It may be that the issue is largely resolved by Copyright's observation that
disruptive is the much more common adjectival form. Personally, I don't see any difference in the degree of negative connotation. I'm not sure when, if ever,
disrupting would be preferable as an adjective, and I'd good-naturedly suggest that as part of your analysis. Note that in the examples offered by tamiiland, he used
disrupting as a verb. That may account for the distinction drawn regarding timespan.
>>an answer is always more valuable than no answer at all.
Always? What if it's an incorrect response, or simply misleading? When I first joined this forum, I viewed the (pretty much strictly enforced) rules about context and sources as nothing much more than common sense. A few months of hanging around in the community has led me to decide that they are much more valuable and necessary. (In another thread, we're trying to decide if
I changed my mind, or if my experience here did the changing.)
Of course, every thread is different (or
should be, if people search the archive first

), and I can see the point you were making about wanting a "general," non-contextual perspective. But please be kind to the staff here; some of them are grumpy old men. And speaking as one myself, I can understand the limitations involved.
Here's my example sentence:
A disruption disrupted the disruptive effect of their protest.