User:Inclusionist

Don't worry yourself about some of the underlying, troubling problems with wikipolicy:

1. keep deleting wikipages,
2. don't rock the boat,
3. don't ask too many questions,
4. don't ask tough follow up questions,
5. don't question the "cabal" (as some call it),
6. participate in making fun of those who mock the admins,
7. send powerful admins little funny templates,
8. participate in Wikipedia IRC channel,
9. tell blacksheep like me that you will not give them any favoritism,
10. always side with the admins,
11. learn how to harness wikipolicy...

...and hey, someday soon, you too can be an admin too!

From: User_talk:Netsnipe/Archive_01#rules

1. Agree with Jimbo, always.
2. Start an off-line group of like minded editors in which you can set up strategies to intimidate and push off foes.
3. Learn wikipolicy well, like an expert marksman learns his weapon.
4. Vote "support" in the majority of admin elections.
5. Pass out barn stars like they are candy.
6. Elect like-minded friends to be admins.
7. Groom new like-minded Wikipedians to be admins
8. Never argue against your close knit group of friends.
9. Take up a cause against an unpopular, un-liked, and (this is the most important >>) weak group.
10. Elect a lot of your own articles to featured article and "what do you know" status
11. Don't be humble! Make a long list of all of the pages you have made on your user page, emphasizing the featured articles prominently. Add all barnstars and other awards from friends prominently
12. Make controversial edits such as page deletions with socks accounts, but always make sure to never edit the page as an anon, and always use spell check (Firefox has the feature automatically).
    Every few months the edit cache is dumped so there will be no IP evidence that you were a sock after a few months. A more elaborate scheme is to get an IP anonymizer and create several accounts, editing different articles in different themes that you are interested in (For example, have a politics account, a movie account, a favorite books account, your home city and/or state account). But make sure to follow How to become and admin which each different account. To throw off suspicion, make sure to talk to yourself on talk pages occasionally. After a couple of months, as those editors are elected by yourself to be admins, you are now free to build consensus on Wikipedia as you please.

It seems like Politically motivated AfDs are the "elephant in the room"--which everyone sees, but no one can mention. Certain editors will go around in groups (some people call them "cabals") and actively push their own narrow POV.

It is the worst when these groups of people put articles up for deletion. For example, certain editors will vote to delete pages which are against their political beliefs, yet fervently support to keep similar pages which suport their political beliefs.

Partisan editors voting record is clear--if an article is against their narrow POV, no matter how well written it is, how well sourced it is, etc, it will be put up for deletion, and this little group will vote against it. I have been an editor for just over a year, and I have been troubled by the amount of articles which have been deleted by partisans of ALL political persuasions, right or left.

It is clear that certain editors are doing it because they are biased and slanted, but no wikieditor can actually bring this up. When another wikieditor brings it up, people scream WP:NPA. I support WP:NPA fully, but in some cases, policies are detrimental.

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules?

Policies are tools to help us editors build a better encyclopedia. When a small group of users is actively deleting well referenced material because of political bias, then the policy rule needs to be reevaluated.

Why is the word cabal so off limits?

Why when anyone brings up the subject of a cabal, they are heckled off the talk page?

Originally posted on village pump, before it was automatically deleted. Unhelpful responses

Small sample of editors who deleted large portions of referenced material

• Team B, TDC
• Business Plot Portions of the plot were substantiated by..., Rjensen
• United States presidential election 1900, Rjensen

• [38] Republicans and the Philippine-American war, Rjensen

First the dont's:

• Never call anyone a name, ever. This includes vulgar names like asshole, but it also includes words like communist, fascist, anti-American, jingoist. Calling people names make you look like a biased ideologue. Even if you are a biased ideologue, you don't want the casual reader to think you are.^[1]
• Never swear at anyone.
• Never compare your opponent to anyone (especially Hitler or anything to do with Hitler, I was booted for this once).
• Don't ever post nasty messages on users wikipages. If you do, change them immediately when you calm down. I always say I am tempering my words.
• Never assume that your opponent said something, cut and paste your opponents argument, and refer to it.
  • If you assume your opponent said something, and they did not, they will just come back and say what you said is wrong, which weakens your argument. Apologize, in BIG CAPS, that what you said was wrong, and apologize to the user to. Also Compliment your opponent (see below). Thank them for pointing out this mistake.

Now the do's:

• Learn to apologize for your mistakes. This is the biggest Achilles heal of internet users (web blog users and wikiusers). They never apologize for what they say. If you apologize for what you say, that means their argument against you is no longer valid. They can no longer point out your error, and use it against you later. This is probably the most valuable advice I can give you, because this quality, admitting you are wrong, is so rare on the internet.
• Learn the logical arguments, found here. These are incredibly persuasive weapons.
• Learn wikipedia policy. Many admins use wikipedia policy as weapons to push their own POV.
• Point out the illogical reasoning of a user, using wikipedia policy and logical arguments. This does not have the same immediate satisfaction as calling someone an "asshole", and it takes more work, but it is more rewarding and much more convincing. It also makes your opponent look like a fool.
• Use your opponents own words against them in your argument, in quotes.
• Continue to ask a question, and remind the user that you have asked the question, x number of times, and they have ignored it. Be relentless until you get an answer. This makes your opponent look like they are dodging uncomfortable questions, which they usually are. Don't get side tracked, don't let them change the subject. Keep asking the same question, over and over and over. Since most users never learn to apologize for their mistakes and will never admit they are wrong, this is an incredibly powerful tool.
• Compromise positions. Decide what is the most important thing you want in a wikiarticle. For example, in Philippine-American War I wanted the atrocities of Americans to be left in the article. I compromised, allowing in Philippine atrocities against Americans because this made my position (and the article) stronger. The ideological wikiuser was satisfied, I avoided a revert war, and every single person who types in Philippine-American War in google, will read about American atrocities. By listing Filipino atrocities, the article becomes better, more balanced, more convincing, and my section becomes less vulnerable to future attack. In other words, by listing Filipino atrocities, the American atrocities ironically become more convincing!
• Research, research, research. Out-research your opponent. Never forget: this is an encyclopedia after all. I have found repeatedly the person who researches the most, wins the argument, or at least changes the argument so dramatically, that the opponent will be so overwhelmed they will concede and compromise, usually on terms more favorable to you.
• Compliment your opponents, repeatedly and often, tell them thank you for their contributions. Find things you agree with and emphasize those agreements. This not only makes wikipedia more civil, but it also makes people see you as a peacemaker--including your opponent. You will be surprised how much a simple sentence like: "I appreciate your work on wikipedia" will mellow your opponent.
  • Talking peace is a tactic that some admins use often--they will talk peace, but their actions speak louder than words: the admins will be using nasty, low ball tactics while they talk peace. Call the editors on their low ball tactics--but do it in a diplomatic, peaceful way, citing wikipedia policy and the good of wikipedia.^[2]

Two other suggestions, Joshuarooney.

1. When you are booted, email people, by clicking E-mail this user, don't use your isp. You can get booted for this.
2. Don't use fucking lame ass excuses that someone else used you ISP address. User:fightforfreedom, who vandalized my page a lot used this weak argument with admins, and he has been banned forever (I had no part in any of this, either). I don't care if it is true if someone else used you ISP address and honestly, admins don't either. This is one of the weakest arguments you can possibly use to get unbooted.

Caveat for those users who want my indefinitely banned, and those who dislike me This entire message must be read in context. I am not encouraging Joshuarooney to lie or not follow wikipedia policy. I am encouraging Joshuarooney to use some of the tools that I have learned on wikipedia, to become a better Wikipedian, and to work within the rules and guidelines of wikipedia.

From:

My advice to a indefinitely banned user

The next step in the edit war when tedious editing and attacking others with wikipolicy doesn't work in a content dispute:

Since this is a content dispute, you cannot report them to the WP:ANI notice board. But if you know your wikipolicy, you could probably find some reason to report them to WP:ANI. Try to find out what pushes their buttons, so they say something they shouldn't or do something they shouldn't. Ask allies via e-mail what makes them mad, read old content disputes to see when and why they got mad, etc. When you get them to say something they shouldn't, report them to WP:ANI. Then you could e-mail an ally admin, who is not involved with the dispute, to ban them (problem is that there are only conservative admins and few liberal ones).

E-mail an ally who just happens to not be involved in this dispute, ask this ally to put a stern warning message on the "enemy's" user page. Here is an example template.

You have to show that you made a "good faith effort" to fix the dispute in you want a successful RfC or Arbcom later.

• SUGGESTION 1: Get a third party mediator to help Wikipedia:Third Opinion. Tell everyone on the disputed talk page about this mediator request, it makes you look like a diplomat and like you want to negotiate. When you put in the request for a mediator, follow up a lot--the mediators suck at following up. If you want a mediator fast--on my page are two mediators I worked with before, User talk:Tyrenius, User_talk:Fagstein, they are great, you could ask them to mediate ASAP.

• SUGGESTION 2: Call a Request for Comment on the disputed page. Go to WP:RfC to set it up. Then e-mail all of your allies asking them to comment. Remember: it is important to sway the conversation quickly at the beginning. Most neutral Wikipedians who see this RfC are lazy and will only read the first couple of entires before making uninformed comments (votes)

• DANGEROUS SUGGESTION 1: If the problem is with a particular editor, call a RfC. This is the last step towards an Arbcom. The danger with an RfC is that your behavior can go on trial too. E-mail you allies about the RfC, again, making sure they comment fast and first. RfCs sometimes can make your "enemy" leave wikipedia--end of problem.

• DANGEROUS SUGGESTION 2: If the RfC does not solve the problem, call an Arbcom, either on the disputed page or on the person. The danger with an Arbcom is just like the danger of a RfC, your behavior can go on trial too. Plan on spending a lot of time going through the editors history with a fine tooth comb. Again, to repeat, e-mail you allies about the Arbcom making sure they comment fast and first, setting the tone of the Arbcom.

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/JzG2#Outside_view_by_User:GTBacchus: There is an idea, popular among some editors, that in order to block/ban trolls and POV-pushers, it is somehow necessary to be a dick.

• Wikipedia:Some Observant Words Regarding Editing And People "Even though Wikipedia is not a social networking site, people, and the success of one's interactions with those people, will be the main reasons why someone stays here or leaves here. I may be new, but I think that I've seen enough of the good and the bad to know this to be true."

• Wikipedia:Practical process (Marginally applicable here)

• VestedContributor "Editors are expected to make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgement, and ignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy." Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova#Vested Contributors
• Wikipedia:What_adminship_is_not#Adminship_is_not_diplomatic_immunity
• Funny: G'Gugvuntts and Vl'hurgs

[edit] Specific examples

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive174#JzG.27s_personal_attack
  • Durova "I'll block him for uncivil statements he's already posted unless he strikes through certain comments or pledges to clean up his language...If anyone other than an administrator had posted the statements it would be uncontroversial to characterize this as an escalating pattern of incivility. Normally in such cases I would block shortly after verifying the evidence... Guy hasn't threatened to leave the site but I'm beginning to worry about Ghirla whose contributions are about equally valuable but Ghirla's not a sysop and considerably less popular." (emphasis my own) Quotes Orwell Seven Commandments
  • Thatcher131 "it's far too early to think about blocking. Some supportive conversation would be very nice, as would offering to shoulder some of Guy's burdens. I'd guess most admins become experts in recognizing and dealing with one or two particular trolls and/or disruptive editors (I have my share for sure). Eventually it wears you down, and I think Guy has taken on more than his share already, so maybe we should let Guy pass the baton on some of his least favorite. We should support him and lighten his load, as we should have done for MONGO months ago."
  • Ben Aveling "I'll say it. The rules are different for established contributors, not because they have a license to offend, but because we expect them to revert to form and because we know they're worth investing effort in."
  • Grace Note "I am loving the argument that it's not really rude to tell someone to fuck off. I'll remember that next time someone gets on my nerves."
  • Carcharoth "What is the correct procedure for handling things when you see an admin...several times over a few months step over the line, generating complaints, but each time managing to avoid showing genuine contrition, but responding in an aggressive "move on" style that discourages people from actually starting proceedings ("oh, it's not worth the hassle"-sort of thing), leading to things going quiet again until the next time?"
  • ATren "Then let's make it official and put this into policy. If there truly is an exemption for valued users, it should be documented on the WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA policy pages. I'm being totally serious here - those policy pages are unambiguous in their condemnation of incivility, but the reality is: incivility is justified for certain editors, and that fact should be properly represented in policy...this sentiment (that some users should not be blocked for incivility) should be expressed in policy. The current uncompromising text of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA does not allow for exceptions, but that doesn't reflect the reality - which is that a casual editor would be indef blocked for habitual incivility, whereas valued contributors are given a pass...t seems there is consensus that a certain amount of incivility is permitted as long as (a) you have a lot of edits to your credit and (b) you were provoked. Can we make it more clear in policy that incivility is permitted under these circumstances?"
  • >Radiant< "...there's still no call for someone to loudly and repeatedly pointing out the incivility, and spend an order of magnitude more text on that than the size of the actual incivility itself. We shouldn't go around blocking people who are beneficial to the 'pedia."
  • Christopher Parham "I don't like your way of thinking because it seems to presume that Guy and MONGO are somehow incapable of self-restraint. Granted they do a lot of good work dealing with editors who frustrate and annoy and attack them. Why does this cause them to use pointlessly inflammatory language like "fuck off" and "useless twat"?"
  • MastCell "If your history consists mostly of vandalism or disruption, then calling someone a "twat" or telling them to "fuck off" should earn a well-deserved block. On the other hand, if you're a hard-working, productive contributor who makes the same comment in a moment of weakness when the Wikistress level hits DefCon 1, then a gentle word-to-the-wise should suffice. Actions should be viewed in context - why else are edit histories public? This is not a "double standard"; it's common sense. Policies actually reflect this - neither WP:NPA nor WP:CIVIL specify a punishment (except for egregious cases), but leave that to the discretion of the community."
• "The stuff about, 'we do not block for occasional incivility', is half right... we generally don't block admins and other 'high profile' users for such. Regular users, on the other hand, sometimes get blocked for saying a single word out of line. The philosophy that 'we look at the whole picture' inherently means that longstanding and/or popular users are held to lower standards of behaviour... which we have seen become a self-defeating trap over and over and over again. That 'occaisional incivility' adds up, and when people see users being incivil and getting away with it they respond in kind. If they then are then blocked/strongly warned for it while the other person isn't they get pissed off at the imbalance and the spiral of deterioration continues. It is obviously bad for Wikipedia and if it isn't stopped sooner or later it always catches up to people. There was a time when Karmafist was well loved and his 'occaisional incivility' let pass... until it got to be too much. There was a time when Kelly Martin was well loved and her 'occaisional incivility' not a big deal... until it alienated too many people. You want to 'protect' good users? Stop them from being uncivil, don't violate policies yourself and attack those who are pointing out problems, and do what you can to take on some of their burdens...It's not an 'either / or' equation. Incivility breeds more incivility breeds more incivility. Everyone who contributes to the problem is part of the problem."
  • Quack 688 "I think brenneman said it the best. To paraphrase him, we don't accept bad behaviour from established contributors, we just handle it differently."

¹ 35% do not support the program, 34% were bothered by the idea of the NSA having a record of their calls

² 63% of the American public supports the program, 66% were not bothered by the idea of the NSA having a record of their calls

³ 56% thought it was right for the knowledge of the program to be released while 42% thought it was not.

⁴ 53% The NSA's surveillance program goes too far in invading privacy, 57% In light of the NSA data-mining news and other executive actions the Bush-Cheney Administration has "gone too far in expanding presidential power"

⁵ 35% think the Administration's actions were appropriate, 41% The NSA's surveillance program is a tool to "combat terrorism"

These results were later considered inaccurate by further polls on the subject.^[6]