User:Anthony cfc/Essays

User	Gallery	To-Do	Contact	Essays	WikiPhilosophy	Talk

Disputes, and how to Avoid Them

Disputes are evil, because they detract from the main point of Wikipedia: to write an encyclopedia. The thing that everyone on those long lists of up-and-coming cases in front of the english Arb Com forgets is that they are disrupting our editors from doing their job; rather than writing some great articles, they are stuck indef blocking people because they posted a personal assault on someone who reverted their full stop edit. Yet what's the worst thing? 99 times out of 100, they're both wrong.

So that's why you should avoid disputes; now, how to avoid them. The golden rule: if you are in a dispute, disengage for a while. Just leave the article; it doesn't matter how close to your heart the article is, just drop it.

There are 251,317 on Wikipedia (and counting), countless stubs and many millions of non-FA articles. So pick one of them - don't sit and argue. It's a waste of time.

So - what am I saying here? In a nutshell - if you're getting into a dispute, leave to another article, or maybe some RCP work. Just don't bait the other party.

Before I finish up, some parting words:

"...everytime you click 'save this page', be completely convinced that what you are saving will make Wikipedia a better, more friendly place; and if what you've written won't do that, don't click 'save'..."

Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 01:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC) 01:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

My neutrality policy is applied to all aspects of my Wikimedia editing, including here at Meta and over on Wikipedia English; it details when, where and how I pass judgement, comment or statements of opinion - as well as if I pass it at all. This "policy" is actually a personal guideline - a statement, if you will. It is not official Wikimedia/Wikipedia policy, and should not be treated, cited or analysed as such; it is simply the written results of what any editor would deduce upon examining my contributions.

Basic Neutrality
When an issue that is, may be in the future, has been in the recent past, is linked to or accompanies a controversial issue, I will not:

1. Make my views known, through Wiki(p/m)edia talk, email or otherwise.
2. Pass judgement or comment through:

• RfC
• XfD debates
• 3^rd opinion
• Talk page discussions, in any namespace, on subpages or not
• Otherwise

3. If I am requested my opinion, view or stance on a contravertial matter, I will simply say "I cannot comment due to my personal neutrality policy, located (link to this page)."

Furthermore, I will not intervene at all, including posting warnings on disputing user's talk pages, or tagging contravertial articles/sections of articles. Furthermore, I will not edit at all any articles or sections of articles that are contravertial or otherwise disputed, except to implement any agreed terms in a AMA, Mediation Cabal or Mediation Committee case that I am assigned to (or in the case of MedCom, volunteer to mediate.)

Railway Matters
I am happy to present my knowledge on railway matters, especially related to Scotland/Glasgow; however, I will only post this when requested and I will make known this knowledge in such a manner that it endoreses neither position with regards to Wikipedians/Wikimedians who are in dispute over the said contravertial topic.

Policy Advice
I am also happy to advise any editor on Wikipedia policy, as well as what I would do in a similar situation. I am quick to suggest mediation, RfC, and RfAr where I believe they may be appropriate, and do so with the understanding that the advice is for all involved parties. Ergo, if I advise party A to file an RfC, it is because I believe an RfC is warranted, not because I am making any personal judgement against any other party. I generally avoid commenting in RfCs because of this policy, as they are as biased as you can get, but I will refer editors who ask for my comment at a RfC to an editor who does not operate a neutrality policy and who I believe is trustworthy of commenting in the respective matter.

Exceptions
There are some exceptions to this policy: 1. Vandalism is the key exception; anything that is as harmful to the project as vandalism deserves to be immediately reverted, and seeing as it should not have been on a page in the first place, my revert is in effective non-existant. 2. Personal Attacks: if an editor is making personal attacks, I will post a low-key comment on his/her talk page advising against the matter and informing him/her of possible repercucians that may be operated against him/her. I will then proceed by informally mediating with the user, including asking if there is anything I can do for him/her, and providing a kind ear to his/her dispute. I often find that there is more than one side; I also am of the opinion that sysop status does not immediately relieve an editor of blame, and I more than once have found that an administrator has been in the wrong.

Pull-out Clause
I reserve the right to ignore, in part or full, this neutrality policy at will for reasons that have or have not been stated, at any time.

Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 01:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC) 01:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Real life

When editing Wikipedia in any sort of fashion, always remember this simple guideline:

• Not everyone has as much free time as you.

Explanation

By this, I mean several things:

1. If you leave a message on someone's User Talk page, they may not get it for some time.
2. If you leave a message on an article's Talk page, it may not be seen by anyone for some time.
3. If you wish to nominate an article for deletion, the people interested in that article may not know about the nomination, and may therefore not be able to adequately debate the AfD nomination.

Reasons

There are several reasons why someone may not see an edit to their favorite article/talkpage:

1. They may be taking a wikiholiday. (and not everyone uses the notification templates on that page)
2. The article may not be on their watchlist.
3. They may be asleep.
4. They may very well have a day job or go to school, and may not be on Wikipedia every minute they're at a computer.
5. They may have a life. (hand-in-hand with the above reason)

So please, when editing, be patient when waiting for action from other editors.