User talk:83.84.100.133

July 2020

− Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't delete Administration warnings. You can't hide the page history, in any case.

I'm not hiding anything, just cleaning up my home page from unsourced and it turned out false accusations.

Now about the latest undefined 'charge', after I have debunked the unfounded and undefined WP:NOR charge. Turned out that Source Based Research is not Original Research, and it is completely legitimate to do so. I have not received an apology from all the 'moderators' who made that spurious claim - while of course never actually supporting their claim with facts, citations or anything at all. Which is another reason I cleaned up my home page.

So now I am again in the position of having to figure out what 'Disruptive Editing' is, because the 'moderators' will not actually spell out the content of their charge. What makes an edit to a talk page 'disruptive'? What are the clear guidelines - oh I forgot, Wikipedia doesn't have hard and fast rules. Nevertheless, try to be clear and concise.

In the meanwhile, let's see what Wikipedia says about Disruptive Editing, because the 'moderators' will not spell out their accusations.

Wikipedia: Disruptive Editing

"Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time on many articles, and disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia. Disruptive editing is not always vandalism, though vandalism is always disruptive. Each case should be treated independently, taking into consideration whether the actions violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If an editor treats situations that are not clearly vandalism as such, that editor may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors. SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing

Examples of disruptive editing SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Examples_of_disruptive_editing

A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following:

1. Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editors not only add material; some engage in disruptive deletions as well, e.g. repeatedly removing reliable sources posted by other editors.

Maybe - iffy. There are obviously going to be different opinions around. However if those differences are based on sources, that's the point of editing Wikipedia. I you thought everything was ok, then why make any edits at all? Obviously, one reason you know more than a moderator is because you have areas of specialty you know a lot about. That's the point of having a Wikipedia, to bundle the expertise of people around the planet.

2. Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.

I always cite sources. I'm starting to think that citing sources on talk pages now constitutes 'vandalism', or something. In fact, I'm citing sources right now.

3. Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable.

I've never cite-tagged anything on Wikipedia, so that can't be it.

4. Does not engage in consensus building: a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.

I post on talk pages first, in order to be part of the concensus building process. Ironic that you would then be charged with 'vandalism', without any further explanation.

5. Rejects or ignores 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.

I have never rejected or ignored community input. Again, that's why I post on talk pages before anything other than a minor edit. In fact, I can't remember getting into any heated argument with any actual fellow editors based on facts or anything else. Only 'moderators', and they don't make fact based arguments.

So what were the actions that "violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines"? Be precise, so I can avoid them the next time.

Be precise. Spell it out. Not spelling out violations or claims is in violation of Wikipedia's rules:

Noteworthy rules of Wikipedia:

Admins: https://www.wikizero.com/en/Wikipedia:Discretionary_sanctions

repeatedly fail to properly explain their enforcement actions;

repeatedly issue significantly disproportionate sanctions or issue a grossly disproportionate sanction.

Editors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies#Conduct

Harassment

Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated annoying and unwanted contacts, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information.

Consensus

Consensus among equals is our only tool for resolving content disputes, and our main tool for resolving all other disputes.

Vandalism

Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. It is inappropriate behavior for an online encyclopedia.

---

Status Quo Stonewalling Tactics

Status quo stonewalling is disruptive behavior in opposition to a proposed change when substantive argument based in policy, guidelines and conventions are inadequate to legitimately oppose the change.

Status quo stonewalling is typified by an insistence on keeping a current version instead of adopting a proposed change, or reverting to the version prior to a disputed change (the status quo), and avoiding substantive discussion of the issues related to the change while engaging in behavior that is typical of disputes. Such behavior creates the appearance of a real substantive dispute about the change when none (or little) exists.

When a substantive objection to a change exists, stonewalling is not required. So stonewalling is typically used when those opposed to the change don't actually have a substantive objection to the proposed change, or when they know whatever argument they have can be easily refuted, or is contrary to consensus.

Editors seeking to defend a status quo situation should refrain from employing the stonewalling tactics listed here, and instead follow the advice at How to avoid status quo stonewalling. ...

Accusing change proponents of disruptive, tendentious, or TLDR editing

In multiple stalled discussions, proponents of the change are likely to make patient and good faith repeated attempts to discuss the substantive points at issue. Trying different approaches, some posts might get long and repetitive. So another diverting/delaying tactic used at such a point is for the stonewallers to accuse the frustrated proponents of change of too much editing, either in the form of tendentious editing, or making TLDR or WP:DE/WP:IDHT posts. The stonewallers' argument is usually something along these lines: any apparent consensus in favor of the change is invalid because of the tendentiousness of the change proponents' editing, which has caused proponents of the status quo to no longer participate. As the TLDR essay notes, "As a label, [TLDR] is sometimes used as a tactic to thwart the kinds of discussion which are essential in collaborative editing." So is TE.

Allegations made against an editor alleged to have violated WP:DE by users who have a record of disagreeing with the editor should be given close scrutiny before being accepted.

Edit war lockdown

With two or three editors opposing the change, they have enough people to revert good faith efforts to effect the change in question in a manner that puts no one at risk for a 3RR violation, but creates an edit war situation that motivates an admin to lockdown the page, probably at the status quo version. Such an effort does not have to be coordinated, but can occur naturally as long as a few stonewalling opposers are watching the page in question. This tactic is especially effective on policy pages where admins seem to be less tolerant of multiple reverts, and more apt to restore the status quo version once they get involved.

Manipulating an admin into helping

Because many admins are predisposed to favor the status quo whenever there is a dispute, after creating sufficient smoke and noise with some of the tactics listed above, stonewallers can often be successful in convincing an admin that a legitimate dispute exists, and there is no consensus in favor of the change, when the dispute is actually non-substantive, and the apparent lack of consensus is actually the result of successful sandbagging. Duped in this manner, the admin is then likely to restore the status quo version (if necessary), and possibly even lock the page if any evidence of an edit war can be demonstrated. This tactic is particularly effective because it causes an admin who sees themself as being uninvolved to get involved in a manner that favors one side (the status quo stonewallers) over the others. Once so engaged, such an admin can prove to be useful to the stonewallers repeatedly.

More:

• Avoiding substantive discussion because of who is involved
• Reverting or opposing on procedural grounds
• Defending a revert because it's related to an ongoing dispute
• Defending a revert because the related text is mentioned in an open case
• A !vote of "no change needed", See also: Wikipedia: I just don't like it
• Arguing the status quo "does no harm"
• Ignoring good faith questions
• Arguing a policy or guideline needs to change first when opposing a proposal that is based on ignoring that policy/guideline per IAR
• Opposing a proposal based only on asserting that it's not supported by consensus
• Drive-by long-distance reverts
• Unreasonable sourcing demands
• Imposing a moratorium on proposals for change

83.84.100.133 (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

---