User:Logical2u/Essays
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline. Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page. |
Note: This page expresses only ONE users opinions, that of User:ArdoMelnikov. At the moment, they only deal with two viewpoints on userboxes, Vandals, and a statement on Sockpuppets.
Please correct typoes! Thank you!
Contents |
[edit] Userboxes are not the universe
Right, seems simple enough to you, hopefully.
Well, chances are, it probably isn't for some.
Let's play a hypothetical game here. Lets say that, for example, someone has placed on a talk page that "They live in a cave". Now, are you going to go out on a limb and say that "This user lives in a cave! Maybe he/she is Osama Bin Laden!" Chances are, you aren't.
Now, let's go a stetch farther beyond mild jokes and into a realm of confusion and nightmares that is the topic of T1 (WP:TfD). Let's say that, because you sometimes don't see eye to eye with friends of a whatever viewpoint, you think it'd be funny to put User whatever on your page, as a joke. Is that ok? One would hope so. Chances are, however, that some OTHER people, seriously follow User whatever because of their stance on whatever.
Now, lets stretch the boundries of belief and say that you have the opposing belief on Whatever, and you see someone's page, with this userbox that says Whatever is me/Is not me!. Ok. Now, here's where the essay really begins.
As this person (A) who has the opposing belief as the other person (B), you don't find it that funny. But B, seeing that you as A, have found offence within it, probably finds it VERY amusing. Yes, they are laughing at A, because of their differences. Not via wikipedia... yet.
Now, let's add C, a simple person who follows the beliefs of neither A nor B. You see this obvious division. So C deletes it to end division, following T1.
Ok, so remember what we've talked about so far.
- Userboxes display humour by some people OR Userboxes may display true opinions, but the chances normally are that if it was the truth, it would hurt others that are opposed to it and as such, they wouldn't be effective. (B)
- People object to some userboxes, as they, as people, have opinions opposite to that of the userbox. This is not an issue. (A)
- Kind and normal people see the apparent division between A and B, and then delete the userboxes in question under T1. (C)
The majority of the times this WILL work. However, let's look at 1 once again...
1a. Userboxes display humour by some people. Ok, so that could be Aa. 1b. Userboxes may display true opinions if they don't care about offending people that are opposed their opinions. Ok, so that could be Ab.
Now, when Aa is greater than Ab, the amount of rage at the deletion of the template in question by C will be high, but when Ab is greater than Aa, even the users under Aa will likely come out in support of C's opinion.
Aa > Ab = A > B and viceversa, Ab > Aa = B > A
The real concerns begin when C and A or B become the same person, when a point of view sways an opinion regarding T1. Under the new rules, you could propose for deletion any template in existence that offended you, because it would be divisive to you.
For example... just glancing briefly at WP:TfD...
Template:User Too many userboxes. OMG, I don't have too many userboxes... that just puts us on a different page, that's not right!
Well, that's not exactly true. It's just one of the things that deletion may state.
So, we urge Wikipedians to attempt to view as many sides of the polyhedron as possible. It's always going to be a difficult place to be.
And to be fair... well actually, I follow both views.
[edit] Userboxes are stupid
Above, there was a statement made out why userboxes need to be taken with a grain of salt. Here's why they shouldn't be.
- OMG LOOK I AM LIBERAL! LOL!
- And now all the Conservatives will attack you. Unless you contribute only to liberal pages, or don't contribute to liberal pages, depending on how you feel about WP:NPOV, it means NOTHING. It is a useless waste of bandwith, an image that sucks performance from loading pages.
- Without any meaning behind statements it doesn't make sense to keep using userboxes (Heck, I should do that myself). Or you could keep the boxes and remove all the images.
- I do/don't believe/like/do in...
- That isn't helpful at all. It's like you're letting us know that you are going to act like an ass if anyone brings up a topic regarding an article under that range.
- Upon update most of these templates are deleted, but the problem still exists. You need to moderate yourself from breaking NOT, as in NOT a Soapbox with userboxes.
- I'm special.
OR
- Lol joke.
- Alrighty then. But then why do you feel the need to tell us all? No help to wikipedia. Waste of space and time to even put those in.
- Alternatively, these can be hidden if you know what's you're doing. That's pretty good.
- Accusations!
- That isn't even funny. Attacking another user or figure on Wikipedia is not an effective use of your air.
[edit] Socks
Everyone wears socks. That's a wonderful bit of awesome, isn't it? I'm sure as kids, most editors remember seeing puppets made with socks. That is, to say, a sockpuppet.
Rather than redirecting you to a thousand pages, here's what a sockpuppet is, in brief. Another account used by you. That is to say your main account is your face, and another account is a sock on your hand, doing stuff for you, but masquerading as a sock with a hand shoved into it. That is to say, there is you, and a sockpuppet of you.
Sockpuppets are commonly used as a simple, crude, and usually ineffective (Due to the usual need of egoists to name their sockpuppet after themselves, or repeat a similar style to their old account) ways of either continuing a "WikiJihad" or evading a block. Most Sockpuppets are caught within moments of their creation or first edit. This usally results in the sock-master being more severely punished.
Plus, sockpuppets, even if there are created for a right to vanish, or because of some other bizarre circumstance, instantly create a stigma within the community towards the sockmaster (And therefore the sockpuppet account). So, Sockpuppets even within Wiki-policy, when known, degrade the quality of the user, which is occassionally why the editor has sockpuppet in the first place.
So from above, there is usually no proper way to have a sockpuppet. That means that creating more than account is usually an act of WikiSuicide, something that most people will not admit to doing or ever forsee.
[edit] WikiWar
(A proper title for this essay would be: WikiJihad, WikiHolyWar, WikiCrusade, Wiki:Operation Wiki Liberation (Or freedom), Wiki:Operation WikiStorm, or Wiki:W-Day)
Every so often, an editor either arrives at Wikipedia with vengeance in their heart, or vengeance is created through the systematic abuse of the Wiki by other editors. In some cases, this editor just leaves without comment. Usually they make a big fuss about it and then leave. In the 3rd most common case, the editor in question declares Wikipedia unjust, and starts trying to fix it.
There are several ways people attempt to "Fix" the Wiki, most notably by becoming WikiWarriors or creating an antivandalism block. However, others have vengenance because of the righteous actions of other editors, creating a situation where "Fixing" the Wiki involves making it worse.
These sorts of cases usually net said editor a nice subpage on LTA pages, usually with a very pretty template. Then they will come back, using sockpuppets and ignore any sort of rules or limits imposed on them in order to fix the wiki.
For both good and evil purposes, any sort of massive scheme or plan of action for fixing the wiki can be loosely defined as a WikiWar (Or WikiJihad, etc). Usually this results in things like edit wars, wheel wars, page move wars, and plenty of use of Godwin's Law. Occasionally massive arbitration cases start, WP:RFC and WP:RFCU get overfilled with users, and someone shuts down the server in order to give people enough time to block the involves parties.
This just makes people angry. Mainly because they love the Wiki "SOOO MUCH" that they cannot afford to be seperated for any length of time. This cases another onset of WikiWars.
Like a Wheel War, a WikiWar without a peaceful conclusion has no end. In order to appease all members of society, the final shots must be silent and invisible, not from the almighty hand of god. There must be PUBLIC apologies, not private email conversations, for most to be happy. Some will be ok with a massive block, but some won't.
So a War must be solved with diplomacy, both on the Wiki and off the Wiki, for the complete cessation of hostilities. There are no nukes on Wikis, but there are IP Range Blocks.
And frankly, a Subpage makes no one happier but the vandal. 18:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
