring it back.--Piramidion 13:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
@Piramidion: Yeah, sorry. I know I kept making noises about fixing the sentence in question, but the truth is that, even after I felt like I sorta had a handle on what it was trying to say, every time I attempted to make an edit the sentence just intimidated me into wimping out and wandering off into some other, less-threatening part of the project with more puppies and rainbows. You have my full support for just reversing the insertion in question, though, because I think by now a consensus view has been established that it made things less, not more, clear. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh, and to address EEng's concern some months ago, rest assured that as long as I'm around, Wikipedia shall never be truly fruitless. That is one promise I can make! #SoToSpeak -- FeRDNYC (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

SealioningEdit

Should we not introduce the concept of Sealioning to this article and/or the related article Wikipedia:Tendentious editing? I find myself using the term more frequently in relation to disruptive/tendentious editing and WP:ICANTHEARYOU in particular. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

MediationEdit

The "Dealing with disruptive editors" section says, "If mediation is rejected, unsuccessful, and/or the problems continue...". We don't have a mediation committee anymore, so should we stop referring to "mediation"? How about rewording this to "If attempts at dispute resolution are rejected, unsuccessful, and/or the problems continue..."? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. DonIago (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks :) Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

IDHT imageEdit

 
There's nothing wrong with my editing.

Reading this at AN/I suggested another image to convey the concept of IDHT. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 04:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I support this, because the current picture shows someone trying to hear, but this image illustrates someone purposefully not hearing, which is what IDHT is all about. Plus, it's funnier. Crossroads -talk- 04:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Like it. EEng 04:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@BlackcurrantTea, Crossroads, and EEng: See [5]. I have no particular problem with the new image, but the rationale the current picture shows someone trying to hear appears to be based on a flawed assumption about the content of the image. I know nothing about the subject except what I read in our article about her, but still. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
On second thought, I agree -- the new one is funnier, as long as it is accompanied by the caption seen here (which wouldn't make sense with the old image). I initially read the caption that was live on the page before writing the above. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I expect that few people would have clicked on it and then read her article, so the point would have been lost. I'm glad others see the humour in the new one. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, it was immediately funny to me, because I didn't have to click anything in order to understand why it was funny, but I realise very few editors here already knew Madame de Meuron, and I'm also against unnecessarily offending people. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Sluzzelin: I assume that by it was immediately funny to me you are referring to the caption presented immediately beside this text, which I added here. I came here from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=946129520 ANI] (Thanks, Bus stop!) and initially saw that only the image had been changed, and the rather banal "I can't hear you." caption left intact. I didn't notice until after posting the 09:49 message above that the caption proposed on the talk page actually was much funnier. Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not even sure, Hijiri 88, which caption I saw at the time. I just immediately recognised Mme de Meuron, anecdotes about whom I'd heard since childhood, and chuckled. But I don't think any caption would make it clear, to most unaware editors, that the picture is in no way making fun of people who have lost their hearing. For this reason, I'm happy with the change, even if I personally liked the picture with the ear trumpet. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 
(Old image) I can't hear you.
  • I'm curious: How many of you are saying that you don't recognize what the old lady is holding in her hand? EEng 21:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
    I did recognise it (loving 19th century illustrations and BBC period series), but I also understood that in Mme de Meurons's case, and given her character, the ear trumpet was meant to signalise "I will decide what is worth hearing and what isn't", which is not automatically clear from seeing a person holding a hearing device. My grandfather (and probably many other grandfathers too) managed to pull the trick of selective hearing and non-hearing pretense without any device, and it's a superpower I wish to possess too, one day). ---Sluzzelin talk 22:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
    Sorry, did you say something? EEng 22:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
    Nope. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I recognised it, but not being familiar with the woman in the picture, didn't see the image as that of someone choosing not to hear. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Disruptive editing".