Meta tags:

Headings (most frequently used words):

disruptive, editing, to, point, or, wikipedia, contents, summary, examples, of, distinguished, from, productive, attempts, evade, detection, dealing, with, editors, april, fools, day, see, also, illustrating, failure, refusal, get, the, persistent, llm, use, blocking, and, sanctions, but, what, about, new, model,

Text of the page (most frequently used words):
the (103), #wikipedia (68), and (52), disruptive (49), editors (42), not (39), #editing (30), may (29), page (26), for (26), with (21), that (21), point (20), this (19), guidelines (19), article (18), you (17), sources (17), editor (17), content (16), other (16), talk (15), consensus (15), are (15), their (15), policies (14), edits (14), policy (13), pages (13), from (13), they (13), see (12), view (11), edit (11), articles (11), community (11), but (11), should (11), all (10), user (10), such (10), time (10), project (9), dispute (9), reliable (9), sanctions (9), tendentious (9), about (8), use (8), deletion (8), models (8), what (8), ani (8), more (8), revert (8), rule (8), new (8), when (8), resolution (7), disrupt (7), vandalism (7), problem (7), still (7), make (7), sometimes (7), productive (7), contents (6), conduct (6), list (6), summary (6), administrators (6), also (6), main (6), discussion (6), file (6), have (6), one (6), information (6), your (6), can (6), search (5), move (5), shortcuts (5), style (5), blocking (5), faith (5), personal (5), writing (5), don (5), avoid (5), fools (5), report (5), appropriate (5), noticeboard (5), continues (5), even (5), than (5), disputes (5), long (5), who (5), fails (5), through (5), toggle (4), terms (4), categories (4), behavioral (4), template (4), lists (4), disambiguation (4), newcomers (4), illustrate (4), good (4), attacks (4), ignore (4), rules (4), large (4), language (4), links (4), fringe (4), create (4), include (4), disruption (4), continue (4), well (4), april (4), case (4), three (4), involved (4), many (4), reverts (4), problematic (4), multiple (4), subst (4), behavior (4), being (4), attempts (4), dealing (4), try (4), these (4), shortcut (4), people (4), which (4), weight (4), minority (4), after (4), get (4), here (4), guideline (4), patience (4), always (4), hide (4), sidebar (4), mobile (3), privacy (3), apply (3), site (3), non (3), copyright (3), categorization (3), templates (3), lead (3), bold (3), biographies (3), harm (3), bite (3), assume (3), warring (3), civility (3), llm (3), citing (3), notability (3), original (3), research (3), must (3), day (3), will (3), most (3), resolve (3), issue (3), request (3), enforce (3), against (3), reverting (3), diffs (3), post (3), unencyclopedic (3), material (3), very (3), rather (3), engage (3), comment (3), seek (3), sourced (3), evidence (3), into (3), civil (3), history (3), model (3), though (3), others (3), general (3), ban (3), over (3), number (3), often (3), single (3), pattern (3), evade (3), action (3), mistakes (3), impartial (3), viewpoint (3), each (3), giving (3), undue (3), views (3), verifiable (3), effort (3), required (3), way (3), because (3), hear (3), listen (3), icanthearyou (3), actions (3), might (3), certain (3), requests (3), repeatedly (3), examples (3), process (3), dis (3), english (3), tools (3), add (2), languages (2), table (2), code (2), legal (2), contact (2), using (2), agree (2), wikimedia (2), commons (2), protected (2), friendly (2), wikiprojects (2), namespace (2), navigation (2), section (2), manual (2), understandability (2), size (2), protection (2), banning (2), enforcement (2), attack (2), signatures (2), threats (2), gaming (2), system (2), etiquette (2), conflict (2), interest (2), sockpuppetry (2), ownership (2), external (2), theories (2), medicine (2), violations (2), living (2), persons (2), neutral (2), verifiability (2), stop (2), self (2), just (2), avoiding (2), including (2), limited (2), out (2), tagged (2), users (2), help (2), likely (2), blocked (2), warnings (2), blocks (2), hours (2), unable (2), review (2), arbitration (2), committee (2), remedies (2), again (2), assistance (2), administrator (2), admin (2), block (2), any (2), already (2), yourself (2), however (2), cannot (2), face (2), clearly (2), trying (2), own (2), comments (2), clear (2), problems (2), otherwise (2), inappropriate (2), stay (2), aware (2), someone (2), confused (2), refer (2), only (2), opinion (2), yet (2), appears (2), around (2), posted (2), possible (2), suggest (2), short (2), issues (2), engaging (2), detailed (2), understand (2), note (2), times (2), clean (2), incidents (2), first (2), done (2), some (2), extreme (2), situations (2), dde (2), nonetheless (2), occur (2), disciplinary (2), runaway (2), detection (2), then (2), stated (2), does (2), notable (2), been (2), means (2), give (2), contributions (2), remain (2), distinguished (2), hallucinations (2), repeated (2), amount (2), llmdisrupt (2), persistent (2), act (2), especially (2), them (2), competence (2), redirects (2), spoken (2), idht (2), ididnthearthat (2), failure (2), refusal (2), proper (2), concerns (2), simply (2), disagree (2), related (2), cases (2), generally (2), illustrating (2), exhaust (2), toward (2), exhausting (2), away (2), ctdape (2), dape (2), pursuit (2), despite (2), disregards (2), explanations (2), questions (2), building (2), tags (2), uses (2), needed (2), cite (2), group (2), disruptsigns (2), while (2), follow (2), similar (2), reliability (2), persistently (2), encyclopedia (2), free (2), appearance (2), upload (2), changes (2), source (2), read (2), bahasa (2), subsection (2), log (2), account (2), donate (2), menu (2), topic, cookie, statement, statistics, developers, safety, contacts, disclaimers, text, available, under, additional, registered, trademark, profit, organization, foundation, inc, creative, attribution, sharealike, license, was, last, edited, july, 2026, utc, hidden, semi, artificial, intelligence, retrieved, https, org, index, php, title, disruptive_editing, oldid, 1366999293, summaries, values, principles, licensing, space, universal, wmf, subpages, boxes, classification, linking, layout, images, dates, numbers, accessibility, broad, concept, hatnotes, revision, oversight, speedy, proposed, responding, courtesy, vanishing, please, paid, contribution, disclosure, child, harassment, assisted, translation, removal, generated, patent, nonsense, hoaxes, plagiarism, copies, lengthy, primary, autobiographies, titles, image, five, pillars, key, irreplaceable, wikibullying, tag, team, limiting, drop, hate, griefing, tilt, windmills, adhere, applicable, except, intended, humorous, kept, respective, equivalent, inline, misleading, humor, namespaces, accounts, used, primarily, indefinitely, result, escalating, typically, starting, base, strictly, reescalate, discussing, existing, fail, solve, intervention, earlier, noticeboards, warning, temporary, decision, reached, filed, violating, 3rr, there, aren, enough, assuming, exceed, excessive, maintain, warn, generic4, disruptive3, disruptive2, disruptive1, notify, find, name, indicate, unnecessarily, provocative, remember, escalate, too, disapproves, rejected, unsuccessful, author, whom, suspect, uncited, describes, inflammatory, asking, consult, dialogue, two, third, poor, misinterpreted, nothing, haven, responded, ensure, explanation, difference, thread, compromises, via, provide, keep, 250, 500, words, diffed, showing, focus, inserting, unsourced, ignoring, talkpage, going, reduce, likelihood, complaint, successful, restores, unreverts, entry, following, steps, necessarily, sequence, circumstances, rapid, best, step, fast, track, order, benefit, gradual, escalation, resolving, violates, conversely, distributed, wide, range, less, given, watches, sufficient, affected, notice, disruptions, small, few, watch, breaches, refraining, interfering, collaborative, largely, confined, directly, prevents, reaching, how, improve, period, overall, bad, attempt, several, ways, meaning, misled, publications, defend, positions, concede, encounter, better, feedback, present, active, public, controversies, documented, mainstream, scholarly, journal, textbook, monograph, exemption, settled, itself, sun, revolves, earth, per, neutrality, requires, mainspace, fairly, represents, significant, viewpoints, published, proportion, prominence, due, much, description, widely, held, fits, within, mission, where, comply, rests, initially, provides, wishes, burden, development, released, regularly, oftentimes, incorporate, methods, mitigate, practices, introduce, errors, rates, beyond, human, feasibly, fix, restricted, generate, considered, disproportionate, persist, doing, warned, wasting, although, encouraged, things, think, right, spends, cleaning, educating, considers, necessary, imposed, lack, genuine, belief, valid, mean, accepted, told, rejection, idea, didn, consider, telling, side, debate, work, finding, points, agreement, confuse, hearing, agreeing, perpetuate, sticking, has, decided, would, moving, efficiency, embed, audio, concerned, versions, wikiproject, inability, receive, messages, communication, bugs, without, disrupting, practically, speaking, 100, percent, consistent, its, therefore, strongly, disagrees, made, efforts, respect, sway, tactics, never, perfect, wherever, occurs, highly, feel, place, raise, discuss, mere, look, becomes, frustrated, applied, tempting, discredit, interpretation, thereof, applying, consistently, prove, local, aim, getting, changed, unpopular, counter, operates, end, abiding, meatpuppetry, campaign, drive, contributors, addition, resists, moderation, continuing, opposing, recognize, rejects, ignores, input, concerning, objections, adds, unjustified, properly, citations, citation, engages, tagging, cites, misrepresents, performs, unwilling, satisfy, extended, opposition, deletions, removing, exhibits, tendencies, gross, obvious, subtle, reasonable, observed, construed, defense, taken, entitlement, specific, broken, attempting, breaking, suggested, below, disguise, distinctive, traits, separate, uninvolved, further, grounds, serious, could, either, isolation, part, close, together, spread, superficially, quite, different, collectively, quit, frustration, openness, attracts, exploit, platform, welcomed, constructive, occasionally, creates, term, set, insisting, opinions, promotion, advocacy, pushing, accidentally, reminder, helpful, take, care, drives, wrongly, label, disrupts, progress, improving, extend, treated, independently, taking, consideration, whether, violate, userboxes, tables, offensive, naming, conventions, discussions, knowingly, unknowingly, nutshell, reflect, substantive, exceptions, documents, redirect, encyclopedic, degrading, wikidata, item, projects, printable, version, download, pdf, print, export, shortened, url, permanent, link, tiếng, việt, اردو, українська, татарча, tatarça, türkçe, ไทย, தமிழ், српски, srpski, soomaaliga, slovenščina, simple, සිංහල, русский, português, norsk, bokmål, nederlands, melayu, 한국어, 日本語, indonesia, हिन्दी, galego, français, suomi, فارسی, español, ελληνικά, کوردی, বাংলা, भोजपुरी, башҡортса, تۆرکجه, مصرى, العربية, top, special, recent, portal, learn, contribute, random, current, events, jump,

Text of the page (random words):
is may extend over a long time on many articles disruptive editing is not always vandalism though vandalism is always disruptive each case should be treated independently taking into consideration whether or not the actions violate policies and guidelines editors should take care not to wrongly label disruptive situations as vandalism as it drives away others especially newcomers editors may be accidentally disruptive because they are not aware of policies and guidelines if so a friendly reminder is helpful if the disruptive editing continues after many warnings it may be because they are a case of wikipedia competence is required summary wikipedia s openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site as a platform for pushing a single point of view original research advocacy or self promotion while notable minority opinions are welcomed when verifiable through reliable sources and constructive editors occasionally make mistakes sometimes an editor creates long term problems by persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable through reliable sources or insisting on giving undue weight to a minority view collectively disruptive editors harm wikipedia s reliability or exhaust the patience of other editors who may quit the project in frustration an edit which in isolation is not disruptive may still be part of a pattern of editing that is a group of disruptive edits may be close together in time or spread out they may all occur on a single page or on many pages they may be all very similar or superficially quite different 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 uninvolved editors agree through requests for comment or similar means further disruption is grounds for blocking and may lead to more serious disciplinary action through the dispute resolution process in extreme cases this could include a site ban either through the arbitration committee or by consensus the three revert rule if observed by disruptive editors is not to be construed as a defense against action taken to enforce this policy against disruptive editors as stated in that policy the rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times the three revert rule should not be broken even by editors attempting to revert disruptive edits while vandalism is always disruptive disruptive editing is not always vandalism editors should follow the process suggested below rather than breaking the rule examples of disruptive editing shortcut wp disruptsigns wp disruptsigns see also wikipedia editing policy this guideline concerns gross obvious and repeated violations of policies not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree a disruptive editor often exhibits these tendencies 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 is unwilling or unable to satisfy wikipedia verifiability fails to cite sources cites unencyclopedic sources misrepresents reliable sources or performs original research engages in disruptive cite tagging adds unjustified citation needed or more citations needed tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is problematic fails to engage in consensus building repeatedly disregards other editors questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits repeatedly disregards other editors explanations for their edits fails to recognize 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 in addition such editors might shortcuts wp dape wp dape wp ctdape wp ctdape campaign to drive away productive contributors act counter to policies and guidelines such as wikipedia civility wikipedia no personal attacks or wikipedia ownership of articles or sockpuppetry meatpuppetry that might not exhaust the general community s patience but still operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rule abiding editors on certain articles point illustrating main page wikipedia do not disrupt wikipedia to illustrate a point when one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by in one s view applying it consistently sometimes this is done simply to prove a point in a local dispute in other cases one might try to enforce a rule in a generally unpopular way with the aim of getting it changed such behavior wherever it occurs is highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban if you feel that a policy is problematic the policy s talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns if you simply disagree with someone s actions in an article discuss it on the article talk page or related pages if mere discussion fails to resolve a problem look into dispute resolution practically speaking wikipedia cannot be 100 percent consistent and its rules will therefore never be perfect if consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts then respect the consensus rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics note that it is possible to make a point without disrupting wikipedia to illustrate your point failure or refusal to get the point shortcuts wp ididnthearthat wp ididnthearthat wp idht wp idht wp icanthearyou wp icanthearyou wp hear wp hear wp icanthearyou redirects here for inability of mobile editors to receive messages see wikipedia mobile communication bugs wp listen redirects here for the template to embed audio see template listen for the project concerned with spoken versions of articles see wikipedia wikiproject spoken wikipedia see also wikipedia efficiency sometimes editors perpetuate disputes by sticking to a viewpoint long after the community consensus has decided that moving on would be more productive this is disruptive genuine belief that you have a valid point does not mean that point must be accepted by the community when you have been told otherwise the community s rejection of your idea is not because they didn t hear you stop writing listen and consider what others are telling you make an effort to see their side of the debate and work on finding points of agreement do not confuse hearing with agreeing with sometimes even when editors act in good faith their contributions may be time wasting especially if they can t understand what the problem is although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they re right sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way if the community spends more time cleaning up editors mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary sanctions may be imposed persistent llm use see also wikipedia writing articles with large language models shortcut wp llmdisrupt wp llmdisrupt repeated use of large language models to generate content is considered disruptive as the amount of effort required to clean such content up is disproportionate to the amount of effort required to create it users who persist in doing this even after being warned may be blocked but what about new model x y or z at the time of writing new models are still in development and being released regularly oftentimes these new models incorporate new methods to mitigate hallucinations and other practices nonetheless these new models can still be disruptive as they still introduce errors and hallucinations at rates beyond what human editors can feasibly fix as such the consensus at the time of writing is that new models remain restricted from editing wikipedia distinguished from productive editing editors often include minority views in articles this fits within wikipedia s mission so long as the contributions are verifiable do not give undue weight and where appropriate comply with wp fringe the burden of evidence rests with the editor who initially provides the information or wishes the information to remain from wikipedia neutral point of view neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views editors may present active public disputes or controversies documented by reliable sources citing a viewpoint stated in a mainstream scholarly journal textbook or monograph is not per se disruptive editing this exemption does not apply to settled disputes e g that the sun revolves around the earth the dispute itself is notable sometimes well meaning editors may be misled by fringe publications or make mistakes such people may defend their positions for a short time then concede the issue when they encounter better evidence or impartial feedback attempts to evade detection shortcut wp runaway wp runaway bad faith disruptive editors attempt to evade disciplinary action in several ways their edits occur over a long period of time in which case no single edit is disruptive but the overall pattern clearly is their edits are largely confined to talk pages such disruption may not directly harm an article but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve it their comments may avoid breaches of civility by refraining from personal attacks but still interfering with civil and collaborative editing and discussion their edits are limited to a small number of pages that very few people watch conversely their edits may be distributed over a wide range of articles to make it less likely that any given user watches a sufficient number of affected articles to notice the disruptions nonetheless such disruptive editing violates wikipedia s policies and guidelines dealing with disruptive editors shortcut wp dde wp dde see also wikipedia dispute resolution resolving user conduct disputes the following is a model for remedies though these steps do not necessarily have to be done in this sequence in some extreme circumstances a rapid report to the administrators noticeboard of incidents may be the best first step in others a fast track to a community ban may be in order but in general most situations can benefit from a gradual escalation first unencyclopedic or inappropriate entry by what appears to be a disruptive editor assume good faith do not attack the author whom you suspect is disruptive however revert uncited unencyclopedic or otherwise inappropriate material use an edit summary that describes the problem in non inflammatory terms stay very civil post to talk page asking for discussion and or sources consult do not bite the newcomers and be aware you may be dealing with someone new and confused rather than a problem editor if the editor restores or unreverts if sourced information appears this time around do nothing if not revert again if they haven t responded at the talk page ensure a clear explanation for the difference in opinion is posted by you at the article talk page refer to this thread in your edit summary if possible suggest compromises at the talk page if reverting continues revert and request administrator assistance via wikipedia administrators noticeboard incidents ani provide diffs of the multiple reverts by the tendentious editor keep your post short no more than 250 500 words well diffed multiple diffs showing evidence and focus on user conduct issues the tendentious editor is not engaging in discussion is inserting unsourced information is ignoring talkpage consensus try to avoid going into detailed article content issues at ani as it may reduce the likelihood that an admin will understand the complaint note to be most successful at ani your own history must be clean at all times stay civil and avoid engaging in multiple reverts yourself if tendentious editor is using sources but if the sources are poor or misinterpreted do not go to ani yet review wikipedia dispute resolution file a report at the reliable sources noticeboard if appropriate continue attempts to engage the editor in dialogue refer to policies and guidelines as appropriate if only two editors are involved seek a third opinion if more editors are involved try a request for comment if attempts at dispute resolution are rejected or unsuccessful or the problems continue notify the editor you find disruptive on their user talk page include diffs of the problematic behavior use a section name and or edit summary to clearly indicate that you view their behavior as disruptive but avoid being unnecessarily provocative remember you re still trying to de escalate if other editors are involved they should post their own comments too to make clear the community disapproves if tendentious editor continues disruptive edits warn the user for disruptive editing subst uw disruptive1 subst uw disruptive2 subst uw disruptive3 and subst uw generic4 assuming it s one editor against many at this point continue reverting the tendentious editor if they exceed three reverts in 24 hours file a report at wikipedia administrators noticeboard edit warring but don t do excessive reverts yourself however one tendentious editor cannot maintain problematic content in the face of multiple other editors reverting their edits if a tendentious editor is not violating the three revert rule 3rr or there aren t enough editors involved to enforce wikipedia policies file a report at ani even if you have already filed one or more if the editor continues to ignore the consensus of any decision reached at ani again request assistance at ani for administrator intervention and point to consensus from earlier talk pages or noticeboards an admin should issue a warning or temporary block as appropriate if blocks fail to solve the problem reescalate the issue at administrators noticeboard or ani discussing appropriate sanctions and remedies for the user or for enforcement of existing sanctions if community discussion is unable to resolve the problem file a case for the arbitration committee to review base the report s strictly on user conduct and not on article content blocking and sanctions disruptive editing may result in warnings sanctions and escalating blocks typically starting with 24 hours accounts used primarily for disruption will most likely be blocked indefinitely april fools day main page wikipedia rules for fools all edits on april fools day must con...