Although I have had an account since March 2007, I only dabbled at first. I did not become an active Wikipedia editor until August 2013. I guess, despite the Assume good faith guideline, some think this looks suspicious. Sorry to disappoint those gunning for outlaws, but - I do not edit on behalf of any person or group, nor do I speak on behalf of any person or group.
- No personal attacks (policy) - Comment on content, not on the contributor.
- Harassment (policy) - It's bad karma.
- Editing controversial subjects (essay) - Don't shoot the messenger.
- Essay on civility - Shared with me by a better and wiser editor than myself.
- Polling is not a substitute for discussion (essay) - AKA Consensus is not a vote.
- Requests for oversight - Made an edit but forgot to log in? Don't leave your IP address floating around.
- Regarding "Expletives."
- Regarding "Casting aspersions."
- AKA "Making allegations against other editors."
- Regarding "Repetition of improper conduct."
- AKA "Recidivism."
- Regarding "Vested contributors."
- Writing better articles (essay)
- Lead follows body - From the Writing better articles essay
- Citation Style 1 - From AV media to web.
Some, not so much
- WP:CRUSH (essay) - AKA "Civil POV pushing"
- WP:TENDENTIOUS editing (essay) - I'm not saying it doesn't happen; it most certainly does. I'm saying the allegation shouldn't be bandied about.
- "Vexatious" - There isn't even an essay for it, but it seems to be a good one to whip out when someone complains but you don't have any evidence to disprove their complaint.
Some things editors need to remember
The Wikipedia is not censored policy is about article content, not about community conduct. Related policies? Wikipedia is not an anarchy (not a forum for unregulated free speech) and Wikipedia is not a battleground.
The Disruptive editing behavioral guideline is primarily about behavior in the mainspace and the talk namespaces for discussing article content. Disruptive editing includes "gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies" - but not "subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree." We should review WP:DISRUPTSIGNS before accusing others of DE.
Things Wikipedians have said that I appreciate
- "I will be happy to help. Just ask me questions on my talk page." - StarryGrandma, 3 October 2013 (The stars could not have sent me a better mentor - though they might have sent her a better mentee!)
- "I'd oppose a topic ban without some serious evidence. I see it too often that editors pile on here [ANI] saying a particular user is disruptive and want a topic ban w/o evidence and the truth of the matter is that the user simply has a different POV than the crowd. Not flowing with the crowd is not a crime on Wikipedia. Disruption is though. So please provide evidence of actual disruption and not anecdotal evidence that equates to 'she makes me mad.'" - TParis, 13 November 2013
- "I have been ruthless and cruel, there's no way to dance around that, and I regret it and I apologize to Lightbreather for it." (he knows who he is), 15 November 2013
- "Opposition to a strong notion of civility is a tactic for those who know that their ideas cannot stand up to rational scrutiny, leaving bullying and abuse as the only way to win a debate." - Jimbo Wales, 29 July 2014
- "As for Lightbreather's posts, sometimes sunlight is the best disinfectant, so no problems at all here." - Tarc, 7 August 2014
- "The extension of this block seems silly to me." - GorillaWarfare, 13 December 2014
To repeat from above: Although I have had an account since March 2007, I only dabbled at first. I did not become an active Wikipedia editor until August 2013. I guess, despite the Assume good faith guideline, some think this looks suspicious. Sorry to disappoint those gunning for outlaws, but - I do not edit on behalf of any person or group, nor do I speak on behalf of any person or group.
About the Wikipedia workplace
- "Concern troll". Geek Feminism Wiki. wikia. June 20, 2014. - Not specifically about Wikipedia, but it so applies to editing here - especially when it comes to gender-gap related articles and discussions
- Simonite, Tom (22 October 2013). "The Decline of Wikipedia". MIT Technology Review. - The article in one sentence: The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage.