User:Jeff G./Disruptive editing responses

Dealing with disruptive editors
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 WP:ANI 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, with hope that each step may help resolve the problem, such that further steps are not needed:


 * First unencyclopedic entry by what appears to be a disruptive editor.
 * Assume good faith. Do not attack the author who you suspect is disruptive. However, revert uncited or unencyclopedic material. Use an edit summary which 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 that you may be dealing with someone who is new and confused, rather than a problem editor.
 * Addition to existing warnings: Please include verifiable references from reliable sources .
 * Addition to existing welcome: Hi. Please include verifiable references from reliable sources in edits such as the one you made to . Thanks!   
 * New page:  ~ 
 * New page:  ~ 


 * If it might be a content dispute:
 * Ask on the Editor Assistance Noticeboard:
 * I'm wanting to do X and I'm afraid that doing that might violate some policy. Will it? ~ 


 * If editor unreverts:
 * Post to the talkpage. Say what you're wanting to do, why you're wanting to do it, and give your sources. Do it at the article talk page, preferably in a new section entitled "Request for discussion", not at the other editor's user talk page. Only discuss the edit and do not say a word about the other editor, himself. Not about his motives, his biases, his conflicts of interest, his skills, his habits, his competence, his POV, his POV-pushing, nothing at all, period. Do not use profanity or insults. If possible, include a compromise and a draft of what you think is the right version, the text the user is trying to remove, or the text the user is trying to add. Then put the following code in a new section entitled  "Talkback Article name"  on the user's talk page:
 * Wait at least 72 hours after the user's next edit. Revert again if they haven't responded at the talkpage. Ensure that a clear explanation for the difference in opinion is posted by you at the article talkpage. Refer to this thread in your edit summary. If possible, suggest compromises at the talkpage.
 * Wait another 72 hours after the user's next edit. Revert again if they haven't responded at the talkpage. Refer to this thread in your edit summary. Then put the following code in a new section entitled  "Talkback Article name (second request)"  on the user's talk page:
 * Wait another 72 hours after the user's next edit. Revert again if they haven't responded at the talkpage. Refer to this thread in your edit summary. Then put the following code in the same section on the article talk page that you created earlier, and immediately edit or revert with specific edit comment: Make your edit or reversion in the article. For a edit summary, say, "See request for discussion on talk page":
 *   I've asked twice that you please discuss this matter. I'm going to go ahead and make the change I've described above. If you revert without responding here, then I'm going to have to file a complaint against you at WP:ANI for disruptive editing. .
 * Wait another 72 hours after the user's next edit. Revert again if they haven't responded at the talkpage. Refer to this thread in your edit summary. Then put the following code in the same section on the article talk page that you created earlier, and immediately edit or revert with specific edit comment: Make your edit or reversion in the article. For a edit summary, say, "See request for discussion on talk page":
 *   I've asked twice that you please discuss this matter. I'm going to go ahead and make the change I've described above. If you revert without responding here, then I'm going to have to file a complaint against you at WP:ANI for disruptive editing. .


 * If the reverting continues, and they are inserting unsourced information :
 * Revert, and request an administrator via 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.
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
 *  has been adding information to  without including verifiable references from reliable sources, and without discussing on its user talk page or the article talk page.   


 * If the reverting continues, and they are not inserting unsourced information : report the following to WP:ANI:
 *  I tried to make an edit at page name on such and such date and was reverted by User:Other editors username. I requested on the article talk page that he discuss the matter with me, link to talk page section where you made the request, and left a talkback to that request on his user talk page. When I hadn't heard from him in X days, I left another talkback. When he still had not responded in X days, I tried the edit again and he reverted me again, still without discussing. I know that I can't get dispute resolution without talk page discussion. What should I do? Isn't continuing to revert my edit without discussing it with me disruptive editing? ~ 


 * If the tendentious editor is using sources, but if the sources are bad or misinterpreted :
 * Do not go to ANI yet.
 * Review Dispute resolution.
 * File a report at the Reliable Sources noticeboard, if appropriate.
 * Continue attempts to engage new 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.
 * Hi. I have noticed that you are still not including verifiable references from reliable sources in edits such as the ones you have been making made to, such as in [ this edit]. Please supply verifiable references from reliable sources or discuss the situation here or on the article talk page.  Thanks!   

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 the situation. If other editors are involved, they should post their own comments too, to make it clear that the community disapproves of the tendentious behavior.
 * Suggest Mediation.
 * If mediation is rejected, unsuccessful, and/or the problems continue:
 * Notify the editor you find disruptive, on their user talkpage.
 * Hi. I have noticed that you are continuing to not include verifiable references from reliable sources in edits such as the ones you have been making made to, such as in [ this edit]. I view such behavior as disruptive.  Please supply verifiable references from reliable sources or discuss the situation here or on the article talk page.  Thanks!   


 * Tendentious editor continues reverting.
 * Assuming that it's one editor against many at this point, continue reverting the tendentious editor. If s/he exceeds three reverts in a 24-hour period, file a report at WP:3RR (but be careful you don't do excessive reverts yourself!). However, one tendentious editor cannot maintain problematic content in the face of multiple other editors reverting his/her edits.


 * If the tendentious editor is not violating 3RR, or there aren't enough editors involved to enforce Wikipedia policies:
 * File another ANI report.
 *  has been continuing to add information to  without including verifiable references from reliable sources, and without discussing on the article talk page.   


 * If for some reason administrators do not respond:
 * File a Requests for comment/User conduct, but only if you have multiple diffs to show that you have tried to address the problem via other means, and you have at least one other editor who has attempted to resolve the problem, and will help certify the RfC.


 * Editor continues to ignore consensus of the RfC.
 * Again request assistance at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for administrator intervention, point to consensus from the User Conduct RfC. An admin should issue a warning or temporary block as appropriate.
 *  has been adding information to  without including verifiable references from reliable sources, and without discussing on its user talk page or the article talk page.  A link to the User Conduct RfC is [ here].   


 * If blocks fail to solve the problem, or you are still unable to obtain attention via ANI, and all other avenues have been tried:
 * File a case for the Arbitration Committee to review. Base it strictly on user conduct, and not on article content.